The ATF has overreached and abused its authority in the past. The ATF has been punished for these abuses to a point it is almost totally useless as a law enforcement agency. The gov’t should be using the lessons learned from past abuses. It should also be using the lessons learned from impairing the ATF’s ability to enforce the “laws already on the books.” ^A relatively short search on the internet will show how lobbyists have helped draft legislation that keeps the present day ATF from doing its job. These same lobbyists are actively working to keep a new director from being chosen until a ‘friendlier’ environment exists to install a director who is friendlier to gun and ammo manufacturers; one who places less emphasis on law and more on profits.^92% of people polled want 100% background checks. This is the least that should be done. If a car is given to an adult child as a gift, the title has to be transferred. If a dog is purchased in my city, it has to be registered and an id tag is issued. Why should a legitimate gun owner not have to title their guns and that title be transferred as ownership changes? If a person owns guns, why is it wrong to show the weapons are secure from casual theft? If a car is stolen, why wouldn’t an owner not call the police, and why shouldn’t the same be required for the theft of a gun?^This forum has seen many essays on these matters, but the point of the cartoon simply addresses the inherent hypocrisy of telling Americans that if the ATF would just do their job we wouldn’t need to go through all of this. Until a dedicated director of the ATF is in place, and the hobbles removed from the ATF’s ability to do their job, talking about how many laws are already on the books makes as much sense as funding an agency that has nearly no power to function.Notice in this cartoon, the shooter doesn’t even have to look in order to hit his target. The ATF is just that easy to knock down.Respectfully,C.
‘since most home invaders would be Obama supporters, and I dare you to prove otherwise, ’
Since you often spout genocidal posts here, and since that 1st statement of yours is so incredibly ridiculous, (or do mean you know these home invaders personally? Does your mother know you’re hanging about with those deadbeats? ), I’m just going to laugh derisively in your face.
The rest of your post is simply more nonsense. Thanks for the laugh, mate.
‘You are making an assumption that everyone in the military will go along with a rogue government.’I was almost conscripted into a dodgy military once and you know what? Those that were in it, just followed orders.Your military types? Just follow orders. Plenty of veterans on these boards. All followed orders.Radish’s assumption is a pretty safe bet.
It’s been a while since I lived in the US — since I got a job in Canada — and though I visit once or twice a year I don’t have the feel of continuous residence. So here’s my question — how in the world did you let the country get into such bad shape?
…which reminds me, and seeing as books are mentioned in this thread [that many people don’t read them, just their pithy quotes], Things Fall apart, a good book.
Bruce4671….you’re missing my point.So many bloody quotes are flying about which apparently encapsulates in an eloquent & concise way what we feel, that we don’t stop to think what they really meant in its original context. Hey, we like pithiness, we read cartoons who excel at this: a pithy cartoon is able to encapsulate in a single frame a whole lot!
But beware of using quotes. It is usually taken out of context. It can fit anything we want, which was the point of my retorts.They are especially egregious when they are not real quotes.Not saying you are not using correctly attributable quotes, I don’t have the time nor patience to double-check every bloody quote you put on here, but there is so much bull out there…
I’m tired of reading nonsense quotes from Einstein about atheism. I’m tired of reading fake Jefferson quotes used to support 2nd amendment issues. It devalues these peoples’ reputations.Here, let me show you, from Jefferson’s own foundation:
Spurious Jefferson quotes.
“If you want something to sound profound, just attribute it to me” – Albert Einstein. yeah, it’s fake
My Jefferson quote in Portuguese? No idea if true. A whimsical choice that roughly translates as “Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions.”
I suggest that “the abuse of quotes is yet another device that takes short-cuts to knowledge and leaves its abuser & recipient the more poorer & ignorant” – omQ R 03/03/2013 (it’s not elegant, it isn’t pithy but it’s mine)
Do you agree with de Tocqueville? Do you agree that democracy can’t last? I’d like to think that it can last. I do what I can to keep democracy healthy. What do you do?
‘Just the opposite. I didn’t “assume” that’s what you were saying. Please note I said IF that’s what you are implying, “I’ll play along.”’
…and that isn’t assuming anything? Am I the only one having trouble with the English language here? You create a straw argument and rage against me based on this straw argument and you say you’ve assumed nothing? Uh…
Re: next post:
Tch, tch, tch, there you go again, making more assumptions.
“you speak with an angry tone” I do? There’s anger in my tone? No, contempt, yes, anger, no.
I personally don’t care a hoot about Kerry’s or Bush’s military history, military accomplishments, military injuries or lack of military accomplishments. Who they are personally doesn’t interest me very much, only their official capacity may concern me; I’m not an American and don’t care about your party affiliations either way. Democrat, Republican, Green, Libertarian, meh. However, I do recognise the USA’s super-power status and therefore I am concerned about its foreign policies, how it may affect me, be they proxy wars on the continent of Africa, or initiating conflicts in the Middle-east.
