American Politics during the Obama Presidency

If you have never heard the term "useful idiot" it was the attitude held by Vladimir Lenin towards communist sympathizers in the West (America). While Lenin and the Soviets held them in utter contempt they also viewed them as tools for dispensing communist propaganda to other countries, thus infecting foreign cultures with their totalitarian tripe. After their mission was complete, they were no longer "useful.

It's a term the refers to brainwashed American Marxists who blindly support any ideology that gets themselves out of real work and causes others to pay their way.

It also refers to useful idiots who post inaccurate definitions of the term useful idiot on sites like the urban dictionary. While they believe that they are making some sort of statement, they are actually providing perfect examples of the term.

An American who espouses Marxist ideals is a useful idiot.

There are several in this forum.

Don B.

[QUOTE=DonB;435215]If you have never heard the term "useful idiot" it was the attitude held by Vladimir Lenin towards communist sympathizers in the West (America). [/QUOTE]According to Wikipedia there is no record that Lenin ever used that term. But I'm pretty sure the term has been used by at least a few wealthy gun company executives, who profit from the delusions of those who peg their individual freedom to the ability to buy a gun without a background check.

[QUOTE=Esten;435217]According to Wikipedia there is no record that Lenin ever used that term. But I'm pretty sure the term has been used by at least a few wealthy gun company executives, who profit from the delusions of those who peg their individual freedom to the ability to buy a gun without a background check.[/QUOTE]Esten, what drivel! From your post you leave the impression there are no background checks in place which you know is not the case.

Dealers have been doing background checks for years now. Just another liberal attempt to obscure / ignore the facts to further your own agenda.

As far as gun makers go, please continue to persecute them on the east and left coast. We would love to have them move to Texas, a non union at will state.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;435219]Esten, what drivel! From your post you leave the impression there are no background checks in place which you know is not the case.

Dealers have been doing background checks for years now. Just another liberal attempt to obscure / ignore the facts to further your own agenda.[/QUOTE]The gun control issue has always been about freedom, for gun owners. They equate a significant sense of their freedom with their ability to own a gun.

The Senate vote earlier this year did not impede this freedom, it merely closed loopholes that allowed people to purchase a gun without a background check. Nevertheless, there was a big outcry from the gun lobby and many gun owners over this. The rallying cry was their freedoms were at stake.

In other words, with the help of the gun lobby, many gun owners saw the Senate vote to expand background checks as an attack on their freedom.

[URL]http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/dunkin-donuts-worker-pistol-whipped-botched-coffee-order-article-1.1433962[/URL]

[URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MvQlN1MhmE[/URL]

The wife was yelling Shoot Him.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;435232][b]We Don't Need Gun Control![/b]

[URL]http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/dunkin-donuts-worker-pistol-whipped-botched-coffee-order-article-1.1433962[/URL]

[URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MvQlN1MhmE[/URL]

The wife was yelling Shoot Him.[/QUOTE]Which of the gun control laws would have prevented this crime?


Gun control is best learned at the range.

[QUOTE][QUOTE=Esten;435217]According to Wikipedia there is no record that Lenin ever used that term. But I'm pretty sure the term has been used by at least a few wealthy gun company executives, who profit from the delusions of those who peg their individual freedom to the ability to buy a gun without a background check.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;435219]Esten, what drivel! From your post you leave the impression there are no background checks in place which you know is not the case.

Dealers have been doing background checks for years now. Just another liberal attempt to obscure / ignore the facts to further your own agenda.

As far as gun makers go, please continue to persecute them on the east and left coast. We would love to have them move to Texas, a non union at will state.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]Doppelganger is absolutely correct, Esten is using a tactic that's designed to attract low information voters to his side of the argument.

Now he follows with this little jewel:

[QUOTE=Esten;435228]Gun industry profits from scaring people
The gun control issue has always been about freedom, for gun owners. They equate a significant sense of their freedom with their ability to own a gun.

The Senate vote earlier this year did not impede this freedom, it merely closed loopholes that allowed people to purchase a gun without a background check. Nevertheless, there was a big outcry from the gun lobby and many gun owners over this. The rallying cry was their freedoms were at stake.

