Carpe Diem

Great moments in government overreach

1.Louisiana state regulators recently cracked down on a supermarket chain’s weekly promotional deal because it was selling milk too cheaply — which violates state law. Good example of a law that hurts the poor.

2.  State prosecutors who investigated the late Aaron Swartz had planned to let him off with a stern warning, but federal prosecutor Carmen Ortiz took over and chose to make an example of the Internet activist.

3. Overcriminalization: A web of 300,000-400,000 environmental laws, statutes and mandates threatens Gulf Coast businesses with jail, steep fines.

4. And fortunately, a great moment this week in stopping excessive government overreach with the Institute for Justice’s victory over the federal government in an important civil forfeiture case.

 

51 thoughts on “Great moments in government overreach

  1. The essential point though, and affirmed by the court is that the govt CAN take your property IF IT PROVES you KNEW that illegal activities were taking place.

    Knowing how the govt works – with it’s ability to set up surveillance cameras, planting bugs, intercepting cell phone communications, etc… if they really did want to gather than kind of evidence, they probably could.

    and if they did and that evidence was convincing that the owner DID KNOW – his motel is gone.

    so the IJ folks won a battle – in a longer war.

    • The essential point though, and affirmed by the court is that the govt CAN take your property IF IT PROVES you KNEW that illegal activities were taking place.

      That is correct, Larry. But the government was arguing no knowledge of the crime needs to occur. So, this raises the standard of proof for the government: you need to prove that the person knew a crime was occurring; it’s not good enough that the crime occurred.

      Knowing how the govt works – with it’s ability to set up surveillance cameras, planting bugs, intercepting cell phone communications, etc… if they really did want to gather than kind of evidence, they probably could.

      Assuming, of course, the police have a warrant.

    • Once again Larry goes to bat for government tyranny and reduction of liberty.

      Affirmed by the court? Yes – the government affirmed that the government can take your property. Do you see the problem with that? Courts aren’t much protection anymore from overreaching government.

      Jon’s point about a warrant is a really big deal.

      All the surveillance you mentioned might help prove that illegal activities were happening, which wasn’t in question, but it’s not clear how it would help show that the owners knew about it.

      Good goin’ Larry.

      Why is it hard for you to believe that a million dollar plum like a motel with no mortgage isn’t tempting morsel for local officials and law enforcement?

      • where do you get that? My point was that the court case really did not change much – that the govt can still confiscate your property.

        I do not support that at all.

        and I just want to point out that “overreach” is enabled by Congress – not the Feds. Congress gave that right to the Feds .

        and what I pointed out is that if someone actually DID know that illegal activities were going on – that the Fed LE has proven over and over – if they want to get the goods on you – they do have the means to do it.

        In this case, it became clear that the Feds chose to NOT put the full effort in doing that because the judge was unconvinced that the owner “knew”.

        but I’m still not sure where ROn thinks I support this.

        • There are several issues here that you don’t seem to understand.

          Is the owner of a property responsible for illegal activity that occurs on his property out of his sight and without his direct knowledge? In this case 15 illegal drug activities in a 14 year period during which 196,000 rooms were rented. That doesn’t seem like rampant drug crime.

          There was never any suggestion that the owner did anything wrong.

          The bizarre notion is that the MOTEL was guilty of wrongdoing, therefore it could be snatched from its rightful owner.

          Do you think the Caswells would have drawn so much attention if the motel had a mortgage on it so that the actual equity was low?

          Law enforcement saw a ripe plum to pick, and went after it.

          This case will make it more difficult in the future to prosecute civil forfeiture cases like this one.

          • There are several issues here that you don’t seem to understand.

            ha ha ha… really? this from Mr. Theory?

            “Is the owner of a property responsible for illegal activity that occurs on his property out of his sight and without his direct knowledge? In this case 15 illegal drug activities in a 14 year period during which 196,000 rooms were rented. That doesn’t seem like rampant drug crime.”

            on the info you presented, I agree. From what I’ve read, there is a dispute over these “facts”.

