Maggie's Farm

There are no assault rifles available for sale or use to the public. What the reference is to is rifles that are black and have the appearance of a military style weapon. It is more or less a marketing tool much like a convertible or low sports car is a marketing tool for the auto industry. I can assure you that the military won't be using the so-called civilian "assault rifles" in any military operations. They are simple semi-automatic rifles, nothing more; nothing less. If however you have no scrupples, no honesty, no shame you can refer to them as assault rifles knowing you are misrepresenting them in an attempt to fool the low information voters to support your power grab. This, sadly, seems to be the modus operandi of the neo-Demorcrat party. I fear they are becoming much like the Nazi party in Germany during the 30's. Where are they going? Will they continue down this path? I don't see any way out for them. They have no honest leaders, no soul, no belief in the constitution, no love of freedom, no trust of the citizens. They have become saited only by more power and more money. Where will it end? Must we over-throw them before they start building thrones and castles? Is it too late to resolve this anti-constitutional insurgency at the ballot box? They have stolen elections and stacked the judiciary. Will it require force to take back our constitution and country???

What is the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle? You don't really know, do you? I think if you understood then you would never have used "rate of fire" as something to fear. And that is the point; people who know little to nothing about guns are in the business of defining what guns are dangerous and therefore unfit for civilian ownership. Thing's like the length of the barrel or having a hand grip or flash suppressor.

The reference to Nazi Germany in the 30's was to their effort to strip the citizens of guns so they could later dominate and kill the people with less effort. Imagine if every Jew in Germany and Poland had a gun how different history would have been. It is also worth mentioning that when the Nazi's first implemented this process their public reasoning was pretty much the same as what you hear from the Democrat gun grabbers today.

But I'm disappointed in you because you left the larger issue on the table. The Democrat party is tightly controlled; if you as an elected Democrat fail to follow your leaders (Obama, Reid, Pelosi, etc) then you will get pushed out of power and out of leadership. But considering the path the Democrats are on today, i.e. bankrupting the nation, looting the treasury to give it to unions and other supporters, destroying capitalism with ever higher taxes and more regulations and weakening the military; where will it end? Where is the place for an honest Democrat (if there is one). They have no choice but to follow and if the Democrats succeed in destroying our Republic, what then? What is your personal plan after Obama destroys the economy and the dollar? What do the rank and file democrats plan to do when it all collpases? What then? Is that all there is? Tax and spend, pay of the unions, flood the country with illegal aliens and immigrants who will vote for them, destroy the constitutional rights of citizens... Is that all there is? Or is there a larger plan? Is it true as most of us suspect that Obama was placed where he is by outside powers and he takes his orders from those handlers? What is the plan and will you and your fellow tax and spend mind numbed robots follow it no matter what? That is what happened in Nazi Germany. At what point do you stop following the choosen one? At what point do elected Democrat congressmen put all Americans first and stop the crony politics? Do they even have the free will to do it or is it already too late?

Please! You're making it worse. You really know nothing about guns do you? The rate of fire refers to a full automatic weapon. It is meaningless in a semi-automatic. I assumed you would see your error and drop the subject like a hot potato but you strangely can't seem to do that and are committed to compounding your error.

The Nazi's "loosened gun laws"!! You got to be kidding. In fact the Nazi's used gun registration laws to confiscate weapons. They even arrested some jews when they complied with the law and turned in their weapons.

When the Nazi's began their final solution they were not the big military power they were when they invaded Russia. If the jews had weapons and were only able to shoot one Brown Shirt per Jew taken into custody I assure you the history would indeed be different. At the least I would suspect that willingness of the German citizens to join the Brown Shirts would be dramatically reduced. But for a simple man like myself the real value for each jew to have a gun would be the simple satisfaction that I made them pay a price to get me. They might still kill me or imprison me but I would have gotten their attention and made them think twice about the next time they went to drag someone out of their home.
By the way reading your statement it would seem you think Hitler won on the Eastern front...

Answer the question. What is your plan after Obama and the Democrats in congress bankrupt us throwing us into a depression? What is your plan as a Democrat (or a liberal regardless of your party choice) when the Democrats continue on this road to loot the treasury and give it away, regulate capitalism out of existence and create a great crisis so they can exploit it to grab more power? Will you acquiesce? Will you eagerly cheer them on? Will you finally realize that what we have/had in this country was too good to give up? Is there no criminal act, no power grab, no anti-constitutional action that the Democrats can take that will wake you up? What will YOU do and what will it take to make you do it?

A cop out but I shouldn't have expected less. If you don't have power then you cannot pass laws. The house has sent hundreds of bills to the senate and Reid buried them. The house has demanded that the Senate pass a budget and Reid has stone walled them. When you only hold the house by a small majority you cannot propose you can only oppose. It was Obama who through fiat borrowed and printed the trillions. Unlike most presidencies in the past where debt was mandated by congress and acquiesced to by the president this president created this massive debt without congress. Admittedly Reid allowed it by not challenging it but this drastic debt was unique in American history and is 100% Obama's.

