A read for gun owners!

[MOP]

Here they go !!!!!!

New legislation is being introduced today in 18 states...
The bill that is being pushed in 18 states (including Illinois and Indiana) requires all ammunition to be encoded by the manufacturer in a database of all ammunition sales. So they will know how much you buy and what calibers. Nobody can sell any ammunition after June 30, 2009 unless the am munition is coded.

Any privately held uncoded ammunition must be destroyed by July 1, 2011 (including hand loaded a mmo). They will also charge a .05-cent tax on every round so every box of ammo you buy will go up at least $2.50 or more!




If they can deprive you of ammo they do not need to take your gun!



This legislation is currently pending in 18 states: Alabama, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington.

To find more about the anti-gun group that is sponsoring this legislation and the specific legislation for each state, go to:

Go here and hit the legislation tab at the top



http://ammunitionaccountability.org (http://ammunitionaccounta%20%20bility.org/Legislation.htm)

[Donziweasel]

Like to see them try that in Wyoming.....ain't gonna happen.:) I notice Texas ain't on the list either.

[zelatore]

And hand loaders??

No surprise to se CA on that list - I've heard about this out here before.

I am surprised to see IN and KY on the list though.

[Ghost]

I think I need to move to Tennessee or something...

[f_inscreenname]

I need to get to the store.
http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/2261/amoiy8.jpg

[Air 22]

Bring it.........:fire:

[Conquistador_del_mar]

Since I have been hearing about all this, I went out earlier this week and loaded up on mostly 30-30 and 357 Magnum rounds just in case it gets to be a problem buying ammunition. Be prepared was drilled into me at an early age. Bill

[Cuda]

I have no idea how many boxes of factory loaded ammo I have in a plethora of calibers, let alone how many POUNDS of powder, and POUNDS of bullets I have. I want to see someone try to confiscated that. They had better have something more in their hands that a piece of paper when they try.

[BUIZILLA]

I don't understand this current panic to buy weapons and ammo...

makes no sense..

knee jerk reaction to a non-existent situation..

so what if ammo has to now be coded?? if your sporting what does it matter?? if your robbing, then you have no place in society in the first place..

sorry, makes no sense to me :frown:

[Donziweasel]

I don't understand this current panic to buy weapons and ammo...

makes no sense..

knee jerk reaction to a non-existent situation..

so what if ammo has to now be coded?? if your sporting what does it matter?? if your robbing, then you have no place in society in the first place..

sorry, makes no sense to me

Jim, for me it is simply about Big Brother. I don't want the governement messing with my personal right to own a gun or ammunition. Gun owners have been under attack for years. So, now they are going to look at the type and quantities of ammo I am buying? Screw them, it is none of their damn business. I passed thier frickin' background check and per the governement, I am safe to own a gun.

I guess for me it is "where does it end??????". What is next, DNA submissions for all gun owners, or perhaps everyone in the US? Are they going to code knives? Just principal. We have a non gun supporting President coming into office. Bet Obama has never even held a gun. I am NOT a gun nut by any means. Me and Boo Boo have our revolvers for backcountry protection, rifles for big game hunting, and shotguns for birds. Two of each, and a 9mm auto. Oh yeah, a .380 auto too. So, 8 guns in my house.

[BUIZILLA]

Jim, for me it is simply about Big Brother. I don't want the governement messing with my personal right to own a gun or ammunition. where does it say you can't have a gun for LOGICAL protection?


So, now they are going to look at the type and quantities of ammo I am buying? if you sporting what does it matter what they know?, why should you worry? if your not sporting, or you have past history of neighborhood sporting, then they have every right to track your ass down.. I think this whole current ammo thing is way overblown, and preposterous behavior of the macho paranoid hiding behind the 2nd amendment.... if a Fed agent comes to your door and says surrender your weapon, what ya gonna do say no and shoot him? all this chest thumping about nobody is gonna take my this, and take that, is ego macho talk, if the Fed wants your weapon or your ammo, smart people ain't gonna do sh1t about it but turn it over, or your dead.. macho couldn't care less if your dead...

[Air 22]

"Jim, for me it is simply about Big Brother. I don't want the governement messing with my personal right to own a gun or ammunition. Gun owners have been under attack for years. So, now they are going to look at the type and quantities of ammo I am buying? Screw them, it is none of their damn business. I passed thier frickin' background check and per the governement, I am safe to own a gun.
I guess for me it is "where does it end??????"


Well Said...:yes: and the tax is outright BS...:shocking: Owning weapons is a right and a responsibility of the owners. These three letter's are very powerful....
NRA
Just because a bill(s) is introduced doesnt mean its going to pass...but being prepared is key...:wink:

[MOP]

I think they more then realize that people are very disenchanted with what is going on with the gov in general and this is one of many steps to make sure the hold the power. There is no real government, Big business and banking have taken complete control and feed off the population with impunity!

An interesting read below by and Honest Man!
Click through a few to see what a great man he was!

http://www.famousquotes.me.uk/jefferson_thomas/

[RedDog]

From the bill:


Any person who willfully destroys, obliterates, or otherwise renders unreadable, the serialization required pursuant to this bill, on any bullet or assembled ammunition is punishable by imprisonment not to exceed one year, and a fine of $1,000.

Hummm...

Fire a round, go to jail?

There is no way a serial number on a bullet would be readable after it impacts a target

[BigGrizzly]

BTW the encoding won't happen because it would only be on the Brass so it is totally useless in crime prevention. It is just another official to try to get more pork barrel out of the government Can you say Barnie Frank and the likes. Oxymoron of the day "I just want to keep my voters safe". The other is a honest politician.:shocking:

[boxy]

Unless shell casings are found at a crime scene.

[Rootsy]

First of all.. This legislation is being introduced and pushed by the folks that have perfected the technology to do so... Therefore you have a corporation attempting to erode civil rights in return for wealth...

Secondly... What part of "Shall not be infringed" isn't understood?

Third... The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution is NOT about hunting or sporting purposes of firearms... It is about self defense and the ability of the citizenry to overthrow a tyrannical and oppressive Government.

Fourth... The legislation would propose a tax of $.05 / bullet... Some of us put a lot of lead down range a year... It would also more or less attempt to kill handloading... Utter bull****...

Fifth... If you attempt to mark cases via firing pin, barrel or some other method... Any idiot with half a brain can circumvent this with a reamer, stone or some JB Weld and sandpaper... If bullets are to be coded... there's nothing to keep people from casting their own bullets... or pulling bullets to remove coding and then re-seating... which is as simple as drawing within the lines of a coloring book...

All out gun confiscation is off the table for the Federal Government per Heller vs. DC. So the Brady bunch and Pelosi and Co. are being a bit more creative.

A man standing up for his God Given Rights is in no way related to EGO... To not stand up for your rights makes you a coward...

Should the government ever attempt to forcefully strip citizens on a mass scale of their weapons.. you're going to find a lot of dead federal, state and local law enforcement and military employees... as well as citizens...

To believe otherwise is absolute ignorance...

[BUIZILLA]

i'm NOT ignorant

and I don't need a gun to survive, maybe you do, but I don't..

if you think you do, then your ridiculously paranoid

paranoia creates hysteria

i'm done and out of this room

[Rootsy]

I guess it is difficult to argue with the truth when it really hurts...

[Air 22]

i'm NOT ignorant

and I don't need a gun to survive, maybe you do, but I don't..

if you think you do, then your ridiculously paranoid

paranoia creates hysteria

i'm done and out of this room

Jim...its not about needing a gun to survive..its about a RIGHT..The 2nd Amendment.. Period...To call someone ridiculously paranoid about that is not fair nor accurate. You dont have to own a gun...that is YOUR CHOICE.

Those that do own guns leagally dont complain about those who do not own guns. Its a right the gov't has no business trying to take away modify etc...and when it comes down to it..they the Nobama chumps will fail. :wink:

[Ghost]

I'm with you Rootsy, to the letter.