I used the term “swiftboat” in its new idiomatic sense i.e. a colloquialism now used to describe how one in the USA denigrates someone’s military history. That interests me. That it was coined with Kerry, meh. sigh Just because of that term you’ve assumed I’m partisan about Kerry. I am not. You rage on for a couple of paragraphs along the same lines…My retort: None, I don’t care. You assumed some pretty bizarre stuff; just funny really.I also don’t care about your 2nd amendment as such. It means nothing to me. And why should it? You, collective you, obviously do care and so it should be. That’s fine, that’s fair, that’s cool, it’s important to the Americans. I’m just interested in the hypocrisy shown by the staunch defenders of this 2nd amendment for one thing: Loudly claiming its government can be tyrannical,thereby emphasising this amendment’s importance, and then promptly ignoring it when its government behaves that way. Often actually doing its bidding. As an outsider looking in, it is truly bizarre behaviour. In the least, hypocritical.
Your rant on Kerry does support my point though. Any American who dares criticise US policy is immediately swift-boated. How will you ever turn on your treacherous government when the day comes? Expect a very swift swift-boating as soon as you do and expect the US army to have many soldiers following orders, as they’ve always done.
‘They will say they followed orders.’…er, yes. That’s what I have been saying…
‘But it’s apples and oranges. It appears you are giving examples of the US being tyrannical against evil governments in the world and likening that to becoming tyrannical against its own citizens.’
Tyrannical against others, tyrannical against its own, still tyrannical, n’est-ce pas?
"…against evil governments…, evil says who? You? Your “tyrannical” government? Who are we going to believe?
‘if the government openly started taking away our freedoms, becoming tyrannical against the populace.
Some of your fellow compatriots are railing about how that is happening right now; your Patriot Act, snooping on your private stuff as it travels on the internets, treachery apparently is happening right now. Will you act on it? Will you recognise it?…wait, you’ve answered me already: only ’ if the government openly started taking away our freedoms’. Ok, nevermind some who argue it’s happening openly right now, but what if, say, what if they’re also sneaky about it, eh? Yeahhhh….
Interesting. In the long run of history, democracy is pretty rare (pretty much no matter how you define democracy). And there’s no reason to expect it to become common and permanent. I’m inclined to a moderately materialist position, that is, that the form of government is linked to (but not necessarily rigidly determined by) the means of production. I would perhaps want to modify that model — in particular to take into account environmental conditions, though these of course are also linked (both as cause and effect) to the means of production. My hunch is that the effects of global climate change are going to make a big difference to the possible effective forms of government. And probably not in ways that I would look forward to. Still, all in all, for the near future, I much prefer some kind of democracy and some kind of moderately regulated market. And what ansonia is really complaining about is the right wing fantasy of welfare queens.+Individual freedoms are always limited for the good of the collective. But they can also be limited for the good of a ruling class. The first I can accept, the second not so much.+You’re in quite a literary mood these days — First Yeats, and now Ecclesiastes (via Pete Seeger). Keep ’em coming.
That’s not the one I was thinking of. Keep looking, I think you’ll find it. If not, I apologize. I agree that not all Democrats are liberals and not all liberals are Democrats. I try to keep those distinctions in mind always. Here in Canada we don’t have Democrats — well, we have the New Democrats, who used to be sort of mild socialists, and we have the Liberals, who are all over the place but kind of centrists, and the Conservatives (who used to be the Progressive Conservatives, but they split and then reformed and dropped the Progressive part).
But explain this to me: you say, “never said it dude. And if you disagree then you must not know anything about what I was saying.” So are you saying you didn’t say that liberals are racists, but you were right to say it? Please clarify that. And if you do think that liberals are racists, what’s your argument?
sw10mm about 11 years ago
If more sheeple were willing to die at the hands of a home invader, things would be better, right?
Tue Elung-Jensen about 11 years ago
I´m sure its true in some way. but doesn´t mean you don´t need more regulations.