            “There was never any suggestion that the owner did anything wrong.”

            that’s not correct either. Many articles have stated that more than a few felt his property had become a public nuisance.

            “The bizarre notion is that the MOTEL was guilty of wrongdoing, therefore it could be snatched from its rightful owner.”

            not true. You have to be found guilty first, nimrod.

            “Do you think the Caswells would have drawn so much attention if the motel had a mortgage on it so that the actual equity was low?”

            yes. Have you seen cars seized that still owed money?
            I have.

            “Law enforcement saw a ripe plum to pick, and went after it.”

            there was a history of complaints.

            “This case will make it more difficult in the future to prosecute civil forfeiture cases like this one.”

            only if they can’t prove the owner knew of illegal activities. Otherwise, the court case proved almost nothing other than the fact that the Fed folks failed to gather enough evidence.

            My point earlier was that the Fed has proven itself capable of gathering such evidence when they really wanted to – like in the case of a crime boss. They’ve been pretty successful when they used all the resources they have available.

          • There are several issues here that you don’t seem to understand.

            LOL

            Unable to let that one slide, you go on to prove my case.

            “Is the owner of a property responsible for illegal activity that occurs on his property out of his sight and without his direct knowledge? In this case 15 illegal drug activities in a 14 year period during which 196,000 rooms were rented. That doesn’t seem like rampant drug crime.”

            on the info you presented, I agree. From what I’ve read, there is a dispute over these “facts”.

            Those “facts” come directly from the 57 page finding of the court. What is in dispute and who is disputing. Come on, Larry, let’s hear it. You can’t just throw out vague crap like that, you have to support it.

            “There was never any suggestion that the owner did anything wrong.””

            that’s not correct either. Many articles have stated that more than a few felt his property had become a public nuisance.

            Oh come on now, Larry. More vague bullshit. Many articles “felt”? What does that even mean? He wasn’t accused of owning a public nuisance, and on the same street the Motel 6, Walmart, and Home Depot had similar rates of drug crime, but only the *ripe plum* was targeted. Why would that be? Could government do something dishonest, even morally reprehensible?

            “The bizarre notion is that the MOTEL was guilty of wrongdoing, therefore it could be snatched from its rightful owner.

            not true. You have to be found guilty first, nimrod.

            No, Larry, that’s one of the things you don’t understand. Caswell was never *accused* of any crime. There was never any suggestion that he did anything wrong.

            “Do you think the Caswells would have drawn so much attention if the motel had a mortgage on it so that the actual equity was low?”

            yes. Have you seen cars seized that still owed money? I have.

            Examples please. The Caswell case was about civil asset forfeiture. It wasn’t a criminal case. No one was accused of a crime. You apparently don’t understand the difference.

            there was a history of complaints.

            About what, Larry? From who?

            “This case will make it more difficult in the future to prosecute civil forfeiture cases like this one.”

            only if they can’t prove the owner knew of illegal activities. Otherwise, the court case proved almost nothing other than the fact that the Fed folks failed to gather enough evidence.

            There was NO evidence. It was an overly aggressive federal prosecutor trying to make a name for herself, using a disgusting civil forfeiture law to pluck a ripe plum. A DEA agent testified at trial that his job was to check news stories for potential prizes just like this one.

            My point earlier was that the Fed has proven itself capable of gathering such evidence when they really wanted to – like in the case of a crime boss. They’ve been pretty successful when they used all the resources they have available.

            Two things: First, that capability in the hands of government agents with essentially unlimited taxpayer funding and nothing to lose personally, should scare the hell out of you, and make you very angry.

            Second, once again you are confused. The Caswell case was a *civil asset forfeiture* case. your crime boss example would involve a *crime*. different circumstances. Caswell was not charged with a crime. He would not have been fined nor gone to jail. The entire government effort, that will now cost taxpayers $600,000, was about snatching the motel.