Hearing them state their purposes for such legislation reminds me of an old SNL skit about the census:

"Please note that you are required to answer all questions, but your answers will only be used for statistical purposes. Question 1: if Immigration officials raided your home, where would you hide?"
(Of course, being here illegally was actually still illegal in some minds back then. Wonderland is getting freakier all the time...)

[BUIZILLA]

if you want to have a gun, and it's legal and within your rights to do so, for sporting or basic personal defense.... that's fine, great, wonderful, go for it, your entitled to it... no bitch from me, some of you probably NEED it..

my simple point was this, CURRENT gun shop run on ammo and weapons is pure paranoia

whatsa matter here??? ya think an army of loaded Obama tanks is coming up your driveway to steal your bee bee gun?

a handgun in your nightstand is one thing, but to tell me you have to sleep with multiple loaded arsenals propped at your nightstand, to survive each day, with scopes none the less, is sickening paranoia...

to go as far as to say that to defend the right to your paranoia that you'll kill Fed's, police, and military personnel to do so, is hysteria, and you'll be dead before they are proving that stupid point, so what have you proved with your macho stance?? welp, it proves your DEAD right in your mind, but your still dead... now explain that logic to your wives and kids...

Dwight, what the hell do you need an assault rifle with a scope for within your HOME? Is Raleigh really that unsafe?? is Crissy THAT worried? that's not defense, that's an intentional target shoot weapon for bragging rights, so call it like it is.. you don't need a scope for home defense :bonk:...

nowhere in the Constitution does it say the country has to tolerate ones gun ownership paranoia... it says you have the right to bear arms, it doesn't say you have the right to bear enough arms to create public paranoia or hysteria, or create harm for others around you, or the impression of such...

wow, a measly .05 per bullet, BFD.... if you use so much ammo that .05 a bullet affects your lifestyle, your sick and need psychological help... some of you guys pay $3 tax per pack of cigarettes and tolerate that daily, what is that like .30 a smoke?? and your bitching about a nickel? you may pay .41 cents a gallon tax on fuel for your boat or truck and you bitch about a nickel? you may pay in excess of 30% of your weekly income to taxes, and you bitch about a nickel? and you call me ignorant?

I never should have come back in here...

[mjw930]

Jim,

It's not about the nickle or about being tracked as much as it's about the whole need for such oversight. Like others have said, the anti-gun lobby hasn't been able to get what they want through the front door (complete and absolute abolishment of ALL personally owned weapons) so they are coming in through the back door and using ammunition sales as a false sense of security to create yet another bureaucracy that will do absolutely nothing but make the companies who do the coding wealthy and provide another few thousand government jobs.

The proposed bill is stupidity that plays on the fears of the uninformed and panders to the liberal anti-gun movement, nothing more.

Enforce the laws we have and stop trying to beat the same dead horse. Guns are here to stay, the anti-gun crowd just needs to get over it and find another tree to hug.

FYI, it seems there are more than a few gun fans here. A friend put up this site a month or so ago, check it out. http://www.revolverforums.com/forum/index.php

[Ghost]

Jim, apologies if I exacerbated the discussion--I certainly didn't mean to.

In general, I agree that there is some paranoia going around. I also must admit that certain radical measures have me a little twitchy. (Trillions of our dollars created overnight for a couple of unelected guys to dole out with no accountability--seems pretty drastic. The whiffs I got of how they convinced Congress to do it sound like the money guys scared everyone with lots of talk about unrest. Getting them to sign on to anything so drastic makes it seem like they must have been spooked.)

To the extent that that was hysteria, I would agree that it got Congress to react in frightened ways that were probably foolhardy. To any extent that it wasn't hysteria, the stuff ordinary people are sweating now is the same stuff I suppose. I respect you for keeping a cool head. (What's the old story about the harmless snake scaring the kid so badly that he hurts himself? Definitely potential for that I admit.)

As far as the talk about willingness to defend the 2nd Amendment, I suspect that while people have different ways of saying it, having a bunch of folks echo the basic sentiment gives some comfort that folks aren't alone. Also, some of the other "creative" stuff like the taxes and serializing just feels like more slippery slopes to avoid rather than an overwhelming problem all by itself. We've all seen this sort of approach before and been burned by failing to nip it in the bud.

Regards, and like I say, apologies if I offended--didn't intend to.

Mike

[Air 22]

"I never should have come back in here..." Well you did so....


"Dwight, what the hell do you need an assault rifle with a scope for within your HOME? Is Raleigh really that unsafe?? is Crissy THAT worried? that's not defense, that's an intentional target shoot weapon for bragging rights, so call it like it is..
you don't need a scope for home defense.."


Jim...WHOOOOAAA Big fella....You need to know tha facts b4 you make blanket statements...

1. I do not have an AR-15 for home defense..never said that ANYWHERE. Raleigh is not unsafe..I never said it wasn't?
2. Crissy Does Shoot it..with and without the scope and is a good shot on the range.:cool: That I will brag about...:kingme:
3. I was qualified Expert in the US Coast Guard Weapons Course and have been shooting since I was 16.:wink:
4. Im part of the Civilian Maksmanship Progam...http://www.odcmp.com
The Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP) promotes firearms safety training and rifle practice for all qualified U.S. citizens with special emphasis on youth. The CMP operates through a network of affiliated shooting clubs and associations that covers every state in the U.S. The clubs and associations offer firearms safety training and marksmanship courses as well as the opportunity for continued practice and competition.
The CMP was created by the U.S. Congress. The original purpose was to provide civilians an opportunity to learn and practice marksmanship skills so they would be skilled marksmen if later called on to serve the U.S. military. Over the years the emphasis of the program shifted to focus on youth development through marksmanship. From 1916 until 1996 the CMP was administered by the U.S. Army. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (TITLE XVI) created the Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice & Firearms Safety, Inc. (CPRPFS) to take over administration and promotion of the CMP. The CPRPFS is a tax exempt not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organization that derives its mission from public law.
I understand and respect your postion...but pleeeeeeeze dont throw bs like that...:bonk:

[f_inscreenname]

My little box of ammo and me saying “I got to get to the store” was a joke. But now after reading this I’m a little…….:mad:
First, the right to own guns and “needing it” to feel like a man or what ever. I have one question for you. You ever find a stranger half through your basement window on the middle of the night before? I have. You ever come out to your work truck to find everything gone? I have. Seven times. Four of them were within 50 feet (in my driveway) of my sleeping head. You ever come home from a overnight somewhere and find you house ransacked the next morning. I have…….Let that sink in before you make a statement like that.
This is in 3 neighborhoods from the outskirts of Baltimore to rural counties. It happens everywhere, don’t kid yourself. Even in the neighborhood I’m in now. Someone is stealing gas. Lets see if they can put a serial number on birdshot.
If people are desperate enough to take a chance to enter someone’s house they are one step from killing you off to try to cover their tracks. Stupid things happen in the heat of the moment.
Second, dose anyone really think this will help? The government already collects finger prints from bullets now. Any new gun is fired before it’s sold and the cartilage is sent to the feds to be put on file. I guess since they cant get everyone to send in a spent round from their older gun for the data base they will get it this way.
Do criminals really care about this stuff? Are they sitting around crying that their careers are over after this passes? NO! They don’t give a flying fu__ about this. It’s not like they go out and buy a gun legit in the first place. They are also not out buying boxes of ammo. Most of them have what’s in the gun and from what I hear, half the time they don’t even have a full clip.
Then the tax. Do I have to say more?
Ya, I do bitch about the gas tax when it takes me a hour to drive 15 miles on poorly designed and maintained roads. Or worst of all when I put the gas in the boat at the marina and don’t use at all the roads the money is for and I know natural resources don’t see it. Why isn’t it cheaper at a marina?
Just another f_in tax. If your legit you get taxed. Buy a home and the property taxes keep going up. Have a car or trailer, the tags get more and more expensive (in 20 years here its gone up almost 500%). Tagging the boats, more money. Buy something and the sales tax is higher so more money. Look at my pay check and less money. All for governments that are in just as much trouble and debt because of poor management as the companies on Wall street. Now do you think this will be a new tax that will benefit this issue or will it be absorbed in the budget and this will turn into one of those agency’s that doesn’t have enough money to do what it was designed to do like has happened so many times before?

