Why I don't believe liberals don't want to come for guns...

[Codename Section]

This asshole here: http://www.theatlantic.com/barry-greenfield

Was all about having police knock in doors and raid homes for guns until people found out what he was proposing in his local government and started a call-a-thon.

Then suddenly he has a change of heart: http://www.wickedlocal.com/swampscott/news/x1565409744/LETTER-Selectman-Barry-Greenfield-offers-apology

They will always try to get away with stuff, and then apologize for it. If you don't catch them, they win. Citizens must be ever-vigilant these days because government is out of control.

Here is his sucky apology (even Feinstein has more testosterone because she'll flat out say she wants them)


I'd like to take a minute to apologize to any individual who believes my intentions were to create any type of procedure that would violate any amendment in the Bill of Rights. I have no interest in having our town seek out the ability to violate the Fourth Amendment and perform warrantless search and seizure of personal property. If anything I have said or written gave that impression, I apologize.
My intention was simply to learn more about whether or not an existing law could be enforced within the strict boundaries of the Constitution.


In regards to those who seek my resignation, I will say this: I have spent every day of my seven years in Swampscott - whether as a parent, teaching volunteer, coach, committee member or selectmen - trying to make this town a better place to live. I will continue all of those efforts for the foreseeable future.


https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1/529519_10151860811658001_1272522898_n.jpg

[Polecat]

I have to wonder if the police would even cooperate with such an absurd act.

[nathanbforrest45]

I have to wonder if the police would even cooperate with such an absurd act.


They did in New Orleans after Katrina.

[jillian]

like most extremists, i'd say that the person discussed isn't representative of most "liberals".

you really might want to reconsider lumping "liberals" together as if there was actually agreement on all issues.

[Codename Section]

like most extremists, i'd say that the person discussed isn't representative of most "liberals".

you really might want to reconsider lumping "liberals" together as if there was actually agreement on all issues.

I'm just going with the forum flow of lumping. :D


https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQgX8PI2ZjqTNcqZvgHBJ6pLPnTYQt-wG-UyFfiBoaboNScPkOl

[Polecat]

like most extremists, i'd say that the person discussed isn't representative of most "liberals".

you really might want to reconsider lumping "liberals" together as if there was actually agreement on all issues.

The same can be said for conservatives. I know some that are pretty level headed and some that scare the shit out of me.

[Codename Section]

The same can be said for conservatives. I know some that are pretty level headed and some that scare the shit out of me.

^^Why I am antistatist. The ones that scare the shit out of you rise to the top.

[Polecat]

I try to stay away from ambitious people as they tend to step on everybody they can to get to the top.

[Cthulhu]

like most extremists, i'd say that the person discussed isn't representative of most "liberals".

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree jillian.



you really might want to reconsider lumping "liberals" together as if there was actually agreement on all issues.

Great advice, try it sometimes. I have lost count of how many times you disparage groups of people on a myriad of issues. One of your favorite things to say is "bla bla bla...RWNJ's..."

So your street cred on taking things individually is essentially moot.

[Max Rockatansky]

like most extremists, i'd say that the person discussed isn't representative of most "liberals".

you really might want to reconsider lumping "liberals" together as if there was actually agreement on all issues.

From another perspective, he's merely on the leading edge of what other Liberals want. :D

Sorry, Jillian, but you're a pretty strong anti-gun advocate. It's not much of a step from many Liberal positions on gun control to what Greenfield wants.

[Cthulhu]

From another perspective, he's merely on the leading edge of what other Liberals want. :D

Sorry, Jillian, but you're a pretty strong anti-gun advocate. It's not much of a step from many Liberal positions on gun control to what Greenfield wants.

I think the government should lead by example though - do the gun grabbing raids without guns.

Since guns are evil things anyways, the US government would want to use them, right?

I would love to see how far they would get.

[Dr. Who]

From another perspective, he's merely on the leading edge of what other Liberals want. :D

Sorry, Jillian, but you're a pretty strong anti-gun advocate. It's not much of a step from many Liberal positions on gun control to what Greenfield wants.
Can't say that I'm a fan of guns, but I would never advocate the police state tactics that this man espouses. Slippery slope stuff. Throw away all of your rights and submit to the State. Might as well micro chip your brain.

[Max Rockatansky]

Can't say that I'm a fan of guns, but I would never advocate the police state tactics that this man espouses. Slippery slope stuff. Throw away all of your rights and submit to the State. Might as well micro chip your brain.

