Obama and guns

DonWallbaum · 11-13-2008, 10:47 AM

Rich;

I did not say, nor do I believe, that the Bush administration is uniquely responsible for the current economic mess. Suggested reading here: "When Genius Failed - the Collapse of Long-Term Capital Management". Didn't make much of a splash with the news media at the time (1998) but at the time it was the largest federally-orchestrated bailout in history - though no federal money was involved.

Point here is that the book could have been written last week. And this happened during the Clinton administration.

ANY government is going to turn a blind eye to regulation when things are going well. And even Allan Greenspan has said "ooppss.. who knew?" regarding his role in restricting federal oversight of financial markets and derivitives specifically.

The prevailing view that institutions always tend toward their own self-interest and are therefore self-correcting has been found to be badly flawed. See: Enron, Long-Term Capital Management and now, pick your bank.

BUT, the collapse of the financial institutions DID happen during an expansive Bush/Republican watch, and therefore they must own their share of the responsibility.

I agree that if/when weapon ownership is threatened, then here is not the place to complain. We need then to mobilize and work collectively against such efforts. But, remember, we are a minority in the country. A mother in the west side of Columbus, OH won't care about the Second Amendment when she is at the funeral of her 10-yr-old kid killed in a drive-by. She won't care about "punish the act, not the weapon." She will lash out at the easiest thing to lash out against. Unless we, as the responsible owners of weapons, are prepared to answer these types of reactions, then yes, we will see restriction of our weapons rights.

So, instead of fighting the "HCI-leftists", I think we need to join with the socially-progressive side of the country and get to the root causes of violence. You know, I know, that when drunks drive, the drunk is put in jail but people with cars don't have their vehicles impounded. Alas, this logic does not apply to the world of weapons. It should, but it doesnt.

I am with youall in these regards - I differ only in the threat I perceive Obama to be. But, I could be wrong...I really thought McCain would win.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

11-13-2008, 10:47 AM	#38
DonWallbaum User Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Logan, OH USA Posts: 37 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	Rich; I did not say, nor do I believe, that the Bush administration is uniquely responsible for the current economic mess. Suggested reading here: "When Genius Failed - the Collapse of Long-Term Capital Management". Didn't make much of a splash with the news media at the time (1998) but at the time it was the largest federally-orchestrated bailout in history - though no federal money was involved. Point here is that the book could have been written last week. And this happened during the Clinton administration. ANY government is going to turn a blind eye to regulation when things are going well. And even Allan Greenspan has said "ooppss.. who knew?" regarding his role in restricting federal oversight of financial markets and derivitives specifically. The prevailing view that institutions always tend toward their own self-interest and are therefore self-correcting has been found to be badly flawed. See: Enron, Long-Term Capital Management and now, pick your bank. BUT, the collapse of the financial institutions DID happen during an expansive Bush/Republican watch, and therefore they must own their share of the responsibility. I agree that if/when weapon ownership is threatened, then here is not the place to complain. We need then to mobilize and work collectively against such efforts. But, remember, we are a minority in the country. A mother in the west side of Columbus, OH won't care about the Second Amendment when she is at the funeral of her 10-yr-old kid killed in a drive-by. She won't care about "punish the act, not the weapon." She will lash out at the easiest thing to lash out against. Unless we, as the responsible owners of weapons, are prepared to answer these types of reactions, then yes, we will see restriction of our weapons rights. So, instead of fighting the "HCI-leftists", I think we need to join with the socially-progressive side of the country and get to the root causes of violence. You know, I know, that when drunks drive, the drunk is put in jail but people with cars don't have their vehicles impounded. Alas, this logic does not apply to the world of weapons. It should, but it doesnt. I am with youall in these regards - I differ only in the threat I perceive Obama to be. But, I could be wrong...I really thought McCain would win.