            Well, three things: When you write ” the Fed has proven itself capable of gathering such evidence when they really wanted to” does that they make things up?

          • re: ” Second, once again you are confused. The Caswell case was a *civil asset forfeiture* case. your crime boss example would involve a *crime*. different circumstances. Caswell was not charged with a crime. He would not have been fined nor gone to jail. The entire government effort, that will now cost taxpayers $600,000, was about snatching the motel.”

            no confusion here nimrod. I said the govt had the resources if they wanted to use them. They don’t need to charge anyone with anything in order to use the same resources that they used to nab crime bosses.

            you really are a dunce or disturbed when you can take a perfectly clear sentence and twist it to something it did not say.

            “Well, three things: When you write ” the Fed has proven itself capable of gathering such evidence when they really wanted to” does that they make things up?”

            they can. they’ve been guilty before of going too far but again Mr. Binary – that is not the same as it happening on every case. The world is apparently too complex for you to really understand because apparently in your world, if it happens once – then it means it happens all the time.

            My initial point was that if the Feds had proven he had knowledge, they could have seized the motel and the lawsuit did not change that.

            all the lawsuit proved was that the judge disagreed with their contention that he knew. Had the judge agreed that he knew, he was toast.

            no great rollback of the Feds power was accomplished.

          • My initial point was that if the Feds had proven he had knowledge, they could have seized the motel and the lawsuit did not change that.

            How would they have proved it, Larry? Think hard, Larry. Who would the Feds surveil, and on what probable cause? Do you think a judge would issue a warrant to invade the privacy of thousands of people who stayed at the motel over the years in the off chance that a drug deal would happen AND that Caswell would know about it based on a hunch?

            Once again – Caswell wasn’t accused of a crime. It’s really hard to convince a judge to issue a warrant based on no evidence of a crime, and no “reasonable cause” to suspect a crime is even being committed, in fact not even a criminal investigation.

            Remember, there were only 15 drug incidents at this motel in 14 years.

            In a *criminal* investigation there are specific targets. A crime boss in your example, and reasonable cause of a crime having been committed on which a judge might issue a warrant.

            “All those resources” can’t be brought to bear in a civil forfeiture case such as this one – at least not legally. Get a grip. This isn’t TV crime drama. You are hopelessly lost on this one. Don’t make it worse for yourself.

            all the lawsuit proved was that the judge disagreed with their contention that he knew. Had the judge agreed that he knew, he was toast.

            There was no evidence, Larry. Their “contention” isn’t good enough in court. The judge can’t just “agree with their contention that he knew”. They need convincing *evidence* and they had none. Learn to think, Larry, so you don’t keep writing such laughable drivel.

            Admit it Larry, this was an attempt to steal an old couple’s entire lively-hood for the money by a self aggrandizing federal prosecutor with the help of the local PD who stood to gain 80% of the loot.

            If you want to keep discussing this subject you may want to learn something about it.

          • How would they have proved it, Larry? Think hard, Larry. Who would the Feds surveil, and on what probable cause? Do you think a judge would issue a warrant to invade the privacy of thousands of people who stayed at the motel over the years in the off chance that a drug deal would happen AND that Caswell would know about it based on a hunch?”

            papers say that there were over 100 narcotics investigations guy. Google it.

            “Once again – Caswell wasn’t accused of a crime. It’s really hard to convince a judge to issue a warrant based on no evidence of a crime, and no “reasonable cause” to suspect a crime is even being committed, in fact not even a criminal investigation.”

            really? over 100 investigations?

            “Remember, there were only 15 drug incidents at this motel in 14 years.”

            better check your numbers boy – and with a reputable site.

            In a *criminal* investigation there are specific targets. A crime boss in your example, and reasonable cause of a crime having been committed on which a judge might issue a warrant.

            have you found the part yet that says there were 100 investigations?