In all seriousness this is just more BS backdoor regulations. I really do wish we had real gun laws that took guns out of the wrong hands and left the legitimate gun owners be but the only thing the GOV can do to make it look like they are doing something is dumping more regulations on they law biding citizen. The criminals are not listening. If you think so…….Baltimore’s murder rate has gone up steadily for the last 15 years. Every year but the last one the city set a new record. I think someone needs to go tell them they are breaking new gun laws they must have missed over the last few years.

[Donziweasel]

First, the right to own guns and “needing it” to feel like a man or what ever. I have one question for you. You ever find a stranger half through your basement window on the middle of the night before? I have. You ever come out to your work truck to find everything gone? I have. Seven times. Four of them were within 50 feet (in my driveway) of my sleeping head. You ever come home from a overnight somewhere and find you house ransacked the next morning. I have…….Let that sink in before you make a statement like that.

Man, all I have to worry about is bears.......:wink::bonk:

[Air 22]

Man, all I have to worry about is bears.......:wink::bonk:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/daryl-hunter/2299676244/
and maybe those pesky Mt. Lions.....:shocking:
pic 2 and 3 were taken from a guy who's kids were playing on the kitchen floor in Martin, SD...wow:shocking:

[Donziweasel]

This happened in Oct. Afton is right down the road.

http://www.localnews8.com/global/story.asp?s=9209458

Funny thing about mountain lions. Although I have seen over 100 Grizzly bears, I have only seen 3 mountain lions. Very reclusive animals. Seen only one each of Lynx and Bobcat.

[VetteLT193]

Any regulation that the government wants to add that can be easily circumvented is a total waste, that is what this is.

I'm almost always opposed to any tax added to anything. Saying that it is "only 5 cents" is where it starts... then it's another 5 cents, and another. I remember when sales tax was only 6%... and it was really easy to keep raising that in each county (FL) by a half a percent each time. Now there are only a couple counties still @ 6%.

[chappy]

my simple point was this, CURRENT gun shop run on ammo and weapons is pure paranoia

Agreed. Pure paranoia. I'm a member of the NRA, and I vote. But Jim is right, and shouldn't be flamed. Also, there's nothing wrong with loading up on ammo. But it's driven by paranoia. As far as ego, I believe it's all over this thread. Posting pics of firearms and ammo in a chat room? I'm not going to disclose what types of guns and how much ammo I have to the world wide web, I've got nothing to prove.

So, let me have it. I've got guns and ammo, but I won't slam someone for pointing out the obvious, and that is the current run on guns/ammo is driven by paranoia. Sorry.:lookaroun:

[VetteLT193]

Paranoid of what? Do you honestly think there will be no changes in gun ownership laws under the new regime? Yes,I agree some folks are going overboard, but some of us are ensuring that we will be able to own the firearms we want to in the future. bo has made it pretty clear he is anti-gun, I refuse to let him take away my right to own and shoot what I want..

I agree, changes are coming.

One big reason for the current run is people don't want to be left without ammo.

Anyone who has had to guard their family, house, and generator 24 hours a day after a hurricane (or other disaster) knows how I feel... What I always find amazing is how many people are pro gun when the 'you know what' hits the fan... but in preparation for it there are so many people that call us paranoid and crazy.

[chappy]

Paranoid of what? Do you honestly think there will be no changes in gun ownership laws under the new regime? Yes,I agree some folks are going overboard, but some of us are ensuring that we will be able to own the firearms we want to in the future. bo has made it pretty clear he is anti-gun, I refuse to let him take away my right to own and shoot what I want..

There will be changes under the new regime. I'm sure I won't be happy about them. I don't dispute that, and I won't argue. But by your own admission, "Some folks are going overboard". That's my only point. If you're looking for an argument or looking to slam someone over BO's gun control policies, look elsewhere, because we're in total agreement.:kingme:

[Rootsy]

The only real issues of supply disruption are on AR platform rifles and parts (especially hi cap magazines) and 223 / 5.56 ammo from the discount houses... Only because it is plainly obvious (in written form) that a renewed AWB without a sunset clause is a priority for the Democratically controlled Congress and with a Dem in the White House (who is openly as anti as they come) there will be no Veto... Heller left us open to "reasonable" restriction and our only hope is that if an AWB is pushed through and signed, that a lawsuit leading, eventually to the SCOTUS would overturn it due to the common use at the time clause.

People have not forgotten 1994 and the decade following... This is what has caused a rush on the EBR and it's food... As well as gun related stuff in general. No different than if say, Toothbrushes were going to be banned because a child may choke on them... Therefore everyone must use their finger and the skin of an apple... Everyone would buy out the nearest Walmart in hours flat...

I carry a weapon, in the hope that I will never need it... But should I, God forbid, I will be prepared...

[Air 22]

Agreed. Pure paranoia. I'm a member of the NRA, and I vote. But Jim is right, and shouldn't be flamed. Also, there's nothing wrong with loading up on ammo. But it's driven by paranoia. As far as ego, I believe it's all over this thread. Posting pics of firearms and ammo in a chat room? I'm not going to disclose what types of guns and how much ammo I have to the world wide web, I've got nothing to prove.

So, let me have it. I've got guns and ammo, but I won't slam someone for pointing out the obvious, and that is the current run on guns/ammo is driven by paranoia. Sorry.:lookaroun:


Well the thread IS about weapons?:bonk: We post pic's all the time on 1000's of threads...engines, props, boats etc...so to post a pic of a weapon on a GUN thread is now twisted into proving something?...gimme a break...Just because you dont post a pic doesn't make it wrong..thats your opinion.... Yep I'm paranoid:nilly:....okie dokie...thanks for the tip...:wink:.....:popcorn:

[The Hedgehog]

Well the thread IS about weapons?:bonk: We post pic's all the time on 1000's of threads...engines, props, boats etc...so to post a pic of a weapon on a GUN thread is now twisted into proving something?...gimme a break...Just because you dont post a pic doesn't make it wrong..thats your opinion.... Yep I'm paranoid:nilly:....okie dokie...thanks for the tip...:wink:.....:popcorn:

Every time I try to come up with something good to say the chick on your signature distracts me!:nilly::nilly:

[Air 22]

Every time I try to come up with something good to say the chick on your signature distracts me!:nilly::nilly:
Hedge...Its a well known condtion diagnosed as Biggunsiatis...:smileybo:just dont stare...look away focus on the ceiling....it will gradually wear off :wink:....lol


Sorry dude to distract you....:kingme:

[MOP]

Plain fact is the Constitution was written in such a way as to protect the general population from an over powered Government.

Read a few of Thomas Jefferson's quotes!

Jefferson in some cases could be called a prophet.



When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we
shall become as corrupt as Europe.
Thomas Jefferson



The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are
willing to work and give to those who would not.
Thomas Jefferson



It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A
principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.
Thomas Jefferson





I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the
government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of
taking care of them.
Thomas Jefferson





My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results
from too much government.
Thomas Jefferson



No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson



The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and
bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in
government.
Thomas Jefferson



The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood
of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson



To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas
which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson




Very Interesting Quote


In light of the present financial crisis, it's interesting to read what
Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:

'I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our
liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow
private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by
inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow
up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their
children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.'

[fogducker III]

Plain fact is the Constitution was written in such a way as to protect the general population from an over powered Government.

Read a few of Thomas Jefferson's quotes!

Jefferson in some cases could be called a prophet.



When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we
shall become as corrupt as Europe.
Thomas Jefferson



The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are
willing to work and give to those who would not.
Thomas Jefferson



It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A
principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.
Thomas Jefferson





I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the
government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of
taking care of them.
Thomas Jefferson





My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results
from too much government.
Thomas Jefferson



No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson



The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and
bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in
government.
Thomas Jefferson



The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood
of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson



To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas
which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson




Very Interesting Quote


In light of the present financial crisis, it's interesting to read what
Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:

'I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our
liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow
private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by
inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow
up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their
children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.'


