LIVE: Obama giving a splendid lecture/scolding to American peasants on guns! BANNED private sales!

[OKTexas]

Simply won't work without dividing the country, a concept I'm becoming more in favor of. BTW I live about 50 NW of the center of Houston.

OKTexas
If the parties are already divided, won't this unite people if everyone can have their way under the party platform that represents them and deserves their tax dollars? Why not respect that, the existing groupings?

It's like the 13 colonies or 50 states retaining sovereignty while uniting under one national agreement.

Why can't we do the same with party but keep it private, outside govt, as currently parties are outside govt.
Let people continue to choose affiliation, vote on leaders, policies and the structures they want to follow. And agree to assist all party leaders and members to manage their own programs this way, so we can all learn self-government and business mgmt and social development of facilities and programs. With no interference, imposition or obstruction by other parties.

The churches do this. the nonprofits and schools. why not organize programs by parties and quit fighting for one party to dominate the other pushing agenda through govt. if religions did that we'd stop them.
why let parties do that with their beliefs?

You can't have one set of standards for yourself and another for your neighbor.

OKTexas
1. For national and local standards to be consistent I recommend the basics here:
ethics-commission.net

2. For issues of belief, creed, that are NOT shared by all people
I absolutely INSIST that people keep their religions private.
the Hindus have equal exercise in private of their cultural rituals
as the Muslims and Buddhists.
As the Protestants and Catholics who don't agree on communion rites.
So why not have separate marriages in churches with different policies?
Who says "all people in all churches have to follow the same rules for marriage"
That is religious imposition to try to establish a national religion
that all people would be compelled to follow. Beliefs by nature must remain free choice.

3. People already fund their own religious schools that teach God and whatever
separately from public schools.
There are already Christian health share ministries with different rules for their members
than other insurance options are required to follow.

Why not give people EQUAL choice?
Why allow govt to regulate and dictate and try to make it the same for all people
where people have different beliefs?

4. If you are afraid this will be abused to create "separate but equal segregation" to deny rights,
why not discuss this and address it Constitutionally?

How do we manage the bakers and wedding services for people of conflicting beliefs?
Why can't businesses issue a "mediation" agreement to sign in order to conduct business together,
and if people can't agree on terms of arbitration or mediation, then they agree NOT to do business.

Why can't we agree on a safe process that protects people
but doesn't force us all to follow the same beliefs where we are naturally different?

Alaska has different laws from Texas, does that mean they aren't under the same national laws?

Sounds nice on paper, wouldn't work in a community of 300 much less in a country of 300 million.

We have to get rid of crime and abuse by working in communities of 300
before 3500 (the size of Rice U) and then 60,000 (the campus at UT).

If we are ever going to get govt in a manageable structure to represent whoever is paying the taxes.

By using a campus model for developing democratically managed infrastructure, businesses
and services http://www.houstonprogressive.org
this can accommodate any size, and string communities together to form a cohesive network,
that retains BOTH the advantages of collective larger govt AND the local accountability and participation in democratic processes.

The Parties already do this: have local elected leaders and conventions on Precinct scales, all the way to state and national. Why can't that structure be used to support health care coops and discounts FOR MEMBERS WHO AGREE instead of trying to establish one policy for the whole nation.

Don't want to sound crude, but screw the collective. The very foundation of this country is individual freedom. Are there responsibilities that go along with that freedom, sure, they should be kept to the bare minimum. I should be able to chose who I do business with using my own standards and not the fantasies of the collective, the market will determine if the business remains and flourishes or dies, but if the business dies it will be at the hand of the owner and not due to the whims of the collective. The same standards should be applied to all facets of life, what ever happened to live and let live?

 

[emilynghiem]

OKTexas
If the parties are already divided, won't this unite people if everyone can have their way under the party platform that represents them and deserves their tax dollars? Why not respect that, the existing groupings?

It's like the 13 colonies or 50 states retaining sovereignty while uniting under one national agreement.

Why can't we do the same with party but keep it private, outside govt, as currently parties are outside govt.
Let people continue to choose affiliation, vote on leaders, policies and the structures they want to follow. And agree to assist all party leaders and members to manage their own programs this way, so we can all learn self-government and business mgmt and social development of facilities and programs. With no interference, imposition or obstruction by other parties.

The churches do this. the nonprofits and schools. why not organize programs by parties and quit fighting for one party to dominate the other pushing agenda through govt. if religions did that we'd stop them.
why let parties do that with their beliefs?