            ““All those resources” can’t be brought to bear in a civil forfeiture case such as this one – at least not legally. Get a grip. This isn’t TV crime drama. You are hopelessly lost on this one. Don’t make it worse for yourself.”

            you’d be wrong. they can and are brought to bear to produce the requisite legal actions.

            “all the lawsuit proved was that the judge disagreed with their contention that he knew. Had the judge agreed that he knew, he was toast.”

            There was no evidence, Larry. Their “contention” isn’t good enough in court. The judge can’t just “agree with their contention that he knew”. They need convincing *evidence* and they had none. Learn to think, Larry, so you don’t keep writing such laughable drivel.”

            oh shut the F up you idiot. A LOT depends on the judge. How about you learn to reason?

            “Admit it Larry, this was an attempt to steal an old couple’s entire lively-hood for the money by a self aggrandizing federal prosecutor with the help of the local PD who stood to gain 80% of the loot.”

            I don’t know what it is about but normally the gov does not just go after innocent people – except of course in your world.

            If you want to keep discussing this subject you may want to learn something about it.

            I think you are the one that came in to comment on what I said ….

            All I said at the very beginning and I stand by it is that the Feds can STILL SEIZE your assets – that authority was not taken away from them.

            and then you just wanted to run your mouth and instigate something… which is your typical MO here.

            Ron.. you’re just a mean-spirited knucklehead – boy.

            I’ll just dish it right back to you every time..you wanna pick – you’ll get it right back… I know your type.

            You’re essentially a bullying type.. seen it before.. and I know how to deal with it… so do your thing boy.. but don’t get whiny on me.

          • “You’re essentially a bullying type.. seen it before.. and I know how to deal with it… so do your thing boy.. but don’t get whiny on me.”

            Heh. You get that, Ron? You’re dealing with a man’s man. He may be a frothing idiot, but he’ll whup yur ass right after he takes a nap in his La-z-boy and has a tv dinner. And writes some more retarded shit on free-market blogs he barely understands.

          • papers say that there were over 100 narcotics investigations guy. Google it.

            No question about it. They were investigations of *illegal drug activity*.

            Note that only 15 of those investigations resulted in further action against anyone. Pretty poor batting average if you ask me. Are the Tewksbury police incompetent?

            Of course as court documents show, Caswell always cooperated with those investigations, and it was never suggested that he knew illegal activity was occurring at the time it did occurred,. or that it would occur when he rented rooms to people he didn’t know.

            Would you expect him to close up shop & quit renting rooms to prevent any possible illegal activity from occurring?

            really? over 100 investigations?

            That’s right, Larry, do you have something that shows otherwise?

            better check your numbers boy – and with a reputable site.

            Larry: As I wrote before, my numbers are from the court ruling on the case written by Federal Judge Judith Dein. You can’t use that “reputable site” bullshit.

            I don’t know what it is about but normally the gov does not just go after innocent people – except of course in your world.

            Why don’t you think so, Larry? an ambitious prosecutor get’s lots of press, her agency gets some money, and the Tewksbury PD gets $800k or thereabouts. What’s not to like? Crime? We don’t need no stinkin’ crime, we’ll just take it! Get your head out of your Obama’s ass.

            You must not be aware of how much property is seized in asset forfeitures due to the perverse incentives created by the fact that the seizing agency gets to keep the property. Only “suspicion” is required, and the victim is required to prove they are innocent of any wrongdoing.

            You say you are against asset forfeiture, but you sure seem to be defending unjust government action in this case.

            All I said at the very beginning and I stand by it is that the Feds can STILL SEIZE your assets – that authority was not taken away from them.

            Are you giving up? That’s far from all you’ve said, but that issue wasn’t before the court. The issue was whether Caswell knew of and condoned illegal activity. the answer is no, he didn’t. Cases of blatant attempted theft of private property, like this one, will be more difficult in the future. You do understand the use of precedent in court rulings, don’t you?

            no confusion here nimrod. I said the govt had the resources if they wanted to use them. They don’t need to charge anyone with anything in order to use the same resources that they used to nab crime bosses.

