Rod Blagojevich (D)

Lets talk again in 2013.

[TheMercenary]

Don't worry, I will be posting them as they go down. And they will.

Be sure to provide factual cites and not biased editorials

[TheMercenary]

Don't think that has ever been a problem when people have been accused of corruption. I leave it up to the courts to provide the final blow, all it takes is the evidence to strike up an investigation and that is an inditement enough now days, I mean if you are holding up the Bush admin and Repubs as the standard. There have been plenty of Dems in that category over the last 4 years to not be throwing to many stones at that house of glass. I am confident the Demoncrats will rise to the occassion, just like any majority power. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Oh, I don't argue power's corrupting capacity is any respecter of party -- only that the respective demographics of the Big Two have differing levels of resistance to that corruption. And in the end, it's a matter of individual character. Now which party was it that definitely makes a thing of individual character again? And is this not measurable in the glee with which the opposition pounces upon any displays of flawed individual character, trying to advertise that this is altogether prevalent among this party? One suspects there is no integrity in such posturing. The nearest to integrity they come in this has been public remark that "Well, nobody expects that level of probity of one of us," leaving unsaid what they've been doing to lower the expectation.

I've heard no person of the center, nor anyone with a level head, excoriate the Bush Administration with justice. It seems strictly the province of the ill-advised and the lunatic, and these people patently have no justice at all. It leaves me skeptical as to the mental hygiene standards of the Left.

You can always start, I suppose, with AG Reno's not defending the Second Amendment from that Administration's encroachments, in particular the antigun provisions of the Omnibus Crime Bill of 1994. (Antigun lawmaking is quite pro-genocide, sayeth our JPFO -- and I think no Jew should be unaware of the JPFO's arguments and philosophy, be he never so liberal or never so Hasidic; one should know how to promote genocide and then take care never to tolerate such promotion.) She was in an excellent position to tell Bill Clinton his desired regulations ran athwart the Second Amendment, but no, there was nary a peep from her or her staff against being directed to enforce an unconstitutionality, and it wasn't like there were any progun partisans in the Clinton cabinet anyway. I'll dig up the cites, that's only fair; and if you can't recall the dubious behavior of the Reno attorney-generalship, I suppose I'll need to jog your memory.

Here's a page on JPFO's site setting out in compact form what the JPFO believes to be genocide's essentials and its preconditions. Israeli society seems to understand this very well indeed.

As far as I can recall, there was nothing unconstitutional in the '94 Omnibus Crime BIll.

Damn...is that your best shot?

The Miller Case in '39 had served as precedent (albeit limited in scope) for 60+ years. There was no basis for Reno to suggest to Clinton that the bill contained any provisions that were unconstitutional, including the assault weapon ban.

To compare the democratically elected and constitutionally guided government of the US with its checks and balances to the Young Turks, Nazi Germany, Communist Russia or China, Khmer Rouge, as suggested in your link, is simply ignorant fear mongering.

Sorry..you failed that one...mr adult thinker.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

No, it's my first shot. You will not be able to stand what I can bring to this part of it.

The finding in US v. Miller was also not well informed as to the martial uses of the short shotgun -- they were in fact completely ignorant of its use to date, which was a matter of Army record. Since 1939, the military shotgun's record has grown: they run to longish sawed-offs a couple inches shorter than legal in the barrel, cylinder bored -- no choke, used in close terrain more or less as a reusable claymore mine.

There was basis for Reno to suggest to Clinton that the bill contained any provisions that were unconstitutional,

I agree; there was basis, as you unintentionally wrote.

Assault "weapon" bans (you are seriously behind the technical curve if that's the most accurate term you have) are the most directly genocidal of all gun control "you can't have it" regulations. Antigenocidal gun laws would be to the effect of "you must have it." The freest approach to this is to neither forbid assault rifles on every mantle nor in any wise mandate them.

Keep firing, dude!

Hit me with your best shot

[Urbane Guerrilla]

A damning quote from Janet Reno, demonstrating why the NRA-ILA didn't like her at all:

"Nobody should be owning a gun which does not have a sporting purpose."

(I shouldn't have any trouble coming up with a date and place for this, which was a result of mere minutes on the 'Net.)

This is how, if you successfully sweep up all the rifles with automatic transmissions, as it were, you sharply cut the citizenry's physical ability to tell the government to close up shop and go the hell home because its legitimacy is at an end. (The Clinton Administration and its First Lady were really into that sharp cutting away!) Cut that ability far enough and you no longer have a Republic, which is all about the broadest distribution of power. You have, instead, a replay of Nazi Germany. What, once wasn't enough? Learn from history. The power of life and death is about as powerful as power gets, by a force like natural law, not so?

