Wm. E. Smith

You speak my language EAGLEYE13 !
I appreciate your knowledge and common sense.

Bad Bob Loc: Virginia

Australia is a Communist government?

bdamage Loc: My Bunker

It's a globalist elite gov.

I talk to folks in Australia on a daily basis and they keep up with all that is going on here.
They tell me their country is being over run by Muslims and socialists.
They tell me "never give up your weapons and keep your gov in check or you will end up like us".

Here's what my Australian friend Kristi sent just yesterday:

"Starting to learn not all is as it seems? Starting to realize with dismay we are being run by a false government full of corrupt politicians? Perhaps you would like to join on a group that discusses our rights under OUR LEGAL 1901 CONSTITUTION, that was removed from our schools in the 1960's and why?!!"

Know Your Rights

http://www.knowyourrightsgroup.com.au/

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

You have it in your head that I am for gun control.. And gun control equals confiscation..

How many times have I pointed out that I do not support confiscation??

I am however in favor of some sort of regulation..

And the reference to Hitler only serves to show that is was not as you imagine it was..

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

Thank you for coming forward Wm. I appreciate that.

cold iron Loc: White House

Whatever makes you think I should look up news for an ignorant person?

no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

I found this short article about it and Nagin which should explain the situation.


News
Mayor during Katrina gets 10 years for corruption

By Associated Press

July 9, 2014 | 12:03pm
Modal Trigger
Mayor during Katrina gets 10 years for corruption
Former New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin arrives in court on Wednesday. AP

NEW ORLEANS — Former New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin was sentenced Wednesday to 10 years in prison for bribery, money laundering and other corruption that spanned his two terms as mayor — including the chaotic years after Hurricane Katrina hit in 2005.

US District Judge Helen Berrigan handed down the sentence Wednesday morning.

Nagin was convicted Feb. 12 of accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars from businessmen who wanted work from the city or Nagin’s support for various projects. The bribes came in the form of money, free vacations and truckloads of free granite for his family business.

The 58-year-old Democrat had defiantly denied any wrongdoing after his 2013 indictment and during his February trial.

Nagin was a political newcomer when he won election as New Orleans’ mayor, succeeding Marc Morial in 2002. He cast himself as a reformer and announced crackdowns on corruption in the city’s automobile-inspection and taxi-permit programs. But federal prosecutors say his own corrupt acts began during his first term, continued through the Katrina catastrophe and flourished in his second term.

Until his indictment in 2013, he was perhaps best known for a widely heard radio interview in which he angrily, and sometimes profanely, asked for stepped-up federal response in the days after levee breaches flooded most of the city during Katrina.

He also drew notoriety for impolitic remarks, such as the racially charged “New Orleans will be chocolate again” and his comment that a growing violent crime problem “keeps the New Orleans brand out there.”

Elected in 2002 with strong support from the business community and white voters, Nagin won re-election in 2006 with a campaign that sometimes played on fears among black voters that they were being left out of the city’s spotty recovery. He was limited by law to two consecutive terms but a third term would have been unlikely, given plunging approval ratings and the stricken city’s continued recovery struggles. He was succeeded in 2010 by Mitch Landrieu.

Most government pre-sentence reports and recommendations were not made public, but a filing by defense attorney Robert Jenkins ahead of the sentencing hearing indicated prosecutors were pushing for a sentence of 20 years or more under federal sentencing guidelines.

Jenkins said that would amount to a virtual life sentence for the former mayor. Jenkins said Nagin’s family needs him, there is no danger of Nagin committing more crimes, and the crimes for which Nagin was convicted constituted an aberration in an otherwise model life.

Prosecutors said the schemes that led to Nagin’s conviction included two family members: His two grown sons were never charged with a crime, but they were part of the family business that received free granite from a contractor. They also said that what Jenkins calls an “aberration” was behavior that spanned six years and involved multiple contractors.

politediscourse

You make a very valid point when it comes to describing politics, however it is not one I am yet willing to concede. Why? I am sick of the way progressive (not liberal ☺) academia has been to my mind insidiously redefining words to their advantage. Liberal has a very positive connotation when viewed in its original definitions. A liberal education is very desirable and one most conservatives would support. The education going on at the “Liberal” colleges most “non classical liberals” support is anything but a Liberal education. Polarization of opinions, discrediting alternative views not supporting the “approved” Dogma, pushing the doctrine of critical race theory as if it is a fact instead of an extremist opinion. He who controls the language and definitions controls the debate. If to believe in exploring all Ideas with an open mind is defined as a right wing extremist and believing in traditional values of hard work, personal responsibility and equal opportunity is a demonstration of implicit racism (as is constantly reinforced in the media) then the debate is already over. So forgive me but the stakes are too high for me to yield the word and the definition. I as a republican I am a liberal conservative and most democrats I know are progressive socialists. I take the lead in defining them instead of the other way around. I am a liberal because I believe in equal opportunity instead of equality of outcome. To the progressives that makes me a racist and them liberal. NO! I am liberal and they are Marxists. Define them that way and watch them squirm. They don't want to be exposed. Except for Bernie who I disagree with, but can admire for his honesty.

bdamage Loc: My Bunker

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

Welcome aboard. You hit on a very good point. The Left using redefinition of terms.
Kinda Orwellian is it not?

politediscourse

I want to go on record as being second amendment supporter and gun owner. That being said the Supreme Court confirmed when they incorporated the second amendment as an individual right that it was acceptable to regulate firearms including confiscation from individuals who possessed them illegally. The reference to Hitler’s Germany as concerns gun control is disingenuous and counterfactual. In the pre-Hitler Weimar Government German citizens had no right to bear arms and gun laws were very strict. When Hitler came to power he legally loosened the gun laws for Nazi party members and tightened it for Jews and other out of favor groups. In the U.S. individuals have a constitutional right to bear arms that is protected by the second amendment. A revolution overturning our government would have to occur before our arms could be legally confiscated on such a broad and insidious basis. It is instructive to note that Hitler operated with in the limits of the law in his actions. In the U.S. such an action would not be legally possible.

The Hitler’s Germany example doesn’t serve as a cautionary tale concerning gun control, but rather underscores how different we are from historical Germany because we have the Second Amendment and all of the other individual rights enumerated in the bill of rights to control the behaviors of our elected officials. The importance of protecting those rights from the actions of activist judges far exceeds any threat that REASONIBLE restriction or regulation of firearms could potentially pose

politediscourse

Eagleye13, It scares the bloody hell out of me!!

politediscourse

Final point to my own laborious point. If we add more gun control laws, doing it to make progressives feel good is not REASONABLE. AND I am very aware of these laws being used as a starting point for even tighter and useless restrictions

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

Pretty good summary of what went on in Germany and under Hitler.
Some insidious forces were at work there.

"The importance of protecting those rights from the actions of activist judges far exceeds any threat that REASONIBLE restriction or regulation of firearms could potentially pose"
A reasonable point;
BUT
Americans must be constantly aware that there are insidious forces with a hidden agenda, and not be duped as Australia was.

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

I don't believe conservatives are afraid democrats will pass a bill outlawing guns anytime in the near future. What fears conservatives is the small continuous chipping away by States and the federal government with over 2000 laws passed combined fed and states.
Were will this lead. Currently it is illegal for an American citizen to open carry a gun anywhere in all 50 states and illegal to have a clip legal in one state but not another. Our rights right now have been infringed, unconstitutionaly. Conservatives see an erosion of rights leading to bans and the possibility of a future confiscation once one is aware to the extent of laws passed to date.