            They need to show *probable cause* that a crime has been committed by the target of their investigation in order to invade people’s fourth amendment right to “be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable search and seizure”. Most people understand that means government can’t snoop on people anytime they like, without a damn good reason, and enough evidence to convince an impartial judge to write them a warrant. Why don’t YOU understand it?

            Ron.. you’re just a mean-spirited knucklehead – boy.

            No, I just have a low tolerance for ignorant, opinionated bullshit, something for which you’re the poster child.

          • Paul

            Heh. You get that, Ron? You’re dealing with a man’s man. He may be a frothing idiot, but he’ll whup yur ass right after he takes a nap in his La-z-boy and has a tv dinner. And writes some more retarded shit on free-market blogs he barely understands.

            Yeah, this is just about the point in Larry’s content free comments where he even he can’t think of any more nonsense to write. This thread doesn’t lend itself to his usual “name me any three countries ” bullshit, or his “find a reputable source, not right-wing blather”, so he’s running short of meaningless crap to write.

            I needed something to do to pass a dark, rainy afternoon, so I chose to play whack-a-mole with Larry. It’s impossible to pin him down, as he just pops up somewhere else when you whack him.

          • already familiar with you boys basic “game plan” here and the “fun” goes both ways, rest assured.

            ;-)

            “content free” … hmmm.. how about ” brain free” Libertarianism.

            one would think as bad as things are here, according to you nimrods, that you’d be out of here and off to some place where they don’t have internet, eh?

            My goal is to better understand folks like you. I am succeeding but I have to say it’s not a pretty sight!

  2. The data show the War on Drugs has been successful, not “shameful.”

    Of course, crackpots (no pun intended) can also say WWII was shameful, because of collateral damage.

    An example of shameful is excessive government involvement in health care, which has raised the cost and price of health care, and we’ll soon pay more for less health care.

    • Obamacare will go after users of a legal product:

      “The Affordable Care Act — “Obamacare” to its detractors — allows health insurers to charge smokers buying individual policies up to 50 percent higher premiums starting next Jan. 1.

      Nearly one of every five U.S. adults smokes. That share is higher among lower-income people.

      Insurers won’t be allowed to charge more under the overhaul for people who are overweight, or have a health condition like a bad back…”

      • Oops! Now you’ve done it. Peak will now paste 6 or 8 irrelevent comments from his handy collection of saved comments. You didn’t really expect an actual discussion, did you?

      • RonRonDoRon says: “Wow. How do you define success?”

        The same way as the War on Crime. Stopping, reducing, and preventing drugs.

  3. Interesting side note:

    The federal prosecutor in the Swartz case is the same woman who was involved in the Caswell Motel case (item number 4). Anyone noticing a pattern here?

    And here’s a scary thought: this woman wants to be the next Gov. of Massachusetts.

  4. I guess one doesn’t have to wonder too much about what companies or industries are pulling the strings in Louisiana Government circles. Not only is this kind of regulation anti-consumer, it restricts companies from using the legitimate marketing tactic of loss-leader sales.

    If the Fresh Markets chain were trying to corner the market on milk sales I could see the conflict, but note that they are an “upscale” store, so I suspect the prices on many other items are going to be somewhat higher. A loss-leader sale will draw more shopper traffic to help make up for the loss.

    Many years ago I worked as a stock clerk for a local drugstore chain (With a familiar name before they were swallowed by a bigger chain…) that ALWAYS used milk as a loss-leader. The store I worked in was next door to a major chain grocery store, and I could always tell when the price differential on milk between the stores got to a great enough point to overcome the convenience of buying all the customer’s groceries next door to come back into our store to get milk, and perhaps find other items to buy at the same time.

    This tactic worked well enough, without greatly impacting overall sales at the grocery store because we didn’t really compete in the general grocery market at the time.