Bankruptcy unlikely? Technically and definitively we are in fact bankrupt. The only thing lacking is the official pronouncement. BECAUSE we can borrow and print money at will we can avoid some of the more obvious effects of bankruptcy but it does not change reality. Have you filled up your gas tank? Have you bought groceries? Have you purchased goods and services? Have you noticed inflation is growing? That is a direct result of our printing and borrowing of money. Is a default "likely" in the near term (or in Obama's term)? It is difficult to know because once we extend ourselves past the point of recovery but maintain that risky position by borrowing ans printing money it takes a black swan event to tip the balance and make the whole house of cards collapse. Will a black swan event happen in the next four years?? Who can know. But the real question and the honest question is if a black swan event happens has our government (Obama) placed us in a perilous position that will cause us to plunge into an economic collapse thus hurting 310 million citizens? Clearly that is the case. So arguing about when the trigger event will occur is merely rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It will happen. It saddens me that you and most leftists hope it happens when the Republicans are in power so you can exploit that to once again gain power to drive us further into oblivian. Why not govern??? That is the gist of my question to you. Why does the Democrat party insist on working against the welfare of the people? Why not govern? Why not work to make us more free, less dependent on government, more in line with the constitution and what our founding fathers intended. Why loot the treasury, implement crony politics and turn us into a corrupt third world nation??? What is Obama's end game? Is he the Manchurian candidate?

Zac, for just a moment in your life be honest, be open minded and look at the budget from 2000 until 2008. You will see relatively high deficits resulting from the Clinton recession in 2000. Then you will see a spike from 9/11 and Katrina. But following that you will see steady decreasing deficits until 2007 when the Democrats took congress, Then in 2009 it skyrockets almost 6 times higher then Bush's low in 2006. Why??? Do you really think it was a result of mandated spending? Could you be that naive? Take the hurricane Sandy bailout (arguably not even the responsibility of the federal government) but over half of it is money spent by congress that is not spent on hurricane Sandy and was certainly not "mandated". And what, exactly, do you think "mandated spending" is? Who mandated? Congress merely passed laws that put it on autopilot that is NOT a mandate. I can assure you congress can modify or rewrite those laws to "unmandate" the spending.

By the way you are still stone walling my question. When it becomes obvious that the Democrat party is following in Lenin's footsteps and in their never ending push for power destroy our constitutional republic what will you do? Shrug your shoulders? sa la vie? Become a conservative? Salute and round up citizens for concentration camps? What will you do? Do you have a moral compass?

The economy wasn't overheating. You need to look at the charts. The economy was lackluster but the deficit was going down each year. Beacuse we had a Republican president and a Republican congress. Not a perfect conservative government by any means. Bush was too liberal for my tastes and the Republicans in congress still wasted too much money on crap for their states. It could have been better but it was so much better then 2007 once the Democrats took back congress and began spending wildly. Then when Obama became president the deficit shot up to $1.5 trillion. This discredits your theory that mandated spending forced the deficit. It was wasteful spending; crony politics.

It was NOT "because" of the financial meltdown. It was because Obama used the crisis to pay off unions and NGO's and other friends and co-conspirators. Obama pissed it away buying votes.

But the bubble had nothing to do with the ability of the government to pay it's bills and reduce the deficit. The fact they they did it disproves your claim that the deficit is simply the result of mandated spending. Having said that I agree mandated spending is a problem and the congress should un-mandate it and do their job by writing a new budget each year instead of putting programs on auto pilot.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. There was indeed a financial meltdown. The government did indeed bail out various "favored" financial institutions. My point is they should not have, it was not constitutional and it made the problem worse. So to say our deficit was the result of the financial meltdown begs the question. Since the proper response of government was to let the system take it's course and let the bankruptcies correct the mistakes there should have been no bailout and thus no excessive government spending. The $1.5 trillion deficits that Obama implemented was to reward his commie friends and Chicago thug supporters. The media is blinded and does not report this, the voters are climbing on the dole in record numbers and don't want to know this but it is the fact. Obama is probably the most corrupt president, the most inept president (unless of course you believe it is his intent to destroy the nation), and the least vetted president in history. This will not end well. I predict two things: When this house of cards collapses the media will still be ignorant and unable to see clearly and will search for scapegoats to blame. This will collapse in the next four years, if not by it's own weight, then most likely because of a voter backlash that gives congress to the Republicans. Let me digress; I fear it is quite possible that the voters will not give the Republicans an overwhelming victory in 2014. If this happens it will be because Republicans like McCain, Graham, Boehner, and other Rinos will so piss off their base that the Republican voters can't even stomach voting for a Republican. So if prediction 2 fails then it is or will be worse then I thought. Either way the next 4-10 years won't be pretty and it may end the U.S. as we know it.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Until the bubble bursts it had no effect on the budget or the deficit. The deficit was being reduced each year because a conservative congress was intentionally reducing it. To connet the two seems to be rationalizing.

The recession would probably have been like previous recessions if they had simply allowed the legal processes to take their course. There was no need to "save" GM that was nothing more then a gift to the labor unions.

The banking system is still collapsing. The bailouts insured that this will continue because the system never had the chance to correct itself.

Wrong! Bush's last budget was rejected by a Democrat congress who then wrote their own budget.

Wrong! The $1.5 trillion deficits were because of "social justice" spending, increased spending on alternative energy, and payoffs to his friends and co-conspiritors.