You can't have one set of standards for yourself and another for your neighbor.

OKTexas
1. For national and local standards to be consistent I recommend the basics here:
ethics-commission.net

2. For issues of belief, creed, that are NOT shared by all people
I absolutely INSIST that people keep their religions private.
the Hindus have equal exercise in private of their cultural rituals
as the Muslims and Buddhists.
As the Protestants and Catholics who don't agree on communion rites.
So why not have separate marriages in churches with different policies?
Who says "all people in all churches have to follow the same rules for marriage"
That is religious imposition to try to establish a national religion
that all people would be compelled to follow. Beliefs by nature must remain free choice.

3. People already fund their own religious schools that teach God and whatever
separately from public schools.
There are already Christian health share ministries with different rules for their members
than other insurance options are required to follow.

Why not give people EQUAL choice?
Why allow govt to regulate and dictate and try to make it the same for all people
where people have different beliefs?

4. If you are afraid this will be abused to create "separate but equal segregation" to deny rights,
why not discuss this and address it Constitutionally?

How do we manage the bakers and wedding services for people of conflicting beliefs?
Why can't businesses issue a "mediation" agreement to sign in order to conduct business together,
and if people can't agree on terms of arbitration or mediation, then they agree NOT to do business.

Why can't we agree on a safe process that protects people
but doesn't force us all to follow the same beliefs where we are naturally different?

Alaska has different laws from Texas, does that mean they aren't under the same national laws?

Sounds nice on paper, wouldn't work in a community of 300 much less in a country of 300 million.

We have to get rid of crime and abuse by working in communities of 300
before 3500 (the size of Rice U) and then 60,000 (the campus at UT).

If we are ever going to get govt in a manageable structure to represent whoever is paying the taxes.

By using a campus model for developing democratically managed infrastructure, businesses
and services http://www.houstonprogressive.org
this can accommodate any size, and string communities together to form a cohesive network,
that retains BOTH the advantages of collective larger govt AND the local accountability and participation in democratic processes.

The Parties already do this: have local elected leaders and conventions on Precinct scales, all the way to state and national. Why can't that structure be used to support health care coops and discounts FOR MEMBERS WHO AGREE instead of trying to establish one policy for the whole nation.

Don't want to sound crude, but screw the collective. The very foundation of this country is individual freedom. Are there responsibilities that go along with that freedom, sure, they should be kept to the bare minimum. I should be able to chose who I do business with using my own standards and not the fantasies of the collective, the market will determine if the business remains and flourishes or dies, but if the business dies it will be at the hand of the owner and not due to the whims of the collective. The same standards should be applied to all facets of life, what ever happened to live and let live?

Dear OKTexas
You are talking about people who are already so self-reliant we can run our own finances and programs.

But what about people with no social or financial training or education to be independent.
Look at students in schools. the learning takes place by working in classes, in groups, clubs and on teams,
like baseball or theatre, to deal with the individual responsibility and the collective goals BOTH.

People start off as freshman and maybe do part time work during studies.
Then move up to college, and take on internships,
or graduate school with residencies before moving on to professional levels.

Why can't we set up a tiered structure so people at ALL levels can start where they are comfortable
and work their way up the scale?

Nobody can be expected to move from kindergarten to college alone.
The govt does not need to micromanage this, each community should
work with parents and teachers to agree how to set it up to work for their district and represent them.

The parties and govt can be used to organize the facilities or districting
to house the process by which ppl can govern themselves and organize their own community resources.

Use the structure as the shell, and let the people use that to facilitate their own self-government
and education/training to younger members so the upward movement is sustainable.
new students and trainees come in while the mentors and elders move up and help the next class to grow up.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

This thread really proves that nobody can stir the shit up like the president can. The gun grabbers actually think they've won something and they haven't and the "You Ain't Takin' Ma Guns!" crowd actually believes they've lost something here and they haven't. This will effect such few people that it's negligible.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Obamacare makes it possible for the government to control our lives. Proof: Doctors are required by Obama's executive order to report anyone with a mental illness to the FBI. The FBI is responsible for approving gun purchases. call your congressman and demand that motherfucker be impeached!

 

[AvgGuyIA]

This thread really proves that nobody can stir the shit up like the president can. The gun grabbers actually think they've won something and they haven't and the "You Ain't Takin' Ma Guns!" crowd actually believes they've lost something here and they haven't. This will effect such few people that it's negligible.