    What has changed is you now have Supermarkets where each store or chain tries to cover nearly all the other consumer’s regular shopping needs as with the Walmarts. Now, a single really good loss-leader sale item is going to be included in a much bigger cash register total, taking a larger amount from the competition.

    It’s all part of the marketing and advertising game, and in the long run, has nothing to do with the actual price of milk or what is paid to the producers.

  5. on the milk issue. FOX news is reporting that the “normal” price of milk in Louisiana is $4 to $6.89.

    In our area, Walmart sells a gallon of milk in the $3-4 range.

    the $2.99 price is close to what we pay regularly in our area.

    the article quotes Louisiana regulators as saying ” “They can sell it 6 percent over cost all day long. It’s when they sell it below cost that it becomes a problem,” Strain said.”

    Something does not seem right here. I doubt seriously that our local WalMart is selling milk below invoice as a regular price and I can guarantee that we’re not seeing anything like $6 a gallon – even at the 7-11s… so there is more to story because he article says this is not about what is paid to farmers but what is paid by consumers.

    It’s pointed out in other articles that the Feds regulate the price of milk and last summer the wholesale cost was about $1.15 per gallon.

    so something does not add up here and I’d not be surprised to see some price manipulation going on in Louisiana with the involvement of producers and distributors who decided to punish the price-cutter.

    we just don’t see those kinds of prices where I live.

    • so something does not add up here and I’d not be surprised to see some price manipulation going on in Louisiana with the involvement of producers and distributors who decided to punish the price-cutter.

      None of that matters. The whole problem is government telling people what they can charge for their products. It’s not for the benefit of the consumer.

      • re: ” None of that matters. The whole problem is government telling people what they can charge for their products. It’s not for the benefit of the consumer.”

        that may be – but it would be true everywhere the govt did this – all 50 states whereas in this particularly story, it appears that Louisiana is even more impacted than other states.

        that sounds like it’s more than just one thing going on.

        • that may be – but it would be true everywhere the govt did this – all 50 states whereas in this particularly story, it appears that Louisiana is even more impacted than other states.

          that sounds like it’s more than just one thing going on.

          *paste*

          “None of that matters. The whole problem is government telling people what they can charge for their products. It’s not for the benefit of the consumer.”

          It’s true anywhere government does this. This just happened to be in Louisiana. Price manipulation isn’t possible without government regulation.

          • re: ” “None of that matters. The whole problem is government telling people what they can charge for their products. It’s not for the benefit of the consumer.”

            in your world, yes… it’s an absolute.

            “It’s true anywhere government does this. This just happened to be in Louisiana. Price manipulation isn’t possible without government regulation””

            price manipulation is not possible with govt regs?

            you gotta be kidding boy.

          • in your world, yes… it’s an absolute.

            Are you in favor of government telling people what they can charge for their products? How could consumers possibly benefit, and if consumers don’t benefit, what possible interest could government have in the price of products?

            It’s true anywhere government does this. This just happened to be in Louisiana. Price manipulation isn’t possible without government regulation.

            price manipulation is not possible with govt regs?

            you gotta be kidding boy.

            LOL

            Learn to read, bozo.

          • “in your world, yes… it’s an absolute.”

            Are you in favor of government telling people what they can charge for their products? How could consumers possibly benefit, and if consumers don’t benefit, what possible interest could government have in the price of products? ”

            in some situations, yes. but that’s a long shot from all.

            “It’s true anywhere government does this. This just happened to be in Louisiana. Price manipulation isn’t possible without government regulation.”

            “price manipulation is not possible withOUT govt regs?

            you gotta be kidding boy.”

            sorry about the typo nimrod but price manipulation can and is done without govt regulation.

            why don’t you admit it guy?

            you are anti-govt.

            anything that happens under the aegis of govt -you are going to be opposed to.

            that puts you in a select group of folks

            most are a tad bit more reasonable.

          • in some situations, yes. but that’s a long shot from all.