Agreed. It's people like Greenfield and newspapers like New York's Journal News which published the names and addresses of gun permit holders which cause gun owners to distrust any gun law reforms. We've been burned before with the "Trust us, we known what we're doing" act. It goes directly to the maxim of "Screw me once, shame on you. Screw me twice, shame on me".

Like many responsible, gun-owning Americans, I don't want criminals or homicidal maniacs to have access to guns, but compared to the "good intentions" of Democrats/Liberals like Greenfield, I'd rather take the risk rather than trust those politicians with my Constitutional rights.

[Max Rockatansky]

I try to stay away from ambitious people as they tend to step on everybody they can to get to the top.

You are a normal American. This explains why very few "normal" Americans are politicians, but why there are plenty of ambitious control freak assholes who are.

[Peter1469]

In a large city, would the police force even survive such an operation? They certainly would take heavy casualties.

[jillian]

You are a normal American. This explains why very few "normal" Americans are politicians, but why there are plenty of ambitious control freak assholes who are.

ambition does not have to mean "stepping over people". it does have to mean that you pursue your goals…. but i'd think it depends on what your ambitions are. people like jamie dimon, steve jobs, bill gates and mark zuckerberg are ambitious people, too. is that type of ambition better or worse or no different than political ambitions?

[Max Rockatansky]

ambition does not have to mean "stepping over people". it does have to mean that you pursue your goals…. but i'd think it depends on what your ambitions are. people like jamie dimon, steve jobs, bill gates and mark zuckerberg are ambitious people, too. is that type of ambition better or worse or no different than political ambitions?

Jobs, Gates and Zuckerberg all had reputations as assholes as they clawed their way to the top. It was only in their later years, as they meditated from their position on top of the mountain that they became "nice" guys.

[Max Rockatansky]

In a large city, would the police force even survive such an operation? They certainly would take heavy casualties.

Major city residents tend to be more sheeplike than smaller towns. I think there would be casualties, but not heavy ones.

[Cthulhu]

Major city residents tend to be more sheeplike than smaller towns. I think there would be casualties, but not heavy ones.

Depends on the city I think. I wouldn't try this in detroit or chicago. Despite the gun laws, gang members still magically get them - and shoot people with them.

I don't imagine a door to door raid style of confiscation would bode well anywhere.

[Peter1469]

Major city residents tend to be more sheeplike than smaller towns. I think there would be casualties, but not heavy ones.

Major cities have lots of gang members who take issue at being called sheeple. :shocked:

[jillian]

Major city residents tend to be more sheeplike than smaller towns. I think there would be casualties, but not heavy ones.

Interesting. False. But interesting. There's much more pressure to conform in small towns

[Cthulhu]

Interesting. False. But interesting. There's much more pressure to conform in small towns

Interesting take. I can see why some would say this. Because you actually know your neighbors, and their opinion matters more.

But at the same time, the collective will of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people all expecting the same thing is not to be ignored either.

Depends on the person I think.

[Mr Happy]

Jobs, Gates and Zuckerberg all had reputations as assholes as they clawed their way to the top. It was only in their later years, as they meditated from their position on top of the mountain that they became "nice" guys.

Just reading Isaacson's biography of Jobs. He didn't change.Niether has Zuckerberg from what i've seen. Gates has, although, as a person he was never that bad. As a businessman he was, but not on a personal level.

[jillian]

Interesting take. I can see why some would say this. Because you actually know your neighbors, and their opinion matters more.

But at the same time, the collective will of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people all expecting the same thing is not to be ignored either.

Depends on the person I think.

In a city there are so many more diverse types of people. Perhaps conformity would be more common in sub groups. But I doubt anything comes close to a small town where everyone know your business and everyone goes to the same church, etc. plus, I think if one chooses, it can be easier to be anonymous in a city.

[Alyosha]

In a city there are so many more diverse types of people. Perhaps conformity would be more common in sub groups. But I doubt anything comes close to a small town where everyone know your business and everyone goes to the same church, etc. plus, I think if one chooses, it can be easier to be anonymous in a city.

Brooklyn is a huge nest of busy-bodies, matchmakers, know-it-alls, and matchmakers. :D

My entire building knew my business.

[Max Rockatansky]

Interesting. False. But interesting. There's much more pressure to conform in small towns

I've never felt it. OTOH, nobody likes me. Go figure. :D

[Max Rockatansky]

Major cities have lots of gang members who take issue at being called sheeple. :shocked:

The fun part is when the SWAT teams try to take the gang-banger's guns. That's the problem anyway. My humble recommendation is to put all the anti-gun liberals up front when that meeting takes place.