IMHO, and not being American, take it for what it is.........Thomas Jefferson was WELL before his time, almost one of those guys that came from the future and travelled back in time...?:angel:

Nostradamus, was another one of those guys that saw things others don't.........I just hope "we" North Americans take a deep breath, look at what we have and plan a sensible route to a long future.......:wink:

[Tony]

complete and absolute abolishment of ALL personally owned weapons

Since we're talking about paranoia...

:beer:

[classic_18]

Talking about paranoia...:boggled:

:beer:

Really, Paranoia?

http://home.pacbell.net/dragon13/bradyquotes.html

[Ghost]

Tony's absolutely right--it's complete paranoia. Further, I challenge anyone who's studied any history to show me a national, state, or local government that has ever attempted or succeeded in diasarming any citizens in the least, here or abroad. Crazy to even think it.

:toiletpap

Everyone in this country should apply for a carry permit, citing self-defense and the Constitution as grounds, whether you want to carry or not. In states like mine, when they turn it down, the application and the denial should go into your files and your will and we or our successors should sue the state whenever we are mugged, carjacked, killed in a school shooting, whatever. We need to fight their litigious fire with fire.

There should be no guns for anyone to carry if the citizens can't have them and carry them. Not cops. Not bodyguards of politicians, not celebrities, nobody. Not even the military.

[Just Say N20]

Deleted.

[chappy]

Well the thread IS about weapons?:bonk: We post pic's all the time on 1000's of threads...engines, props, boats etc...so to post a pic of a weapon on a GUN thread is now twisted into proving something?...gimme a break...Just because you dont post a pic doesn't make it wrong..thats your opinion.... Yep I'm paranoid:nilly:....okie dokie...thanks for the tip...:wink:.....:popcorn:

You really want a tip? Re-read my posts and realize I agree with you on our right to bear arms.:yes: There's your tip.:biggrin.:

[Rootsy]

Since we're talking about paranoia...

:beer:

Tony,

Do you honestly believe that there aren't special interest groups embedded in DC as well as politicians on a state and federal level, bought and paid for by social billionaires, that would like nothing more than to hack apart the US Constitution and BOR in order to force confiscation of lawfully owned firearms? Do you realize that The UN has attempted to exert their "law" and "philosophy" upon the US, in turn nullifying the Constitution and BOR? Luckily our elected officials had half a brain and told them where to go... Unfortunately we have a whole new set of politicians that very likely may want to do some moonlight smooching with the UN...

This is not paranoia... This is reality... Events may not have come to fruition as of yet but there are people and groups, both in this country and world wide, working very hard to destroy our fundamental civil liberties.

The proof is there.. in both written word and video... In no way hidden and as plain as day, all one has to do is have the desire to read and watch...

People like...

Sarah Brady
Paul Helmke
Josh Sugarmann
Rebecca Peters
Carolyn McCarthy
Chuck Schumer
George Soros
Nancy Pelosi

Just to name a few of the bigger fish, as the list goes on and on...

[Ghost]

Uhh. . .

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this comment, but disarming the citizens of Germany is exactly what Hitler did to maintain control. The same with Castro and Cuba. The citizens of UK have been almost completely disarmed during the past 60 years, and the citizens of Australia are not far behind. As a matter of fact, almost every example of a tyrannical take over in history included disarming the citizens. That is EXACTLY why our founding fathers included the second amendment in our Bill of Rights. It wasn't for hunting, it was to insure the citizens had a way to protect themselves from too strong of a central government. The writings of the founders are overflowing with references to this concern.

Apologies for any confusion, I was being over-the-top sarcastic and am with you 100%. (I tried to make the toilet paper roll bigger with the font adjustment, but no dice.:))

[Tony]

Tony,

Do you honestly believe that there aren't special interest groups embedded in DC as well as politicians on a state and federal level, bought and paid for by social billionaires, that would like nothing more than to hack apart the US Constitution and BOR in order to force confiscation of lawfully owned firearms?

Jamie, I feel I am somewhat well-read, and I cannot recall coming across articles or editorials promoting the forced confiscation of lawfully owned firearms. Are the aforementioned "social billionaires" groups or individuals? What special interest groups would be anywhere near as powerful as the NRA? I am not discounting your worries, but I also just do not see this actually happening.

Limiting access to handguns for those with a criminal record, strict penalties for anyone possessing unregistered handguns, and a ban on assault-type weapons...I think that these measures are reasonable. Presumably our new president will be a moderate on this issue and not an extremist.

:beer:

[Donziweasel]

I think there is a little paranoia here. Do you really think Congress would ever abolish the 2nd Ammendment? They can and probably will try and infringe on those rights through restrictions, but to actually get rid of it?

Plus, I think certain States would defend thier rights to bear arms. States like Wyoming, Texas, etc....are very pro gun. Hell, I think you have to show you own one before becoming a resident here.......:wink:

You want a Civil War, try and abolish guns in Montana, Wyoming, Texas, Georgia, etc.....just see what happens.:wink:

[BUIZILLA]

i'm NOT ignorant

and I don't need a gun to survive, maybe you do, but I don't..

if you think you do, then your ridiculously paranoid

paranoia creates hysteria

i'm done and out of this room


if you want to have a gun, and it's legal and within your rights to do so, for sporting or basic personal defense.... that's fine, great, wonderful, go for it, your entitled to it... no bitch from me, some of you probably NEED it..

my simple point was this, CURRENT gun shop run on ammo and weapons is pure paranoia

whatsa matter here??? ya think an army of loaded Obama tanks is coming up your driveway to steal your bee bee gun?

a handgun in your nightstand is one thing, but to tell me you have to sleep with multiple loaded arsenals propped at your nightstand, to survive each day, with scopes none the less, is sickening paranoia...

to go as far as to say that to defend the right to your paranoia that you'll kill Fed's, police, and military personnel to do so, is hysteria, and you'll be dead before they are proving that stupid point, so what have you proved with your macho stance?? welp, it proves your DEAD right in your mind, but your still dead... now explain that logic to your wives and kids...

Dwight, what the hell do you need an assault rifle with a scope for within your HOME? Is Raleigh really that unsafe?? is Crissy THAT worried? that's not defense, that's an intentional target shoot weapon for bragging rights, so call it like it is.. you don't need a scope for home defense :bonk:...

nowhere in the Constitution does it say the country has to tolerate ones gun ownership paranoia... it says you have the right to bear arms, it doesn't say you have the right to bear enough arms to create public paranoia or hysteria, or create harm for others around you, or the impression of such...

wow, a measly .05 per bullet, BFD.... if you use so much ammo that .05 a bullet affects your lifestyle, your sick and need psychological help... some of you guys pay $3 tax per pack of cigarettes and tolerate that daily, what is that like .30 a smoke?? and your bitching about a nickel? you may pay .41 cents a gallon tax on fuel for your boat or truck and you bitch about a nickel? you may pay in excess of 30% of your weekly income to taxes, and you bitch about a nickel? and you call me ignorant?

I never should have come back in here...


Agreed. Pure paranoia. I'm a member of the NRA, and I vote. But Jim is right, and shouldn't be flamed. Also, there's nothing wrong with loading up on ammo. But it's driven by paranoia. As far as ego, I believe it's all over this thread. Posting pics of firearms and ammo in a chat room? I'm not going to disclose what types of guns and how much ammo I have to the world wide web, I've got nothing to prove.

So, let me have it. I've got guns and ammo, but I won't slam someone for pointing out the obvious, and that is the current run on guns/ammo is driven by paranoia. Sorry.:lookaroun:


Since we're talking about paranoia...

:beer:


Really, Paranoia?

http://home.pacbell.net/dragon13/bradyquotes.html


Tony's absolutely right--it's complete paranoia. Further, I challenge anyone who's studied any history to show me a national, state, or local government that has ever attempted or succeeded in diasarming any citizens in the least, here or abroad. Crazy to even think it.