            Under what circumstances should government tell people what prices to charge? Avoid discussions of government caused shortages if you can.

            “price manipulation is not possible withOUT govt regs?

            you gotta be kidding boy.”

            sorry about the typo nimrod but price manipulation can and is done without govt regulation.

            Explain that. Perhaps an example would help. Keep in mind that just charging a high or low price isn’t manipulation. Something must restrict competition if a high price can be maintained, however.

            But, give it a shot, Larry, looking forward to your non-economic response.

            why don’t you admit it guy?

            you are anti-govt.

            Of course I am. I’ve never claimed otherwise.

            anything that happens under the aegis of govt -you are going to be opposed to.

            Well, everything I see government do seems to have unintended negative consequences. Everything done by government could be better done by private companies and voluntary groups. No other entity except government has a monopoly on the use of force – by design.

            Government is the opposite of liberty, and is force and coercion. The only possible purpose of any government should be to protect people’s property rights, enforce contracts, and perhaps provide a common defense.

            Any amount of liberty you give to someone else as a permanent, irrevocable monopoly holder of that power, will be used less well than you can use it yourself, and may even be used against you. Don’t confuse that with electing new people who you think will do a better job; it is the position of power itself, not the person in that position that’s the problem.

            For some perhaps unknowable reason, you think only people who wish to do good and help others get elected to office, but that’s just not the case. You seem to understand that people in business may not have your best interest in mind, but inexplicably, you believe those same people in government positions are now angels. Bizarre.

            that puts you in a select group of folks

            Yeah, those who have quit drinking the Kool Aid. There are more of us all the time.

  6. “Louisiana state regulators…” Another interesting article from that same “Daily Caller” issue:

    “Poll: Two-thirds of American voters with household guns would ‘defy’ gun laws

    “Poll: Two-thirds of American voters with household guns would ‘defy’ gun laws

    78 percent of those polled…[believe]…that “people who commit these kinds of acts will always find the guns to commit violent acts.

    58 percent believe if “more law abiding citizens owned guns,” there would be less violent crime in the United States.

    • If the above poll is any indication of national sentiment, it’s hard to understand why anyone believes we have representative government, when it seems our representatives are doing something, in this case, that most of us don’t approve of.

      Do our masters know what’s best for us?

      • on polls… it’s easy to ask the wrong questions if your intent is to not really get a real sense of sentiment.

        The GOP did that during the last election… deluding themselves as to what the polls really said.

        and organizations and think tanks with “agendas” are pretty habitual offenders also.

        but in the end – people will vote for or against those running for election according to their records.

        I find it significant that:

        1. – the Constitution said nothing about people being “unfit” to own a gun yet much of the public does believe that certain folks should not own guns.

        2. – that most people don’t question at all that despite the Constitution that full auto weapons are “restricted” as well as stinger missiles, C4, mortars, etc… all “restricted” …”arms”… when the 2nd amendment says the “right to arms” – “shall not be infringed” and does not say that certain kinds of weapons can be restricted or that convicted felons or crazy people can’t have them.

        so we made all of that up, right?

        • on polls… it’s easy to ask the wrong questions if your intent is to not really get a real sense of sentiment.

          So is that the case with this particular poll? should we disregard it as flawed?

          1. – the Constitution said nothing about people being “unfit” to own a gun yet much of the public does believe that certain folks should not own guns.

          That means it’s not a federal issue. The US Constitution applied to the federal government, and since the 14th Amendment, to the states.

          The 2nd Amendment merely states that the federal government can’t interfere with an individuals right to keep and bear arms. At the time it was written, that was never in question, and seemed pretty redundant, but the Founders were smart enough to foresee that eventually some morons might suggest that people shouldn’t own those dangerous things, so the Founders made it clear for all posterity.

          2. – that most people don’t question at all that despite the Constitution that full auto weapons are “restricted” as well as stinger missiles, C4, mortars, etc… all “restricted” …”arms”… when the 2nd amendment says the “right to arms” – “shall not be infringed” and does not say that certain kinds of weapons can be restricted or that convicted felons or crazy people can’t have them.