[sotmfs]

I try to stay away from ambitious people as they tend to step on everybody they can to get to the top.

People should remember you meet the same people on the way down you stepped on on the way up

[sotmfs]

You are a normal American. This explains why very few "normal" Americans are politicians, but why there are plenty of ambitious control freak assholes who are.

If you don't have a big ego at the start of your political career,you certainly do quickly after being elected.

[sachem]

If you don't have a big ego at the start of your political career,you certainly do quickly after being elected.I think you have to have a pretty good sized ego to go into politics. Not many "Mr Smith goes to Washington" types out there.

[sotmfs]

I think you have to have a pretty good sized ego to go into politics. Not many "Mr Smith goes to Washington" types out there.

Sachem ,With all the crime and corruption in politics,I am seriously thinking of running for office.

I want to get my share before I am to old.

[sachem]

Sachem ,With all the crime and corruption in politics,I am seriously thinking of running for office.

I want to get my share before I am to old.Go statewide. I'll vote for ya. :D

[sotmfs]

Go statewide. I'll vote for ya. :D

Will you be in charge of my campaign in the Boston area?

[sachem]

Will you be in charge of my campaign in the Boston area?I'd be honored.

[sotmfs]

I'd be honored.

Don;t forget,once elected I become an arrogant asshole.

[sachem]

Don;t forget,once elected I become an arrogant asshole.lol.....I'll try to remember that.

[sotmfs]

lol.....I'll try to remember that.

You won't have to try,believe me!!

Shit,Just fantasizing about being an elected official I am becoming a fucking asshole!!
I am not running!!

[Adelaide]

I don't want anyone's gun(s) and I'm about as liberal as they come.

I believe people should be more responsible with firearms and I believe that there are people who legitimately shouldn't have firearms (known felons, for example). I believe that firearms are dangerous, but so are cars and so are clothing irons and toasters and bathtubs and pretty much everything. But firearms have a purpose that those other potentially dangerous items do not, and that is the purpose of killing things - animals, or humans. That makes firearms distinctly different from other items that can harm people, either accidentally or on purpose. So, I reiterate that I believe people should be more responsible with firearms and that there are people who shouldn't have access to them.

Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world where everyone is smart enough or willing to be responsible on their own or for others, meaning that someone or something has to help with that which in most countries equates to government interference and regulation. Depending on country, that's to varying levels. But there is still a very heavy dependence on the part of the owner to act responsibly. That means storing weapons safely. Carrying them safely. Getting licensed properly. Buying properly. Getting proper training.

Every time an incident happens like a mass shooting or a school shooting I don't instantly start arguing about gun control because that's often not the issue. There's something culturally and socially wrong that goes far beyond the weapon and nobody has the answer as to what the solution is, but it certainly isn't gun control in majority of cases. It's getting worse, not better, and I think some people are wrongly focusing on the weapon and not the actual problem that is happening culturally. It's like suicide - when one person commits suicide, counselors come in and work with people to try and ensure there isn't a domino effect. With school shootings, there is a domino effect in place that doesn't seem to be stopping or slowing.

When I speak of responsibility on the part of the owner, I'll provide an example. Adam Lanza used legally owned guns, although he legally wasn't allowed to carry some of the weapons he had due to his age. He was obviously mentally unstable and yet his mother felt it was appropriate to train him in the use of guns and to leave them in a place where he could access them. On the part of the gun owner, that's irresponsible. That's a case where there was absolutely nothing the government could have done differently. 'Gun control' wasn't going to be what prevented it - hate to speak ill of the dead, but responsible ownership might have been what did. Interference by parents, peers and teachers for his mental instability or awkwardness might have been. Observing, noticing and addressing his fascinating with Columbine, war, destruction, so forth, might have been. Gun control? No.

Anyone except a felon or someone with an extensive history of admissions to hospital for mental illness can get a gun up here. For some reason, we don't have many school shootings. We have a shitload of guns and we're liberals compared to Americans. It's not the weapon. Something is wrong culturally and something is wrong with some gun owners. I think those are the two major problems and government probably can't solve them since figuring out what's wrong culturally and socially is highly debatable and you generally can't force people to stop being stupid with laws and you can't stop stupid people from purchasing firearms.

[Captain Obvious]

Most liberals don't I think.

It's only the fringe crack liberal crowd who want to take guns away from law abiding citizens but have no plans to take them away from actual criminals.

Just like fringe conservatives want to ban birth control and shit like that.

These fringes get way, way too much attention.