:toiletpap

Everyone in this country should apply for a carry permit, citing self-defense and the Constitution as grounds, whether you want to carry or not. In states like mine, when they turn it down, the application and the denial should go into your files and your will and we or our successors should sue the state whenever we are mugged, carjacked, killed in a school shooting, whatever. We need to fight their litigious fire with fire.

There should be no guns for anyone to carry if the citizens can't have them and carry them. Not cops. Not bodyguards of politicians, not celebrities, nobody. Not even the military.


I think there is a little paranoia here. Do you really think Congress would ever abolish the 2nd Ammendment? They can and probably will try and infringe on those rights through restrictions, but to actually get rid of it?

Plus, I think certain States would defend thier rights to bear arms. States like Wyoming, Texas, etc....are very pro gun. Hell, I think you have to show you own one before becoming a resident here.......:wink:

You want a Civil War, try and abolish guns in Montana, Wyoming, Texas, Georgia, etc.....just see what happens.:wink: looks like I was right.. :kingme:

[Cuda]

Seen only one each of Lynx and Bobcat.
I've seen many bobcats. I want to get one to mount with the boss gobbler that took me 15 years to get. Mount the bobcat sneaking over a log to grab the gobbler in full strut.

Saw a Florida panther across the canal a couple months ago.

[Cuda]

Hedge...Its a well known condtion diagnosed as Biggunsiatis...:smileybo:just dont stare...look away focus on the ceiling....it will gradually wear off :wink:....lol
Sorry dude to distract you....:kingme:

There is another disease running rampant. It's called phallisimaginatus. :)

[Cuda]

Tony's absolutely right--it's complete paranoia. Further, I challenge anyone who's studied any history to show me a national, state, or local government that has ever attempted or succeeded in diasarming any citizens in the least, here or abroad. Crazy to even think it.

:toiletpap

Everyone in this country should apply for a carry permit, citing self-defense and the Constitution as grounds, whether you want to carry or not. In states like mine, when they turn it down, the application and the denial should go into your files and your will and we or our successors should sue the state whenever we are mugged, carjacked, killed in a school shooting, whatever. We need to fight their litigious fire with fire.

There should be no guns for anyone to carry if the citizens can't have them and carry them. Not cops. Not bodyguards of politicians, not celebrities, nobody. Not even the military.
It worked well in Austrailia. I know a girl from there, and she said crime is now out of hand. That's one reason she moved to America. I guess it wasn't far enough. Btw, she doesn't own a gun, but wants to take a course, and get a carry license.

[Cuda]

Uhh. . .
Maybe I'm misunderstanding this comment, but disarming the citizens of Germany is exactly what Hitler did to maintain control. The same with Castro and Cuba. The citizens of UK have been almost completely disarmed during the past 60 years, and the citizens of Australia are not far behind. As a matter of fact, almost every example of a tyrannical take over in history included disarming the citizens. That is EXACTLY why our founding fathers included the second amendment in our Bill of Rights. It wasn't for hunting, it was to insure the citizens had a way to protect themselves from too strong of a central government. The writings of the founders are overflowing with references to this concern.
It worked well in Germany, and Poland, if you happened to be a Nazi. Not so well if you weren't. Maybe I should go register as a democrat.

[Cuda]

A pistol is not unlike lawyer, and four wheel drive. You don't really need one until you need one badly.

Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get me.
Paranoids have enemies too.

[Conquistador_del_mar]

Everyone in this country should apply for a carry permit, citing self-defense and the Constitution as grounds, whether you want to carry or not. In states like mine, when they turn it down, the application and the denial should go into your files and your will and we or our successors should sue the state whenever we are mugged, carjacked, killed in a school shooting, whatever. We need to fight their litigious fire with fire.


Just last night my fiance and I were talking about my possibly buying her a pistol. She asked if I wanted to take the concealed handgun class so we can both have the right to carry a gun - we agreed to take the course together early this next year. Bill

[Rootsy]

Jamie, I feel I am somewhat well-read, and I cannot recall coming across articles or editorials promoting the forced confiscation of lawfully owned firearms. Are the aforementioned "social billionaires" groups or individuals? What special interest groups would be anywhere near as powerful as the NRA? I am not discounting your worries, but I also just do not see this actually happening.

Limiting access to handguns for those with a criminal record, strict penalties for anyone possessing unregistered handguns, and a ban on assault-type weapons...I think that these measures are reasonable. Presumably our new president will be a moderate on this issue and not an extremist.

:beer:

Forced confiscation is nothing new. Did you pay attention to Louisiana during Katrina? Being an educator I would believe that you have a decent grasp of World and American history, correct? How about Nazi Germany in the late 1930's? Australia circa 1996? Great Britain circa 1920 and later the 90's? I mean I can go on and on with historical factual examples if you please.

When I speak of social billionaires I speak of people such as George Soros. Who has backed and funded anti gun groups through-out United States and the world. Who is influential in the UN movement of disarming the world (Including the US). The man who pours millions into campaigns to get those he deems aligned with his causes elected to public office. He is no secret. He has nearly unlimited funds, power and an agenda...

To the point of registration. I am 100% against "registration" It isn't the governments business what I possess. We have a background check system already in place to make sure you are guilty until proven innocent. Felons don't purchase firearms from ligitimate FFL's. But plenty of innocent people have their God given rights stomped because they may have a similar name to some bad guy out there. Is that not an atrocity?

Here is a novel idea... How about prosecuting law offenders harshly? Make it absolutely not "worth while" to commit a crime, especially using a firearm. There was a time in this country when the law abiding populous had a spine and dealt with criminals accordingly. What people do NOT seem to comprehend, Tony, is that "criminals" don't give two piddles of a monkey's pecker about laws. That's why they are criminals. The people of this country seem to believe that if you lock them up for a little while and let them out that they are rehabilitated... Yet a Felon is prohibited from EVER possessing or using a firearm unless his record is expunged. We sure seem to have a lot of repeat offenders... Therefore my take on it is, if they cannot be trusted with a piece of steel and some plastic then they cannot be trusted in society, period...

BTW, assault rifles are quite difficult to obtain, the paperwork is a PITA, in some cases you actually are better off starting a company to list them as an asset rather than try to obtain the praise of the ATF and the local law enforcement. On top of the $200 tax stamp you have to shell out and the 5,000 to upward of 6 figure price tag they carry... Therefore your average joe isn't going to own an assault rifle. Not to mention the damn things are expensive to feed... OH you were thinking of the semi-automatic scary looking weapons... well technically, they are not assault rifles... they're just cosmetically frightening to the sheeple.

I apologize for the sarcasm but the anti-gun, give up my freedom for a false sense of security, morally deteriorated, spineless people of this country are getting pretty old. Patriotism and the fundamental principles that this country were founded on slip from people's grasp more each day as they drone around from soccer game to Walmart back to their happy little homes in the burbs...

Everyone has a right to their own beliefs.. but when an individual feels that their beliefs are so correct that they should be benevolently forced upon everyone else, we have a real problem.

A few people really need "education" about weapons.... Watch this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0

[BUIZILLA]

To the point of registration. I am 100% against "registration" It isn't the governments business what I possess. drive your truck without a title, tag, or registration and get back to us on that... :wink: :)

[Rootsy]

drive your truck without a title, tag, or registration and get back to us on that... :wink: :)

Driving is a privilege not a right... get back to me after you ponder that...

[BUIZILLA]

registration is mandatory

driving it is not

has nothing to do with privilege to use it

[Rootsy]

registration is mandatory
driving it is not
has nothing to do with privilege to use it
Don't have to register anything unless it touches tax payer funded asphalt...

No where, in the BOR or US Constitution does it specifically state or even non specifically state... "the right to own and use motorized transportation shall not be infringed..."

[mjw930]

drive your truck without a title, tag, or registration and get back to us on that... :wink: :)

You miss the point. Registration for the purpose of reducing gun crime is a total crock.

Criminals could care less about the "requirement" to register. Legislation such as this is simple, feel good propaganda, nothing more. Equating it to motor vehicle registration is a miss direction play, not a valid argument.