chazandru about 11 years ago
The ATF has overreached and abused its authority in the past. The ATF has been punished for these abuses to a point it is almost totally useless as a law enforcement agency. The gov’t should be using the lessons learned from past abuses. It should also be using the lessons learned from impairing the ATF’s ability to enforce the “laws already on the books.” ^A relatively short search on the internet will show how lobbyists have helped draft legislation that keeps the present day ATF from doing its job. These same lobbyists are actively working to keep a new director from being chosen until a ‘friendlier’ environment exists to install a director who is friendlier to gun and ammo manufacturers; one who places less emphasis on law and more on profits.^92% of people polled want 100% background checks. This is the least that should be done. If a car is given to an adult child as a gift, the title has to be transferred. If a dog is purchased in my city, it has to be registered and an id tag is issued. Why should a legitimate gun owner not have to title their guns and that title be transferred as ownership changes? If a person owns guns, why is it wrong to show the weapons are secure from casual theft? If a car is stolen, why wouldn’t an owner not call the police, and why shouldn’t the same be required for the theft of a gun?^This forum has seen many essays on these matters, but the point of the cartoon simply addresses the inherent hypocrisy of telling Americans that if the ATF would just do their job we wouldn’t need to go through all of this. Until a dedicated director of the ATF is in place, and the hobbles removed from the ATF’s ability to do their job, talking about how many laws are already on the books makes as much sense as funding an agency that has nearly no power to function.Notice in this cartoon, the shooter doesn’t even have to look in order to hit his target. The ATF is just that easy to knock down.Respectfully,C.
CorosiveFrog Premium Member about 11 years ago
Whenever anyone on the right feels the threat of the “evil” ATF preying on their precious, precious guns, just bring out the Waco fuckup.
Chillbilly about 11 years ago
Still cracks me up that people think “home invasions” are a bigger problem than … say … meteorites or bedbugs.
donotemailme about 11 years ago
Remember,It is not about firearms, it is about protection and…The Police are not there to protect you (look up Warren v. District of Columbia).
You are the first line of defense, you must protect yourself.
If the 2nd Amendment were written today: The right of the people to a well trained legal defense (access to a lawyer) shall not infringed.
If you read the Declaration of Independence you see the reason citizens need protection from government.
The US Constitution, 2nd Amendment is NOT to ensure your ability to hunt; It is to protect YOU and me from the oppression of government.
DavidGBA about 11 years ago
But the NRA made the current law unenforcable, weak, inconsistent and denies us any data on what we need and how well they work.
OmqR-IV.0 about 11 years ago
‘since most home invaders would be Obama supporters, and I dare you to prove otherwise, ’
Since you often spout genocidal posts here, and since that 1st statement of yours is so incredibly ridiculous, (or do mean you know these home invaders personally? Does your mother know you’re hanging about with those deadbeats? ), I’m just going to laugh derisively in your face.
The rest of your post is simply more nonsense. Thanks for the laugh, mate.
OmqR-IV.0 about 11 years ago
‘You are making an assumption that everyone in the military will go along with a rogue government.’I was almost conscripted into a dodgy military once and you know what? Those that were in it, just followed orders.Your military types? Just follow orders. Plenty of veterans on these boards. All followed orders.Radish’s assumption is a pretty safe bet.
lonecat about 11 years ago
It’s been a while since I lived in the US — since I got a job in Canada — and though I visit once or twice a year I don’t have the feel of continuous residence. So here’s my question — how in the world did you let the country get into such bad shape?
OmqR-IV.0 about 11 years ago
Tch, tch, tch. If it sort of sounds like then I see you making many more assumptions about what I am saying and thinking. Hypocrite. :-)
OmqR-IV.0 about 11 years ago
…which reminds me, and seeing as books are mentioned in this thread [that many people don’t read them, just their pithy quotes], Things Fall apart, a good book.
Bruce4671….you’re missing my point.So many bloody quotes are flying about which apparently encapsulates in an eloquent & concise way what we feel, that we don’t stop to think what they really meant in its original context. Hey, we like pithiness, we read cartoons who excel at this: a pithy cartoon is able to encapsulate in a single frame a whole lot!But beware of using quotes. It is usually taken out of context. It can fit anything we want, which was the point of my retorts.They are especially egregious when they are not real quotes.Not saying you are not using correctly attributable quotes, I don’t have the time nor patience to double-check every bloody quote you put on here, but there is so much bull out there…
I’m tired of reading nonsense quotes from Einstein about atheism. I’m tired of reading fake Jefferson quotes used to support 2nd amendment issues. It devalues these peoples’ reputations.Here, let me show you, from Jefferson’s own foundation:
Spurious Jefferson quotes.
“If you want something to sound profound, just attribute it to me” – Albert Einstein. yeah, it’s fake
My Jefferson quote in Portuguese? No idea if true. A whimsical choice that roughly translates as “Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions.”
I suggest that “the abuse of quotes is yet another device that takes short-cuts to knowledge and leaves its abuser & recipient the more poorer & ignorant” – omQ R 03/03/2013 (it’s not elegant, it isn’t pithy but it’s mine)
lonecat about 11 years ago
I don’t think Canadians hate the US — they view the US with a mixture of amusement and sadness.
lonecat about 11 years ago
Do you agree with de Tocqueville? Do you agree that democracy can’t last? I’d like to think that it can last. I do what I can to keep democracy healthy. What do you do?