[jillian]

The same can be said for conservatives. I know some that are pretty level headed and some that scare the shit out of me.

well, the second anyone on the right doesn't jump to the extremists' tune, they get primaried…. and called RINO's… and, heaven forbid someone actually want to govern, they're called a "liberal" by the right now.

so i'd think there's more evidence for not lumping liberals.

[jillian]

Most liberals don't I think.

It's only the fringe crack liberal crowd who want to take guns away from law abiding citizens but have no plans to take them away from actual criminals.

Just like fringe conservatives want to ban birth control and shit like that.

These fringes get way, way too much attention.

the fringes make much more noise.

for example, 90% of people want background checks to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and crazies.

the only people who DIDN'T want that was the rightwing House… and their buddies at the top of the NRA.

they represented few people but themselves. but you wouldn't know that from reading this board.

[Peter1469]

I agree with Addy. I would add that you have to take the nation into consideration as well. A government action may work fine in one country, but not in another. The US is so large and diverse, with so many weapons in the population, that most regulations aren't going to be affective, especially with respect to the people who have a penchant to ignore the law in the first place.

I do not really agree that guns are "special," or deserve special treatment, because they are made to kill. That is the point, as Samuel Colt is rumored to have said: "God made man, I made man equal." If you are a woman home alone, and the police are minutes away, you are better off with a gun than a garden tool to protect yourself from the crazed rapists that just kicked in your front door.

[zelmo1234]

like most extremists, i'd say that the person discussed isn't representative of most "liberals".

you really might want to reconsider lumping "liberals" together as if there was actually agreement on all issues.

We will wait until you lead by example on this one with your right wing nut jobs comments

[zelmo1234]

I try to stay away from ambitious people as they tend to step on everybody they can to get to the top.

Dude that is the totally wrong attitude. Try and attach yourself to ambitious people they will usually drag you with them to the top!

There are just few safety precautions that you need, #1 a set of clear glasses. to make sure that they are ethical in there practices. #2 a detachable cord so if they start anything that is shady, then you can sever those ties. And maybe the most important #3 remember to not become an obstruction or you might get stepped on!

[zelmo1234]

Jobs, Gates and Zuckerberg all had reputations as assholes as they clawed their way to the top. It was only in their later years, as they meditated from their position on top of the mountain that they became "nice" guys.

Business is not a game for the week to play in! Look at the story of Westinghouse! one of the greatest men and inventors in US history. but he was in every sense of the word a nice guy, and did not keep the capital in hard times to keep his company a viable. Had he done so we would not be talking about the large giant corporation GE!

Her is another example I am in negotiation's on purchasing these rental properties. The person that owns then is going to get many of them condemned as I paid the local inspector to go with me and my staff to look at the, He is in trouble with the Bank

Because he is in trouble with the bank, I moved him out of the picture totally, he was hoping to finance a run for state congress. but after what he did to these people I will make sure that does not happen.

By having estimates for repairs, and the plans to remove the excess rentals and create a thriving safe community, I can go to the city, state, and federal government and procure Grants, and tax abatements, and negotiate my water prices to something that is reasonable.

This will also allow me to get the correct purchase price from the bank. And NO they are not going to get all of there money back but they will fid themselves of an asset that they neither have the skill or staff to manage and run!

The renters in the subsidized housing will have a fenced community and guards to keep the riff raff and drug trade that has infected them out of there lives if they choose to leave them out. And because I will control about 75% of the subsidies housing I will be able to demand rent prices that allow this to happen! And it will not cost the renters anymore!

The non subsidies rentals will be turned in to high end apartments and rent to own single family homes. With everything in working and energy efficient order!

Now some will say that I stepped on people to get this. The current owner, city state governments, the bank, the families that think the drug lifestyle is the lifestyle for them and because I own a lot of the rental properties they will look at the added safety, energy, and reliability that I put into my homes and apartments and say that I am driving the price of rent higher.

I look at it as offering people a safer, more efficient apartment with all of the luxuries, for a fair market price,

So yes in many of your minds I will be the EVIL persons stepping on people on my way to the top!

[zelmo1234]

the fringes make much more noise.

for example, 90% of people want background checks to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and crazies.

the only people who DIDN'T want that was the rightwing House… and their buddies at the top of the NRA.

they represented few people but themselves. but you wouldn't know that from reading this board.

Come on Jillian this is false and we went through it time after time after time.

Everyone was on board with expanded background checks, Including the NRA, until the Senate and Dingy Harry changed the wording from serious mental illness, (something that needed to be diagnosed by a trained medical professional) to psychological condition and we witnessed the gun grabs in CA of people that were on any form of anti depressant for any reason.