[BUIZILLA]

i'm fully aware of that Mark... :wink:

I figured it would take Jamie 10 minutes to respond...

it took 7... :kingme:

[mjw930]

i'm fully aware of that Mark... :wink:

I figured it would take Jamie 10 minutes to respond...

it took 7... :kingme:

Ah, pushing hot buttons are we :cool:

[Rootsy]

Ah, pushing hot buttons are we :cool:

I don't negotiate with terrorists :uzi:

[Tony]

It worked well in Germany, and Poland, if you happened to be a Nazi. Not so well if you weren't. Maybe I should go register as a democrat.

This makes about as much sense as the quote in your signature line.


:beer:

[Ghost]

This makes about as much sense as the quote in your signature line.

Tony, I am curious as He11 about this, so I ask you to please humor me. Forget the 'Democrat' portion of both of those, and give me your opinion on them in that form. I'll even do the cut and paste.

It worked well in Germany, and Poland, if you happened to be a Nazi. Not so well if you weren't.

Thinking outside the box is fine for artists, musicians, and actors, but there better be enough people that think inside the box to feed them.

Regards,

Mike

[Air 22]

You really want a tip? Re-read my posts and realize I agree with you on our right to bear arms.:yes: There's your tip.:biggrin.:
I read ur post the first time quite clear so u can keep ur tip...:wink: That wasnt the point..its the fact that anyone posting a pic of a weapon in this thread was over doing it in your opinion...:nilly: Doesn't matter the topic.. posting pic's is just part of the forum:)...ur not required to do so nor required to open the pic's...but dont slam those that choose to share.:wink:

[Tony]

Tony, I am curious as He11 about this, so I ask you to please humor me. Forget the 'Democrat' portion of both of those, and give me your opinion on them in that form. I'll even do the cut and paste.

It worked well in Germany, and Poland, if you happened to be a Nazi. Not so well if you weren't. Maybe I should go register as a democrat.

Thinking outside the box is fine for artists, musicians,actors, and democrats, but there better be enough people that think inside the box to feed them.

Regards,

Mike

You cannot leave the "democrat" portions out, Mike, as that is exactly what makes the statements offensive...so I reinserted them for those not knowing what we are talking about.

Since the POLITICS section has closed people have done a pretty good job of avoiding name calling and generalizations, it was kind of "fun while it lasted", but since then it seems people have calmed down a bit. I was biting my tongue regarding the sig line, but the Nazi/democrat reference prompted me to respond. (I admit I could have been a bit less direct, though.)

The first statement was just plain confusing, was it likening Nazis to Democrats regarding disarmement? If so it seems a stretch...

The signature line statement is an example of generalization. It's another (I assume) attempt at denigrating democrats, or possibly a frustration with "entitlement" programs. I know we have several musician Registry members, and probably some artists, and maybe even some actors. And, although in the minority and certainly not very vocal, there are some democrat members as well. Is the assumption that all artists, musicians, actors, and democrats are on welfare? If you added blacks to that list...would it be offensive then?

:beer:

[Ghost]

You cannot leave the "democrat" portions out, Mike, as that is exactly what makes the statements offensive...so I reinserted them for those not knowing what we are talking about.

Since the POLITICS section has closed people have done a pretty good job of avoiding name calling and generalizations, it was kind of "fun while it lasted", but since then it seems people have calmed down a bit. I was biting my tongue regarding the sig line, but the Nazi/democrat reference prompted me to respond. (I admit I could have been a bit less direct, though.)

The first statement was just plain confusing, was it likening Nazis to Democrats regarding disarmement? If so it seems a stretch...

The signature line statement is an example of generalization. It's another (I assume) attempt at denigrating democrats, or possibly a frustration with "entitlement" programs. I know we have several musician Registry members, and probably some artists, and maybe even some actors. And, although in the minority and certainly not very vocal, there are some democrat members as well. Is the assumption that all artists, musicians, actors, and democrats are on welfare? If you added blacks to that list...would it be offensive then?

:beer:

D-. Failure to follow directions. :yes:

There was a reason for asking what I asked, which was a totally different question, absolutely can be asked, and should. I understand your rejecting the quotes as they were written. I am interested in something else altogether--your take in two other quotes as re-written by me. I was not interested in your analysis of Democrats, I was and remain interested in your analysis of what happened in Germany and in how economies work.

There's a reason. For example. (And just an example--I am not trying to bring this topic back up, simply illustrate a point of logic.) Someone says Barack Obama should be disqualified from the Presidency because he fails to meet the citizenship requirements. Someone else says that's crap. Some reasonable person (like me :)) merely asks for a clarification of what people mean. I ask for your assessment of the truth or falsehood of: "forget Obama, would you agree with the statement that 'anyone who fails to meet the Constitutional citizenship requirements for the Presidency must be disqualified.'" The point is to analyze the precise point of disagreement. Is is about whether someone believes Obama does or does not meet the requirements, or is it about contempt for the requirements themselves. (Repeat: It's an example--I am not trying to bring the Obama citizenship topic back up, I only want to illustrate a point of logic.)

Okay, does that help show why I asked what I did?

With that, may I ask you for your considered opinion on the truth or falsehood of these, and anything else you'd like to add is welcome?


It worked well in Germany, and Poland, if you happened to be a Nazi. Not so well if you weren't.

Thinking outside the box is fine for artists, musicians, and actors, but there better be enough people that think inside the box to feed them.
Regards,

Mike

[Tony]

Okay, does that help show why I asked what I did?

Nope.

In fact, your post gets a D- for obfuscation! :)

:beer:

[Ghost]

:)
Nope.

In fact, your post gets a D- for obfuscation! :)

:beer:

Dr. Zeus,

This is refusing to answer a fair question, twice.

So much for reasoned debate. This is not simply intellectual dishonesty, it is intellectual dishonesty and intellectual cowardice, together.

Hooper (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000377/): [trying to get the fishing line secure] It may be a marlin or a stingray... but it's definitely a game fish.
[Hooper pulls as the lines snaps and he crashes his head into the wall]
Quint (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001727/): [picking up the line] Gamin' fish, eh? Marlin? Stingray? Bit through this piano wire? Don't you tell me my business again! You get back on the bridge...
Hooper (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000377/): Quint, that doesn't prove a damn thing!
Quint (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001727/): Well it proves one thing, Mr. Hooper. It proves that you wealthy college boys don't have the education enough to admit when you're wrong.

Regards,

Mike

P.S. I'm all ears if you are willing to play. All I did was ask a question. (Well, twice.) :)

[Ghost]

Tony,

Hey, I hope you're well and on your way to a great holiday. After a little reflection I thought it worth posting a follow-up note to my post above. For starters, I think it worth saying that I am a great believer in truth above all else. Second, I think it worth saying that I am a great believer in rational discourse, and I don't want to sink below that.

I suspect it must feel a bit challenging for you to post anything that touches on the political here (at times anyway), swimming against a somewhat overwhelming tide. I am sympathetic to that--it takes both work and courage. I am also sympathetic to the logistics of facing 3 questions to your one, or more. (e've even had some rather funny but meaningful discussions about exactly that.)

In the spirit of truth and fair play above all else, I want to state the following:

my post stating "Tony's absolutely right--it's complete paranoia. Further, I challenge anyone who's studied any history to show me a national, state, or local government that has ever attempted or succeeded in diasarming any citizens in the least, here or abroad. Crazy to even think it" could be fairly interpreted as a cheap shot. Partly for the pure facetiousness of it, and partly for the fact that it was delivered to someone who teaches history. I stand by the truth of it, but the delivery was smarmy.
my post to you, a teacher, starting with a 'grade of D-', was smarmy as well. Again, I stand by the truth of my analysis--I think I asked a fair question which was dodged, but I could and should have been said it more diplomatically and politely.
my post immediately above is, while literally accurate, about as vitrioloic in tone as anything I have ever posted.
In addition to trying to encourage reasonable discourse, I have prided myself here on my willingness to discuss things rationally and diplomatically. I write to nauseating lengths for precisely this reason. I will openly admit to violating the second of those principles with three recent posts.