In other words, with the help of the gun lobby, many gun owners saw the Senate vote to expand background checks as an attack on their freedom.[/QUOTE]The gun industry may profit from peoples fear, but Obama has been the source of that fear. Esten is always writing about background checks but what he fails to mention is expanded background checks was just one amendment to the Democrats' gun control bill. There were several other amendments two of which had [B]already passed before Harry Reid Pulled the bill:[/B] "One that would deter states from publishing lists of gun owners and a bipartisan plan to bolster federal funding for mental health efforts, including suicide prevention programs." Why didn't Harry Reid let the bill continue on?

Think about it the Democrats stopped an [B]already passed bipartisan plan[/B] to bolster federal funding for mental health efforts, including suicide prevention programs. Does anybody think the people involved in mass shootings might have mental health problems? Apparently it's not very important to Democrats.

A Sanity test might help.

[QUOTE=Punter127;435234]Which of the gun control laws would have prevented this crime?


Gun control is best learned at the range.[/QUOTE]

Read my question again.
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;435239]A Sanity test might help.[/QUOTE]Funny, I don't remember seeing any proposed gun legislation calling for "Sanity" testing, maybe you could tell us who introduced that bill or a bill number?

I do remember a passed bipartisan plan to bolster federal funding for mental health efforts, including suicide prevention programs. But Harry Reid stepped on that.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;435239]A Sanity test might help.[/QUOTE]WT I'm going to cut you some slack here because you actually hit on something that we have some agreement on, although I'm sure it was by accident on your part. In January Obama issued a list of executive actions (not the same thing as executive orders) directed at the problem of mass shootings by madmen. Much of the list had little if anything to do with mass shootings. But several of the listed actions call for the legitimate goal of trying to prevent dangerously mentally ill people from obtaining firearms. In response the USA Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has called for public comments as part of their plan to revise federal law to improve reporting of people with the so-called "mental health prohibitor" of gun ownership.

Now here's the important part, the HHS Proposed Rule document notes, [u]federal law already prohibits[/u] those persons from possessing or receiving a firearm who:

1) have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

2) have been found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity.

3) otherwise have been determined, through a formal adjudication process, to have a severe mental condition that results in the individuals presenting a danger to themselves or others or being incapable of managing their own affairs.

I do not support banning some guns from everybody, but I do support banning all guns from criminals and the insane. The idea that keeping a madman from getting an AR15 but allowing him to have a shotgun is itself insane.


Now I'm off to the Gun Show, I'll report back.

[QUOTE=Punter127;435235]Esten is using a tactic that's designed to attract low information voters to his side of the argument.[/QUOTE]

Leave it to an NRA apologist to call facts "tactics". It is a fact that the gun lobby used fear (of losing freedom) to mislead and manipulate the discussion on gun control legislation earlier this year.

[QUOTE]The gun industry may profit from peoples fear, but Obama has been the source of that fear. [/QUOTE]

So when the gun lobby lied about the legislation creating a national gun registry, that was Obama's fault I suppose.

[QUOTE]Esten is always writing about background checks but what he fails to mention is expanded background checks was just one amendment to the Democrats' gun control bill. There were several other amendments two of which had [B]already passed before Harry Reid Pulled the bill:[/B] "One that would deter states from publishing lists of gun owners and a bipartisan plan to bolster federal funding for mental health efforts, including suicide prevention programs." Why didn't Harry Reid let the bill continue on?[/QUOTE]

Punter knows very well, Reid strategically voted against the legislation and pulled it when the background check amendment didn't get 60 votes, so he could bring it to the floor again in the future and get the background check legislation passed. More funding for mental health efforts is good, and would be supported along with expanding background checks. On it's own, it's pretty much a deflection to spare gun owners from having to do anything. Why spend taxpayer money on mental health funding, in the hopes of preventing crazy people from killing, but in the meantime still leave open loopholes that allow them to buy a gun without a background check? It doesn't make any sense.

[QUOTE=Punter127;435245]I do not support banning some guns from everybody, but I do support banning all guns from criminals and the insane. The idea that keeping a madman from getting an AR15 but allowing him to have a shotgun is itself insane.[/QUOTE]

So why the continued resistance to expanding background checks, that 90% of Americans supported ?

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;435239]A Sanity test might help.[/QUOTE]Very dangerous, it's possible that more than 50 per cent might fail the test.

[QUOTE=Esten;435247]Leave it to an NRA apologist to call facts "tactics". It is a fact that the gun lobby used fear (of losing freedom) to mislead and manipulate the discussion on gun control legislation earlier this year.
[/QUOTE]As if the left didn't use fear and emotion to try and get said legislation passed.

