Georgia congressman warns of Obama dictatorship

[fiercemao]

Don't have lots of time talking about politics these days, but there's an interesting article which reflects my view.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iRxZox4GFoIweckPDP1oRhKBlHOwD94CCDU00

A Republican congressman from Georgia said Monday he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist or fascist dictatorship.

"It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he's the one who proposed this national security force," Rep. Paul Broun said of Obama in an interview Monday with The Associated Press. "I'm just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may — may not, I hope not — but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism."

"That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did," Broun said. "When he's proposing to have a national security force that's answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he's showing me signs of being Marxist."

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," Obama said in July. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

"We can't be lulled into complacency," Broun said. "You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I'm not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I'm saying is there is the potential."

 

[Mathman]

I thought this part was amusing.

Obama has said he respects the Second Amendment right to bear arms and favors "common sense" gun laws. Gun rights advocates interpret that as meaning he'll at least enact curbs on ownership of assault weapons and concealed weapons.

As a matter of fact, this fear is so great in Georgia that there has been a run on sporting goods stores, with people buying up as many guns and as much ammunition as possible in case Obama really does push for a national ban on "assault weapons" and concealed weapons.

 

[Kwanford Wife]

Now, I'm all for a good conspiracy theory but this is just stupid... :disapp:

Isn't the real world scary enough without politicans creating unnecessary crap? I mean, seriously. Ok. The GOP lost. Let it go. But like my mom always says you can't make sense out of nonsense. I just hope that Americans are smart enough to see this for what it is - the beginning of the 2012 election cycle...

 

[Tonichelle]

As a matter of fact, this fear is so great in Georgia that there has been a run on sporting goods stores, with people buying up as many guns and as much ammunition as possible in case Obama really does push for a national ban on "assault weapons" and concealed weapons.

I think EVERY state is seeing a climb in that area.... Wild West Guns here in Anchorage has a sign that says "HUGE OBAMA SALE! BUY, LEASE, TRADE!" and all of the big gun stores are seeing a boost in sales. If this had happened in 1996/97 maybe Gary Kings wouldn't have closed!

 

[Grgranny]

Sorry, but I am sick and tired of all the criminals having guns and whatever we can do to get rid of those guns, the better. In Kansas, a very republican state, anyone can buy guns at a gun show and we have people coming from all the states around us to buy guns and they are mostly criminals.

 

[Tonichelle]

right and the black market and the like would just dry up and so the criminals wouldn't be able to get them that way either.

meanwhile families like mine would just be told tough cookies because we can't afford the food we need but we make "too much" to get help from the state or the fed. government... but we can't have thsoe big bad guns either because *Gasp* we might put our eye out.

If Gun Companies/stores would do their job and do the background checks a lot of the problem people wouldn't get their hands on their guns through a legal organization. But guns are smuggled into here all the time. They're not going away no how matter how much legislation you put down. And the more legislation you put down the ONLY people who are effected "negatively" are the ones that AREN'T illegal gun owners.

 

[antmanb]

right and the black market and the like would just dry up and so the criminals wouldn't be able to get them that way either.

meanwhile families like mine would just be told tough cookies because we can't afford the food we need but we make "too much" to get help from the state or the fed. government... but we can't have thsoe big bad guns either because *Gasp* we might put our eye out.

I'm not sure i follow Toni - why would stopping people buying guns have any effect on your family's ability to buy food?

Ant

 

[Grgranny]

I wondered the same thing. Doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Well, we already had the Bush Gestapo and nobody complained. Maybe we are used to having Big Brother watch over us.

 

[Mathman]

I'm not sure i follow Toni - why would stopping people buying guns have any effect on your family's ability to buy food?

I wondered the same thing. Doesn't make sense to me.

I think Toni means that hunting game animals puts a non-negligible amount of meat on the dinner table for many families.

 

[Grgranny]

NOone ever said, that I know of, of getting rid of guns completely. I have no qualms about hunters having guns. It's the people shooters that shouldn't have them. I know it can't be done completely. Of course, I couldn't even shoot an animal. yuk I can't even stand to see them shoot animals on tv. I just cannot see any reason to let everyone have guns. I really see no reason for anyone having those war guns. Unless they're in a war or something.
I think I will just consider this part of the forum done for me. No one will ever agree and I will never change my mind either.

 

[Tonichelle]

I think Toni means that hunting game animals puts a non-negligible amount of meat on the dinner table for many families.

that's exactly what I mean.

no one is saying it out right, but that's what the feds are leading down to. there are already the constraints in place, but NO ONE is policing them... THAT'S where the problem lies... not in the gun holders.