I think you're crazy. Guess I'll report you to the FBI. See how that works?

 

[rcfieldz]

This thread really proves that nobody can stir the shit up like the president can. The gun grabbers actually think they've won something and they haven't and the "You Ain't Takin' Ma Guns!" crowd actually believes they've lost something here and they haven't. This will effect such few people that it's negligible.

I'm not sure of the details but if you have to have a drivers license to be a citizen of the U.S. to vote, buy a gun or get a job, something just doesn't sound right. I mean if you don't care to drive an auto then you are automatically at a loss when it comes to rights. I went many years where I didn't drive. I was walking home one night when I was stopped by a police officer. After that I got another licence because I did not want to spend the night(or longer) in jail(the cop questioned my attire and identity). I have an auto license now and currently do not own a vehicle. It seems my rights to live on the edge of poverty(or without a job,etc....whatever) seems to be intact. So I just don't see how anything this POTUS does is going to effect my owning a gun. If it does...what can I do?

 

[froggy]

FACT SHEET: New Executive Actions to Reduce Gun Violence and Make Our Communities Safer

With another executive action hahaha what a joke. Look out criminals you'll no longer be able to buy a gun. Hahaha!

 

[hjmick]

New Executive Actions to Reduce Gun Violence and Make Our Communities Safer... Will do neither.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

Actually I had been referring to our very own history. Didn't the Federal Government ban liquor sales & consumption in the 20's? Didn't the people find ways around that to partake anyway? Didn't we, as a Nation, dislike the King's rulings, taxes, laws, etc for us to fight for our own Independence from the English? Isn't that why we have the Constitution in the first place?
If BO or any leader tries to ban our rights, any of them not just guns, don't you think it will happen anyway? Yes we are a nation that was founded on rebelliousness and it's not likely to change any time soon.

BTW PredFan, yes I am special because I said so & don't you ever forget it

 

[Timmy]

Sure they will. Thousands of criminals/ psychos get denied gun approval every year.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Sure they will. Thousands of criminals/ psychos get denied gun approval every year.

 

[Timmy]

Your right lass .

We should have guns available out of vending machines for anyone to buy! Is that what you want ?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Your right lass .

We should have guns available out of vending machines for anyone to buy! Is that what you want ?

No but an American should not have to register a gun, that's the first step in confiscation

 

[2aguy]

At last, a politician offering more than "thoughts and prayers". Background checks work. More stringent checks will work better. Makes sense.

Explain how they work......please.....can you be the one anti gun extremist who will explain how background checks stop criminals from getting guns...we are still waiting for that explanation....

 

[2aguy]

Is he or is he not trying to ban private gun sales right now?

If he really is, that's fucking unconstitutional.

What he's doing is making it very difficult to privately sell a gun. If he had any power to do this, it would mean that I would have to find a FFL person to run a background check on my daughter to give her the gun I bought her for Christmas. Not impossible, not illegal but clearly an infringement on my rights.

Unless you don't have a lot of money...if you are poor and can just afford the gun...any extra fee for the background check would keep you from buying the gun....and therefore would deny you access to your Right.....

that is what Poll Taxes did...this is the same concept.

 

[Obiwan]

Sure they will. Thousands of criminals/ psychos get denied gun approval every year.

And they get them illegally...

Congratulations, Timmy!!! You did it again!!!

 

[L.K.Eder]

Shriek shriek shriek . the mental nutjobs are not happy. You better hope that your deranged posts will not show up in a background check.

 

[hjmick]

Your right lass .

We should have guns available out of vending machines for anyone to buy! Is that what you want ?

No but an American should not have to register a gun, that's the first step in confiscation

Hold up. President Obama has not said anything about a registry.



Yet.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Your right lass .

We should have guns available out of vending machines for anyone to buy! Is that what you want ?

No but an American should not have to register a gun, that's the first step in confiscation

Hold up. President Obama has not said anything about a registry.



Yet.

Yet being the keyword. Wait for it.....

 

[PredFan]

At last, a politician offering more than "thoughts and prayers". Background checks work. More stringent checks will work better. Makes sense.

Explain how they work......please.....can you be the one anti gun extremist who will explain how background checks stop criminals from getting guns...we are still waiting for that explanation....

They can't, but that little fact never stops them from restating their stupidity.