What's sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander.

[QUOTE=Esten;435247]So when the gun lobby lied about the legislation creating a national gun registry, that was Obama's fault I suppose. [/QUOTE]I don't speak for the gun lobby, but I will provide some thoughts that may enable the readers to surmise why someone would say something like that. But before I do I want to point out that you yourself are not exactly standing on any moral high ground of truthfulness, nor does Obama!

[QUOTE=Esten;435247]Punter knows very well, Reid strategically voted against the legislation and pulled it when the background check amendment didn't get 60 votes, so he could bring it to the floor again in the future and get the background check legislation passed.[/QUOTE]Please don't speak for me, I don't know any such thing. To my knowledge there is no double jeopardy rule here, they can reintroduce carbon copy legislation at anytime, and Reid can get it to the floor for a vote.

[QUOTE=Esten;435247]More funding for mental health efforts is good, and would be supported along with expanding background checks. On it's own, it's pretty much a deflection to spare gun owners from having to do anything. Why spend taxpayer money on mental health funding, in the hopes of preventing crazy people from killing, but in the meantime still leave open loopholes that allow them to buy a gun without a background check? It doesn't make any sense.
[/QUOTE]Approximately eighty percent of all gun sale are covered by the current background check system. (the exact number is unknown) So lets see if I understand you, it makes sense to spend taxpayer money to cover twenty percent or less of gun sale with background checks, which most experts say will have very little effect on crime. But it doesn't make sense to spend taxpayer money for mental health funding for eighty percent of gun sales.

That's just tripe!

[QUOTE=Esten;435247]So why the continued resistance to expanding background checks, that 90% of Americans supported ?[/QUOTE]I'm glad you put that in past tense. The way the current background check system works the buyer fills out form 4473 and the dealers enters that form into the NICS, and then the sale's approved or denied, the government is required to destroy their copy of the form the next day, but the dealer must keep up to 20 years of records on gun purchases. The ATF can--and often does--check those records whenever they want with regular and surprise visits. They can come in, look at those records, and figure out who has and hasn't purchased a gun during the last 20 years, that is a de facto registry.

How would expanded checks be enforced, how would the government know that I'm not selling a gun to my neighbor nor is my neighbor selling a gun to me without a gun registry? They have to know where the guns are to make it work.

Other problems with expanded background checks is only dealers have access to NICS and I didn't see any provision to require dealers run checks for individual sales nor do I see any incentive for the dealer. I also didn't see any provision to allow access to the system by individuals. This would kill secondary gun sales and eventually allow the government to know where every gun is sitting and where every gun owner lives. And that appears to be the end game.

It is currently illegal to knowingly sell a gun to someone who can't legally own a gun. I would support opening NICS to individuals on a voluntary bases so sellers can verify that buyers are legally able to buy a gun, as it stands now individuals can't run a check even if they want to.

Reid can't bring a new bill to the floor, without overcoming a virtually-gauranteed Republican filibuster. You remember the big flap over this last time. Most Republican senators voted against even allowing a debate and vote. So, any pretense that Republicans were ever serious about reducing gun violence is largely false. No doubt, Reid knows the calculus, and believes that for some Republican senators, a vote on background checks is going to be less politically risky than a vote to bring gun control legislation to the floor a second time.

Don't forget the expanded background checks were to prevent both criminals and the mentally unstable from being able to purchase guns. Yet somehow, a small minority of people (and their lobby) have endless excuses to justify keeping loopholes that facilitate this. For example, "But it's only 20% of gun sales". How about, it's 100% of the sales where criminals and the mentally unstable purchase guns directly?! Certainly, expanded background checks won't put a complete stop to guns getting into the wrong hands. But the data shows it is an effective measure to reduce the occurence. And BTW, opening NICS to individual sellers on a voluntary basis has questionable merit, because the data also shows that most private sellers will agree to sell guns to people who say they can't pass a background check. The background check has to be mandatory, and enforced.

The NRA counter proposals only exist as a facade to fool people into thinking they care. And here's what they all have in common: [U][b]They all maintain or expand gun sales.[/b][/U]

[QUOTE=Esten;435266] And BTW, opening NICS to individual sellers on a voluntary basis has questionable merit, because the data also shows that most private sellers will agree to sell guns to people who say they can't pass a background check.[/QUOTE]What planet did you get this fantasy from?

Tres3.