I agree that 'war guns' are unneeded, but those arent being any more or less legislated than the hunting guns (in fact, in some states, rifles are harder to get than semi automatics)...

I have 3 in my name. two .22 cali and a .270. I love them, don't use them nearly enough, but plan on keeping them forever (I don't see my rights allowing me to, though.)

 

[Medusa]

One of the major arguments among pro-gun people is that better gun laws don't work.

The homicide rate with firearms in Germany is 0.47 versus 2.97 in the US. Great Britain has with 0.12 a really low number. Most Western European countries have really strict laws on gun possession - the homicide rate with firearms is below 1 in all Western and Middle European countries. If you go east, to Slovakia, Latvia etc. - you'll find higher rates.

But - we got much lower homicide rates anyway. It's 1.17 in Germany, 0.96 in Switzerland, 1.61 in Great Britain, 1.78 in France - versus 4.55 in the United States. So we may have lower homicide with firearms rates than the US, but mostly because we have fewer homicides anyway. About 60% of the homicides in US were committed with a firearm (numbers are all 1999 or 2000 and are from here) - and about 60% of the homicides in Switzerland were committed with a firearm. If you compare those numbers it doesn't matter that those 60% in Switzerland mean 40 deaths, in the US over 8000. But there are also lower percentages, in Germany it's 40%, in Spain 20%.

So, do stricter laws on guns work? I don't know. Obviously, as a proud and staunch European I am all for them. I just don't think it should be made simple for anyone to acquire a weapon in the shop next to the grocery store. But then again, isn't crime a problem that needs to be dealt with on all levels? Not allowing people to buy guns is just one way of making it more difficult, it will not help with the violent potential people have. But (again) - young men (the most dangerous species on this Earth) are often hot-headed and not always able to think straight - limiting their access to weapons could be helpful.

Interesting side affect of US-American gun policies from here:

According to Mexican authorities, 80% of the guns in Mexico originate in the US. In 2002, the Toronto police's gun taskforce estimated that 50% of handguns recovered in crime were smuggled from the US. 30% of guns recovered in Japan originate from the US, while 21% originate from China.

Looks like a really good business for the US to me. Would be such a shame to give that up, can't be good for the economy.

 

[Tonichelle]

like I said - the only way it'd work is if we actually enforced the laws (consistently). We don't. So why put more restrictions on those of us who are already following the law? Congress should look first at how the government is working before they add more legislation.

 

[antmanb]

I think Toni means that hunting game animals puts a non-negligible amount of meat on the dinner table for many families.

that's exactly what I mean.

Ah I see - i just had not made the connection

One of the major arguments among pro-gun people is that better gun laws don't work.

The homicide rate with firearms in Germany is 0.47 versus 2.97 in the US. Great Britain has with 0.12 a really low number. Most Western European countries have really strict laws on gun possession - the homicide rate with firearms is below 1 in all Western and Middle European countries. If you go east, to Slovakia, Latvia etc. - you'll find higher rates.

Great Britain, I think, has the strictest gun laws in Europe. I'm fairly certain that in my lifetime there has never been a shop you could walk into to buy a gun because of the heavy regulation. Nowadays next to no-one can buy or own guns and there were some famous gun amnesties where guns could be dropped off at police stations and no questions would be asked nor would the guns be checked to see if they had been used in crimes. I think there have been two of these. While homicides with firearms are down now knife crime seems to have gone up. The media is obsessed with reporting these and now there are concerns about what to do about knife crime. I think the problem we face is that criminals will always find weapons to use. It is a good thing that guns are not widely available and that criminals cannot get hold of them anywhere near as easily, but ultimately i'm not sure it's really reduced crime.

Ant

 

[dorispulaski]

It's amazing how many city people fail to make the connection between guns and fish rods and food. However, I have two nephews who provide most of the meat their families eat by hunting and fishing. One lives in Maine, one in Pennsylvania.

For that matter, when times are tough in my own family, we fish, clam and lobster (yes with the proper permits). We also plant vegetable gardens.

I think gun laws need to be state/local laws rather than national in this country. A lot of people equate taking away people's guns with asking them to starve to death or at least markedly decrease their standard of living. This is especially true in rural areas where hunting is good and food prices are high but wages low in comparison. Vermont, otherwise the most liberal state in the country, fits that profile. It has no gun laws at all, basically, and the right to hunt and own a gun is written into its state Constitution, which predates the US Constitution.

It's also true that Vermont and some of the other hunting states have very low crime rates and homicide rates.