So, I will admit my tone should have been better. (To be fair, I also believe I am not alone.) Color me guilty as [not directly] charged. Further, I must say that all I have done is ask what I think is a fair question, to which I was incredibly interested in your considered answer.

I will leave my 3 less-than-diplomatic posts above intact so people can decide if I'm a dick for asking that way. Seems like small potatoes relative to the history of discourse here, but I will call myself on my own sin regardless.

At the same time, I ask again, because I think the question was fair from the outset. What do you think of the truth or falsehood of the following two statements?

It worked well in Germany, and Poland, if you happened to be a Nazi. Not so well if you weren't.

Thinking outside the box is fine for artists, musicians, and actors, but there better be enough people that think inside the box to feed them.

I think the community that has been created here is a great one. I admit to posting a great deal more on the non-Donzi topics, not because I am not interested in all, but because I quietly read or ask when I do not know, and I post when I think I have something to add.

The challenges that we all face right now are very real, very big, and very frustrating. It is more important now than at any time in the last 30 years that good people work together to make things better, rather than fight needlessly.

So, thanks for reading. I apologize for my tone in some recent posts. I do ask for your honest opinion, as before.

God bless, and a Merry Christmas to you and your family,

Mike

[Cuda]

This makes about as much sense as the quote in your signature line.


:beer:

Do you think the government should provide for us from the cradle to the grave? That's called sociallisn. Communism is just socailism at the point of a gun.

Try to comprehend that and my signature line, then get back with me.

[Cuda]

You cannot leave the "democrat" portions out, Mike, as that is exactly what makes the statements offensive...so I reinserted them for those not knowing what we are talking about.

Since the POLITICS section has closed people have done a pretty good job of avoiding name calling and generalizations, it was kind of "fun while it lasted", but since then it seems people have calmed down a bit. I was biting my tongue regarding the sig line, but the Nazi/democrat reference prompted me to respond. (I admit I could have been a bit less direct, though.)

The first statement was just plain confusing, was it likening Nazis to Democrats regarding disarmement? If so it seems a stretch...

The signature line statement is an example of generalization. It's another (I assume) attempt at denigrating democrats, or possibly a frustration with "entitlement" programs. I know we have several musician Registry members, and probably some artists, and maybe even some actors. And, although in the minority and certainly not very vocal, there are some democrat members as well. Is the assumption that all artists, musicians, actors, and democrats are on welfare? If you added blacks to that list...would it be offensive then?

:beer:

It's not much of generalization now days, as it is a fact. Very few artists, musician, and actors contribute one damn iota to the weath of the country, uless it is SUBSIDIZED by the government. Blacks were not added because that WOULD be a generalization. Not all blacks are artist, muscians, or actors, and even a good portion of them are not democrats.

If you can't see this country is well on it's way to a welfare state, take your blinders off, and read a history book. This country was never founded by artists, musicians, or actors, and I don't think democrats even existed.

The reason most folks left Europe to found this country was because kings and other royals were taking from the rich, and giving to the poor, making it stupid to either quit taking, or start working.

Your position on this subject is untennable.

[Cuda]

D-. Failure to follow directions. :yes:

There was a reason for asking what I asked, which was a totally different question, absolutely can be asked, and should. I understand your rejecting the quotes as they were written. I am interested in something else altogether--your take in two other quotes as re-written by me. I was not interested in your analysis of Democrats, I was and remain interested in your analysis of what happened in Germany and in how economies work.

There's a reason. For example. (And just an example--I am not trying to bring this topic back up, simply illustrate a point of logic.) Someone says Barack Obama should be disqualified from the Presidency because he fails to meet the citizenship requirements. Someone else says that's crap. Some reasonable person (like me :)) merely asks for a clarification of what people mean. I ask for your assessment of the truth or falsehood of: "forget Obama, would you agree with the statement that 'anyone who fails to meet the Constitutional citizenship requirements for the Presidency must be disqualified.'" The point is to analyze the precise point of disagreement. Is is about whether someone believes Obama does or does not meet the requirements, or is it about contempt for the requirements themselves. (Repeat: It's an example--I am not trying to bring the Obama citizenship topic back up, I only want to illustrate a point of logic.)

Okay, does that help show why I asked what I did?

With that, may I ask you for your considered opinion on the truth or falsehood of these, and anything else you'd like to add is welcome?


It worked well in Germany, and Poland, if you happened to be a Nazi. Not so well if you weren't.

Thinking outside the box is fine for artists, musicians, and actors, but there better be enough people that think inside the box to feed them.
Regards,

Mike
MIke, don't cloud the issue with logic. :)

[Cuda]

Nope.

In fact, your post gets a D- for obfuscation! :)

:beer:
As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Maybe not, but I've always said you can shoot the dumb sumbich, and leave him laying next to the water hole.

[chappy]

I read ur post the first time quite clear so u can keep ur tip...:wink: That wasnt the point..its the fact that anyone posting a pic of a weapon in this thread was over doing it in your opinion...:nilly: Doesn't matter the topic.. posting pic's is just part of the forum:)...ur not required to do so nor required to open the pic's...but dont slam those that choose to share.:wink:

Dwight,

Merry Christmas. You and I are in complete agreement in regards to the core issue of this thread.

Rich:wavey:

P.S. I love pictures.

[Tony]

Holy crap, Cuda, four posts in a row! Honestly, my intention was not to rile you up so much, but there were a couple statements you made that I was hoping you could elaborate on. Trouble now is, there are several more statements that continue to make no sense to me.

Disarmament? Of course I oppose it. But I also cannot see us going there, as others seem to fear. Paralleling our country to Hitler's Nazi Germany? Maybe Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe is one to worry about, but I trust that the political system our forefathers put in place will not allow it here. We are facing quite a few other major concerns that would seem to take precedent over the possibility of our leaders forcing disarmament.

Entitlements? Yes, we definitely have created a problem with them. But to think that only conservative, ccw holding, small business owners are the only ones footing the bill for these programs is ridiculous. I'm pretty certain that artists, musicians, actors, and even plenty of democrats, pay the same tax rates as you do. Do you also deplore the CEO who relocates his business in the Cayman Islands to avoid paying taxes?

Mike, sorry I didn't get get back with you regarding your post...I got a little sidetracked!

:beer:

[Cuda]

Holy crap, Cuda, four posts in a row! Honestly, my intention was not to rile you up so much, but there were a couple statements you made that I was hoping you could elaborate on. Trouble now is, there are several more statements that continue to make no sense to me.

Disarmament? Of course I oppose it. But I also cannot see us going there, as others seem to fear. Paralleling our country to Hitler's Nazi Germany? Maybe Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe is one to worry about, but I trust that the political system our forefathers put in place will not allow it here. We are facing quite a few other major concerns that would seem to take precedent over the possibility of our leaders forcing disarmament.

Entitlements? Yes, we definitely have created a problem with them. But to think that only conservative, ccw holding, small business owners are the only ones footing the bill for these programs is ridiculous. I'm pretty certain that artists, musicians, actors, and even plenty of democrats, pay the same tax rates as you do. Do you also deplore the CEO who relocates his business in the Cayman Islands to avoid paying taxes?


:beer:
LIke I told Mike, he shouldn't cloud the issue with logic, since you obviously have absolutely no knowledge of logic. You make up your own premises to prove your statemnents. In logic it is called presido principi, which in laymans terms is called begging the question.
Look that up in your Funk and Waganal's.

[Air 22]

Dwight,

Merry Christmas. You and I are in complete agreement in regards to the core issue of this thread.

Rich:wavey:

P.S. I love pictures.


Same ...Merry Christmas Rich....:bighug::wink:

[Rootsy]

http://www.shadowflareindustries.com/images/ammo_encoding_fail.jpg

[VetteLT193]

Holy crap, Cuda, four posts in a row! Honestly, my intention was not to rile you up so much, but there were a couple statements you made that I was hoping you could elaborate on. Trouble now is, there are several more statements that continue to make no sense to me.