          I see you used the correct word “restricted”, not “forbidden”. You might be surprised to know that with the proper licenses and big time taxes paid, those weapons and materials are available. For most people it isn’t worth the time and money. The Waco disaster was not about possession of automatic weapons, but taxes on those weapons. ATF went to Mt. Carmel to collect taxes.

          At the time the Constitution was written it was presumed that people were responsible for themselves and their own safety, and that they maintained control of their own crazy people.

          Only later did we come to this point where our masters must make such decisions for us.

          By the way, despite reports that Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook shooter, suffered from mental illness, he apparently did not. He had Asperger Syndrome, a developmental disorder that is not related to violent behavior. Just in case your “crazy people” reference was influenced by that tragic event. Whatever else, he wasn’t “crazy”.

          Can you explain, in your own words, why convicted felons shouldn’t own guns? Try to avoid your normal circular argument that they shouldn’t be allowed because it’s illegal. WHY is it illegal?

    • ha ha ha…

      for months, we’ve been told that Obama was going to give free health care to parasites and completely destroy any free market aspects…

      and now we find out that, just like private insurance, ObamaCare is not only not free but charges extra if you have bad habits.

      so…whether ObamaCare is coming….or going.. it gets slammed either way…

      sounds like to me that ObamaCare is using some free market principles on pricing the insurance, eh?

      • “for months, we’ve been told that Obama was going to give free health care to parasites and completely destroy any free market aspects…”

        It’s still doing that. Free and discounted health care is part of Obamacare. Obamacare also snuffs out alot of the remaining free market in health care. Things like HSA’s, catastrophic coverage, and out-of-pocket care are eliminated or greatly reduced. My own Flex Spending account was chopped in half(a violation of Obama’s promise not to raise taxes on anyone earning under $200,000) in order to help pay for Obamacare.

        “sounds like to me that ObamaCare is using some free market principles on pricing the insurance, eh?”

        So because it carries perhaps one similar aspect, it might as well have been cooked up by the CATO Institute. That’s as idiotic as saying that because Larry often walks around outside without his pants, he’s the same as Albert Einstein.

          • Isn’t this something that Congress did – and the POTUS did sign?

            Not really a tax increase. It’s changes to what you can spend tax-free, right?

            And every single person who gets paid wages got a tax increase when the payroll tax reduction went away, right? And they also changed the AGI threshold for health care tax deductions from 7.5 to 10%.

            but you are correct, they did cut in half how much you could set aside for a flex plan.

            this must be what Methinks was talking about in another thread.

          • “Isn’t this something that Congress did – and the POTUS did sign?”

            Jesus Christ.

            There you go again with your pathetic whitewashing for Obama. He conspired with Pelosi and Reid to pass this piece of shit. He gave over 50 health care speeches promising all kinds of things that turned out to be crap. He promised he wouldn’t raise taxes. But here comes Larry the lap dog proclaiming the program he himself calls Obamacare, and Obama has said repeatedly he welcomes the terminology, is not Obama’s signature achievement…..
            unless Larry’s defending Obamacare. Then it’s an awesome thing his hero President did for us all.

            “Not really a tax increase. It’s changes to what you can spend tax-free, right?”

            It absolutely is a tax-increase, albeit through the back door. Look at how your two sentences contradict each other. Sometimes your dishonesty surprises me. I guess I should know better by now.

          • Paul – they are de-facto tax increase, you are correct and he did make promises on taxes that he did not keep, correct.

            better?

          • Paul – they are de-facto tax increase, you are correct and he did make promises on taxes that he did not keep, correct.

            better?

            MUCH better! To avoid circling around the core truth of it – as you did by using lots of words – we usually just call such a thing a *lie*

            So you agree Obama lied about taxes. That’s a good start. Later we can tackle others of his thousands of “promises not kept”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>