It was not the Republicans that killed this bill, it was Dingy Harry, and the Democrats, and they did it for political reasons, that turned out to backfire on them

[zelmo1234]

I don't want anyone's gun(s) and I'm about as liberal as they come.

I believe people should be more responsible with firearms and I believe that there are people who legitimately shouldn't have firearms (known felons, for example). I believe that firearms are dangerous, but so are cars and so are clothing irons and toasters and bathtubs and pretty much everything. But firearms have a purpose that those other potentially dangerous items do not, and that is the purpose of killing things - animals, or humans. That makes firearms distinctly different from other items that can harm people, either accidentally or on purpose. So, I reiterate that I believe people should be more responsible with firearms and that there are people who shouldn't have access to them.

Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world where everyone is smart enough or willing to be responsible on their own or for others, meaning that someone or something has to help with that which in most countries equates to government interference and regulation. Depending on country, that's to varying levels. But there is still a very heavy dependence on the part of the owner to act responsibly. That means storing weapons safely. Carrying them safely. Getting licensed properly. Buying properly. Getting proper training.

Every time an incident happens like a mass shooting or a school shooting I don't instantly start arguing about gun control because that's often not the issue. There's something culturally and socially wrong that goes far beyond the weapon and nobody has the answer as to what the solution is, but it certainly isn't gun control in majority of cases. It's getting worse, not better, and I think some people are wrongly focusing on the weapon and not the actual problem that is happening culturally. It's like suicide - when one person commits suicide, counselors come in and work with people to try and ensure there isn't a domino effect. With school shootings, there is a domino effect in place that doesn't seem to be stopping or slowing.

When I speak of responsibility on the part of the owner, I'll provide an example. Adam Lanza used legally owned guns, although he legally wasn't allowed to carry some of the weapons he had due to his age. He was obviously mentally unstable and yet his mother felt it was appropriate to train him in the use of guns and to leave them in a place where he could access them. On the part of the gun owner, that's irresponsible. That's a case where there was absolutely nothing the government could have done differently. 'Gun control' wasn't going to be what prevented it - hate to speak ill of the dead, but responsible ownership might have been what did. Interference by parents, peers and teachers for his mental instability or awkwardness might have been. Observing, noticing and addressing his fascinating with Columbine, war, destruction, so forth, might have been. Gun control? No.

Anyone except a felon or someone with an extensive history of admissions to hospital for mental illness can get a gun up here. For some reason, we don't have many school shootings. We have a shitload of guns and we're liberals compared to Americans. It's not the weapon. Something is wrong culturally and something is wrong with some gun owners. I think those are the two major problems and government probably can't solve them since figuring out what's wrong culturally and socially is highly debatable and you generally can't force people to stop being stupid with laws and you can't stop stupid people from purchasing firearms.\

Fantastic post I see nothing to argue with in it!

[Max Rockatansky]

Now some will say that I stepped on people to get this. The current owner, city state governments, the bank, the families that think the drug lifestyle is the lifestyle for them and because I own a lot of the rental properties they will look at the added safety, energy, and reliability that I put into my homes and apartments and say that I am driving the price of rent higher.

I see no problem with your actions. It wasn't you that drove the place into the ground. It wasn't you who loaned an incompetent money from the bank. It wasn't you who decided to destroy their lives with drugs.

OTOH, it's you who are putting both your business and your reputation on the line in buying this dump. It's you who will be held responsible if it fails.

As for complaints, there are always those who complain. Few ever say thanks or give public recognition for good works. It's the nature of humanity.

[Max Rockatansky]

The same can be said for conservatives. I know some that are pretty level headed and some that scare the shit out of me.

True about lumping people, but in this case, the Left is not only very consistent but the Head Lefty sits in the Oval Office and calls semi-automatic rifles "military weapons". His followers agree. The choice here is that he's either lying or incompetent. Which is it?

[Captain Obvious]

the fringes make much more noise.

for example, 90% of people want background checks to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and crazies.

the only people who DIDN'T want that was the rightwing House… and their buddies at the top of the NRA.

they represented few people but themselves. but you wouldn't know that from reading this board.

The only problem I had with background checks is that the fringe wanted to make the process cumbersome so that it becomes a wedge.

Do a criminal and mental background check, that's it. Private party sales - have them done through a dealer.

I'm fine with loophole provisions also.

[Max Rockatansky]

http://imageshack.com/a/img836/5678/8ygr.jpg