Fearmongering on Parade

[wesw]

jim, I didn t want to get in the middle of a good exchange between you and RR, or seem to be ganging up on you , but...,

...you never did address whether or not my fears of Obama s gun control efforts (mostly unsuccessful so far) were legitimate, or whether or not you support the 2nd amendment. I m not sure that you do....

I do believe that there is evidence that Obama wants to control access to arms for law abiding citizens, do you dispute that?


I m not exactly a lefty and I m not exactly a right wing zealot.

I love me some woods and some water and as far as "clinging to my guns and religion" you ll have to "pry them from my cold dead fingers".....

back to my peapod now, see ya!

[Lord Jim]

It appears that the reality of the threats we face (particularly with the rise of ISIS) that Americans can see for themselves on the news every day is reducing the effectiveness of anti-national security fearmongering demagogues like Paul:

Poll: 6 in 10 back renewal of NSA data collection

By Jennifer Agiesta, CNN Polling Director Updated 1:00 PM ET, Mon June 1, 2015

Washington (CNN)Americans overwhelmingly want to see Congress renew the law enabling the government to collect data on the public's telephone calls in bulk, though they are split on whether allowing that law to expire increases the risk of terrorism in the U.S.

With the provisions of the Patriot Act which allow the National Security Administration to collect data on Americans' phone calls newly expired, a new CNN/ORC poll finds 61% of Americans think the law ought to be renewed, including majorities across party lines, while 36% say it should not be reinstated.

Republican leaders in the Senate are working to pass a bill to reinstate the law, after delays led by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), whose presidential campaign has been noted for its appeal to independent voters and younger Republicans, and other surveillance opponents led to the law's expiration at 12:01 a.m. Monday. But Paul's stance on the issue is unlikely to bring him many fans within his own party.

Support for renewal peaks among Republicans, 73% of whom back the law. Democrats largely agree, with 63% saying the law should be renewed. Independents are least apt to back it, with 55% saying renew it and 42% let it expire. Liberals, regardless of partisan affiliation, are most likely to say the law should not be renewed, 50% say so while 48% want to see it renewed.

[wesw]

I believe that the same poll showed that a majority also believed that the data collection program violated our civil liberties...., FTFY

[Big RR]

I certainly won't be holding my breath waiting for that...

Indeed don't, as the government has placed some pretty good controls on access to that information.

But while you are willing to trust the government and its intents, many on the left and right are not. Indeed, the Bill of Rights was not enacted because the US government had abused its citizens, but to lessen the chances that it would/could. Many distinguished gentlemen of the time voted to draft and enact them for that very reason. I am surprised that you are so blithe to surrender them in the interest of something as amorphous and undefinable as "security", but to each his own.

what I'm seeing here is a parade of people from the left end of the political spectrum all praising him for them...

Certainly on this board that is not a surprise given the makeup of the posters--we really don't have any reactionaries or even real libertarians here. But I'd bet if you go to boards with those groups you'd see plenty of criticism from the right as well.

And the criticism from those who I would think you'd consider left of center is not lock step; many left of center policies stand firmly behind these policies (Obama for one).

Regarding US citizens held without charge or court access, I guess my questions would be who, why, how many, and for how long?

To which I would answer even one for a short time is far too many, if we are to take our rights seriously.

I believe that you hold your views honestly and earnestly and I respect you for that. If you want to discuss them, I am more than happy to join in. But not if it just becomes silly name calling or silly comparisons to things having nothing to do with the matter at hand, it becomes pointless to continue.

And even if I have to stay as a lone voice in opposition to these policies, I will continue to do so. Is there a middle ground? Perhaps, but it cannot be seen when the government tries to block any access to even the existence of many of these programs, let alone permit any debate or discussion of their effectiveness and what is being done. And when congressional oversight committees are stacked with defenders of the programs from the outset, there is no real reliable information available. I would not trust the government to do what is proper and right, nor do I think would I founding fathers who enacted the Bill of Rights. And so I'll continue to stand up against the erosion of rights, and continue to encourage others to do the same.