OmqR-IV.0 about 11 years ago
‘Just the opposite. I didn’t “assume” that’s what you were saying. Please note I said IF that’s what you are implying, “I’ll play along.”’
…and that isn’t assuming anything? Am I the only one having trouble with the English language here? You create a straw argument and rage against me based on this straw argument and you say you’ve assumed nothing? Uh…
Re: next post:Tch, tch, tch, there you go again, making more assumptions.
“you speak with an angry tone” I do? There’s anger in my tone? No, contempt, yes, anger, no.
I personally don’t care a hoot about Kerry’s or Bush’s military history, military accomplishments, military injuries or lack of military accomplishments. Who they are personally doesn’t interest me very much, only their official capacity may concern me; I’m not an American and don’t care about your party affiliations either way. Democrat, Republican, Green, Libertarian, meh. However, I do recognise the USA’s super-power status and therefore I am concerned about its foreign policies, how it may affect me, be they proxy wars on the continent of Africa, or initiating conflicts in the Middle-east.
I used the term “swiftboat” in its new idiomatic sense i.e. a colloquialism now used to describe how one in the USA denigrates someone’s military history. That interests me. That it was coined with Kerry, meh. sigh Just because of that term you’ve assumed I’m partisan about Kerry. I am not. You rage on for a couple of paragraphs along the same lines…My retort: None, I don’t care. You assumed some pretty bizarre stuff; just funny really.I also don’t care about your 2nd amendment as such. It means nothing to me. And why should it? You, collective you, obviously do care and so it should be. That’s fine, that’s fair, that’s cool, it’s important to the Americans. I’m just interested in the hypocrisy shown by the staunch defenders of this 2nd amendment for one thing: Loudly claiming its government can be tyrannical,thereby emphasising this amendment’s importance, and then promptly ignoring it when its government behaves that way. Often actually doing its bidding. As an outsider looking in, it is truly bizarre behaviour. In the least, hypocritical.
Your rant on Kerry does support my point though. Any American who dares criticise US policy is immediately swift-boated. How will you ever turn on your treacherous government when the day comes? Expect a very swift swift-boating as soon as you do and expect the US army to have many soldiers following orders, as they’ve always done.
OmqR-IV.0 about 11 years ago
‘They will say they followed orders.’…er, yes. That’s what I have been saying…
‘But it’s apples and oranges. It appears you are giving examples of the US being tyrannical against evil governments in the world and likening that to becoming tyrannical against its own citizens.’
Tyrannical against others, tyrannical against its own, still tyrannical, n’est-ce pas?
"…against evil governments…, evil says who? You? Your “tyrannical” government? Who are we going to believe?
‘if the government openly started taking away our freedoms, becoming tyrannical against the populace.
Some of your fellow compatriots are railing about how that is happening right now; your Patriot Act, snooping on your private stuff as it travels on the internets, treachery apparently is happening right now. Will you act on it? Will you recognise it?…wait, you’ve answered me already: only ’ if the government openly started taking away our freedoms’. Ok, nevermind some who argue it’s happening openly right now, but what if, say, what if they’re also sneaky about it, eh? Yeahhhh….
lonecat about 11 years ago
Interesting. In the long run of history, democracy is pretty rare (pretty much no matter how you define democracy). And there’s no reason to expect it to become common and permanent. I’m inclined to a moderately materialist position, that is, that the form of government is linked to (but not necessarily rigidly determined by) the means of production. I would perhaps want to modify that model — in particular to take into account environmental conditions, though these of course are also linked (both as cause and effect) to the means of production. My hunch is that the effects of global climate change are going to make a big difference to the possible effective forms of government. And probably not in ways that I would look forward to. Still, all in all, for the near future, I much prefer some kind of democracy and some kind of moderately regulated market. And what ansonia is really complaining about is the right wing fantasy of welfare queens.+Individual freedoms are always limited for the good of the collective. But they can also be limited for the good of a ruling class. The first I can accept, the second not so much.+You’re in quite a literary mood these days — First Yeats, and now Ecclesiastes (via Pete Seeger). Keep ’em coming.
lonecat about 11 years ago
That’s not the one I was thinking of. Keep looking, I think you’ll find it. If not, I apologize. I agree that not all Democrats are liberals and not all liberals are Democrats. I try to keep those distinctions in mind always. Here in Canada we don’t have Democrats — well, we have the New Democrats, who used to be sort of mild socialists, and we have the Liberals, who are all over the place but kind of centrists, and the Conservatives (who used to be the Progressive Conservatives, but they split and then reformed and dropped the Progressive part).
But explain this to me: you say, “never said it dude. And if you disagree then you must not know anything about what I was saying.” So are you saying you didn’t say that liberals are racists, but you were right to say it? Please clarify that. And if you do think that liberals are racists, what’s your argument?