Disarmament? Of course I oppose it. But I also cannot see us going there, as others seem to fear. Paralleling our country to Hitler's Nazi Germany? Maybe Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe is one to worry about, but I trust that the political system our forefathers put in place will not allow it here. We are facing quite a few other major concerns that would seem to take precedent over the possibility of our leaders forcing disarmament.

Entitlements? Yes, we definitely have created a problem with them. But to think that only conservative, ccw holding, small business owners are the only ones footing the bill for these programs is ridiculous. I'm pretty certain that artists, musicians, actors, and even plenty of democrats, pay the same tax rates as you do. Do you also deplore the CEO who relocates his business in the Cayman Islands to avoid paying taxes?

Mike, sorry I didn't get get back with you regarding your post...I got a little sidetracked!

:beer:

Things usually start small. waiting period on handguns is something we have now... the clinton years of maximum magazine size, certain classes of guns can't be purchased, etc.

it has happened in spots in this country already, it will happen again unless we start the fight now.

[Cuda]

Things usually start small. waiting period on handguns is something we have now... the clinton years of maximum magazine size, certain classes of guns can't be purchased, etc.
it has happened in spots in this country already, it will happen again unless we start the fight now.
Utterally correct. Lawyers refer to it as the slippery slope, to think otherwise is to bury your head in the sand.

[Ghost]

Disarmament? Of course I oppose it. But I also cannot see us going there, as others seem to fear. Paralleling our country to Hitler's Nazi Germany? Maybe Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe is one to worry about, but I trust that the political system our forefathers put in place will not allow it here. We are facing quite a few other major concerns that would seem to take precedent over the possibility of our leaders forcing disarmament.

Hey Tony, a few thoughts leap to mind. First is that while I am pleased to hear you oppose disarmament, I would think that seeing some of what was listed here:

http://home.pacbell.net/dragon13/bradyquotes.html (http://home.pacbell.net/dragon13/bradyquotes.html)

would have you conclude that there are people in real positions of power who seek it. And thus that there is something to be concerned about, if such people gain enough power or powerful enough friends (same thing, really). Would you agree?


Entitlements? Yes, we definitely have created a problem with them. But to think that only conservative, ccw holding, small business owners are the only ones footing the bill for these programs is ridiculous. I'm pretty certain that artists, musicians, actors, and even plenty of democrats, pay the same tax rates as you do. Do you also deplore the CEO who relocates his business in the Cayman Islands to avoid paying taxes?

As far as this goes, let me start by saying that I think most artists, musicians and actors earn their livings fairly in the free market. That's great, and I do not begrudge them a thing. But to your point above, as far as who foots the bill for government programs, I think an important distinction must be made.

That distinction is between A: those who earn a living in the free market, by selling their services to those williing to pay, and B: those whose jobs are paid through tax dollars, whether directly as government jobs or as jobs sponsored by government, which are not critical necessities or do not return value commensurate with their cost, or both.

Trash collection is probably worth taxing for. Defense is worth taxing for. But a HUGE percentage of the taxes that are collected, always by force or the threat of it, are spent on things which are not necessities, or are hugely overspent through poor management and graft on things that are necessities. It is the collection and waste of those dollars that I oppose. Over half of the budget.

Further, (aside from a very small exception not worth going into) it is an accounting lie to say that any of the people who perform jobs paid for by government pay ANY income taxes. "Taxing" away some fraction of a salary funded entirely by taxes is simply a reduction in the true pay of the government-sponsored worker. (If I stole all your money and handed you back $50, I would be lying if I claimed to have paid you anything.) Thus we must be more careful when we think about who is really footing the bill for things. Would you agree?

Nonetheless, taxing to provide certain essential services is, essential. Police, soldiers, etc. provide things the are indisputably needed by all. But if you take a real look at the overall spending of government, more than half of what it spends is not essential and is not useful to all. It is simply those in power handing out various levels of favor to their political supporters. And the long term effect is to injure most of the recipients. Only the few fat-cat-close-cronies get rich off of it. Most of the supposed beneficiaries get poorer. That's my beef.

And, I would agree that the CEO cronies, of either major political party, are cheating us all. Including your Cayman Islands guy. However, a system of redistribution as unfair as ours naturally encourages people to cheat on taxes, as the tax system is corrupt. Before bad monetary policy and massive borrowing hit their inevitable walls, back when we were all enjoying living beyond our means, people didn't complain. As things tighten up, I bet we see a lot more barter economy and other means of avoiding the taxes so many know don't return fair value.

Regards,

Mike

[mjw930]

Saw this on another site and thought it had a place here. I tend to agree with these quotes.

Why I Carry a Gun BY: Anonymous
I don't carry a gun to kill people. I carry a gun to keep from being killed.
I don't carry a gun to scare people. I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.
I don't carry a gun because I'm paranoid. I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.
I don't carry a gun because I'm evil. I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.
I don't carry a gun because I hate the government. I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.
I don't carry a gun because I'm angry. I carry a gun so that I don't have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.
I don't carry a gun because I want to shoot someone. I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.
I don't carry a gun because I'm a cowboy. I carry a gun because, when I die and go to Heaven, I want to be a cowboy.
I don't carry a gun to make me feel like a man. I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.
I don't carry a gun because I feel inadequate. I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.
I don't carry a gun because I love it. I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.

[Cuda]

Hey Tony, a few thoughts leap to mind. First is that while I am pleased to hear you oppose disarmament, I would think that seeing some of what was listed here:

http://home.pacbell.net/dragon13/bradyquotes.html (http://home.pacbell.net/dragon13/bradyquotes.html)

would have you conclude that there are people in real positions of power who seek it. And thus that there is something to be concerned about, if such people gain enough power or powerful enough friends (same thing, really). Would you agree?



As far as this goes, let me start by saying that I think most artists, musicians and actors earn their livings fairly in the free market. That's great, and I do not begrudge them a thing. But to your point above, as far as who foots the bill for government programs, I think an important distinction must be made.

That distinction is between A: those who earn a living in the free market, by selling their services to those williing to pay, and B: those whose jobs are paid through tax dollars, whether directly as government jobs or as jobs sponsored by government, which are not critical necessities or do not return value commensurate with their cost, or both.

Trash collection is probably worth taxing for. Defense is worth taxing for. But a HUGE percentage of the taxes that are collected, always by force or the threat of it, are spent on things which are not necessities, or are hugely overspent through poor management and graft on things that are necessities. It is the collection and waste of those dollars that I oppose. Over half of the budget.

Further, (aside from a very small exception not worth going into) it is an accounting lie to say that any of the people who perform jobs paid for by government pay ANY income taxes. "Taxing" away some fraction of a salary funded entirely by taxes is simply a reduction in the true pay of the government-sponsored worker. (If I stole all your money and handed you back $50, I would be lying if I claimed to have paid you anything.) Thus we must be more careful when we think about who is really footing the bill for things. Would you agree?

Nonetheless, taxing to provide certain essential services is, essential. Police, soldiers, etc. provide things the are indisputably needed by all. But if you take a real look at the overall spending of government, more than half of what it spends is not essential and is not useful to all. It is simply those in power handing out various levels of favor to their political supporters. And the long term effect is to injure most of the recipients. Only the few fat-cat-close-cronies get rich off of it. Most of the supposed beneficiaries get poorer. That's my beef.

And, I would agree that the CEO cronies, of either major political party, are cheating us all. Including your Cayman Islands guy. However, a system of redistribution as unfair as ours naturally encourages people to cheat on taxes, as the tax system is corrupt. Before bad monetary policy and massive borrowing hit their inevitable walls, back when we were all enjoying living beyond our means, people didn't complain. As things tighten up, I bet we see a lot more barter economy and other means of avoiding the taxes so many know don't return fair value.

Regards,

Mike
I agree on many points. I don't begudge anyone any amount of money that can earn. I have a problem with people who don't contribute a dime to the economy, but expect to be paid anyway. In steps the gubment. Any service should charge whatever the market will bear, without being subsidiesed.

As far as I can tell, the goverment taxes should be used to build schoold, highways, and a standing military.