[Lord Jim]

or seem to be ganging up on you

Don't worry about that wes...

I've learned from long experience that being right on this board can frequently be a lonely task...

whether or not you support the 2nd amendment. I m not sure that you do....

Yes I do wes, but like all other Constitutional rights, it is not absolute. I don't see things like universal background checks or limits on magazine sizes as incompatible with a robust support for the 2nd amendment. (We had a lengthy discussion about this before you got here at the time of the Newtown Massacre; I'll try to find you a link for it. In fact we have had numerous discussions about it; over the years it's probably been discussed on this board and the last one more than any other topic.)

I also do not see recognizing that the leadership of the NRA (not the membership, which consists of many fine folks) are a bunch of venal whores for the firearms manufacturing industry as being incompatible with a robust support for the 2nd Amendment.

That having been said, I don't see any evidence that this Administration has any agenda to pursue "gun control" measures beyond modest things like the two I already mentioned. (Measures which have broad support with the public) Obama has proposed no such legislation, nor attempted to issue any such executive orders, not threatened to do so. No matter what his personal beliefs may be, I don't get the impression that going after gun owner rights represents any kind of priority for Obama whatsoever.

If you have evidence to the contrary, I'll be happy to look at it.

[Lord Jim]

I believe that the same poll showed that a majority also believed that the data collection program violated our civil liberties...., FTFY

Wes, here's a link to the complete cnn article about their poll. I don't see anything like that:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/01/politics/ ... n-cnn-orc/

[oldr_n_wsr]

Teh problem (I see) with the NSA collecting all that data is the sheer magnitude of it. It seems they have a haystack (everyones metadata) and they are trying to find a pin (terrorist threat).

Even with special algorithms that sift through all that data, search terms are needed and may not be what the enemy is using. Too much reliance on computer code takes some common sense and "hunches" out of the search equation.

[wesw]

jim you are being willfully blind. there are and , have been ammo shortages for the last few years, banking has been made difficult for ammo and gun producers and sellers, new "rules" are about to be announced, they are secret right now tho, god forbid that the press or the public or CONGRESS!!!! should have any input. that s just off the top of my head. Obama s whole career was spent advocating extreme gun control measures, until he ran for pres. and had to tone them down. ammo control is the big thing now. a couple of years ago my son had to wait weeks for .22 caliber ammo. no gun shops or wal marts had any. ..22 ammo! geez, wake up man.

"shall not infringe ", pretty clear.

RR, you are not alone. you have presented my thoughts better than I could have done myself. (and darn it, I am so a reactionary, on some things...)


eta-maybe it was a different poll I heard about, the one I heard about showed the same result you stated and also the one I stated. we are all contradictory in some ways, I think.

[Crackpot]

The ammo shortages hAve been caused by paranoia of right wing types who have gone into hoarding mode in fear of non existent "gun grabs"

[wesw]

not the sole reason crackpot

can t get credit can t do business

[Big RR]

Here's a contradiction--according to the poll 61% support renewal of the law, while "about half of Americans, 52%, say that if the law is not renewed, the risk of terrorism here in the U.S. would remain about the same".

Why would a large majority support renewal if they don't think it has any effect on terrorism, the reason it is being proposed?

[Lord Jim]

I don't see that as a huge contradiction...

The 52% reflects optimism, the 61% reflects prudence and caution...

44% also said that they believe that if the law is not renewed the risk of a terrorist attack would increase...

Put the results of the two questions together and that means that you have about 17% that think the risk will be about the same, but since they realize the fact that the program represents no real threat to American liberty, they don't see the point in taking the chance...

Seems like a perfectly sensible and logically consistent view...

ETA:

To draw an analogy:

A person might not believe that having a smoke detector in every room of their house (as opposed to say, one per floor) will improve their chances of getting out of the house if there's a fire, but they prefer to have them anyway, just to be on the safe side.

That wouldn't be contradictory.