Do you not keep a republic by checks and balances on the government as well as within it? This checking and balancing of the government as a whole is an essential every conservative knows about and readily acknowledges, and it remains functional regardless of anything that may go on within the government. We conservatives don't trust government to stay good all the time -- history is positively rife with examples of republics gone bad, and all of these controlled guns, too. There are also numerous examples of monarchies, not very republican at all, having quite the liberal society in encouraging gun possession among the citizenry. There are shades of class differences in every national example of this in Europe, but the classical liberal tenet that a limited monarchy greatly improves over an absolutist one may be borne out by the contrasting governmental philosophies of England and France -- Magna Carta versus "L'état, c'est moi." Seek not to allow the government say in every aspect of your life, says the conservative. Thus you retain the necessary power to do something about a government gone rotten.

Liberals always pooh-pooh this -- until they go to the camps and get extinguished. Where are their pooh-poohs then? The great government crime is the crime of genocide -- and its targets NEVER see genocide coming, for it is invariably an ambush. They have no clue at all what they should be concerned about, and this is what makes them die in a hecatomb.

But an armed electorate doesn't get herded into the ovens so cheaply. And that is a thing of virtue. A good Jew, I think, would be one who practices that virtue, along with those other 168 Talmudic ones.

If you're going to be skeptical about the government, your skepticism had better have teeth, should it not? No government responds properly to mental masturbation, and no guns for you means no attention paid to you. Unresponsiveness to the citizen and his proper rights is the very definition of a tyranny.

I contend the well-armed electorate is the nongovernmental reason it can't happen here. Confining the killing tools to the government only is the reason the genocides happened elsewhere. Have checks and balances independent of the government, and the libertarian says have all things independent of the government. In this the libertarian so much resembles the average conservative that it is clear libertarianism is fundamentally a conservative philosophy.

UG....I'm not interested in debating gun control with you. That was not the issue.

You made some nebulus charge about "suborning of the Department of Justice under Janet Reno" and offered as an example that Reno did not defend the Second Amendment from that Administration's encroachments in the 94 Crime Bill.

The fact remains that there was nothing unconstitional in the 94 crime bill when it was proposed and enacted, including the AWB (using the vernacular of the time).

So your charge is bogus.

[TGRR]

Gah! Janet Reno. The ugliest Nazi in history. Seriously, she made Goering look like a hottie.

Fact: She was the Queen-Hell gun-grabber.

Fact: Her answer to EVERYTHING was to send in goons with submachine guns (Waco, Elian Gonzales, etc).

Fact: She was a freedom-hating old hag who regularly used the constitution for shit rag when she couldn't find an orphan. I won't really rest easy until they bury the old bitch...and I hope someone remembers to drive a stake through her heart, first.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Yeah but do you like her or not?

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Yeah but do you like her or not?

No. As much as I appreciate Doom, and like a good psychotic now and then, there ARE limits.

[xoxoxoBruce]

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Redux

UG....I'm not interested in debating gun control with you. That was not the issue.

You made some nebulus charge about "suborning of the Department of Justice under Janet Reno" and offered as an example that Reno did not defend the Second Amendment from that Administration's encroachments in the 94 Crime Bill.

The fact remains that there was nothing unconstitional in the 94 crime bill when it was proposed and enacted, including the AWB (using the vernacular of the time).

So your charge is bogus.

No, I just haven't assembled the research yet... that was merely a taste, the merest smallest start. Be patient. This thread will come to the top of the page again in due course.

"Assault weapon" is not a term used by the knowledgeable in discussing arms. It is quite without specific meaning, yet it's flung around as a bogeyman: there is nothing in the term to distinguish a big wet rock from a stone axe from a musket from a revolver from a lead pipe from a stick from a.... this is the idea you have hitherto not grasped. The people pushing the "assault weapon" idea were relying on the ignorance of persons who hadn't a knowledge of the matter.

Frankly, if you take an antigun view (and no good Jew should take one unless he wants the Holocaust back, because it'll burn better if antigun laws and views are prevalent, for the State always has guns, and it was a State's guns that controlled European Jewry) you have absolutely no hope at all contending with me. The last guy to try it was Spexxvet, and he disgraced himself horribly, getting stared down by the entire Cellar when he lost it and began raving about "hoping someone buttfucks [UG] in the mouth" -- all his antigun ideas written into the thread got pulverized by a combination of me, radar, and xoxoxoBruce.