| Author | Message | ||
     Santa Message Board Member Username: Santa Post Number: 109 Registered: 08-2011 |
It seems that very soon we will be able to legally carry our guns across State lines. The bill HR822 easily passed the House and in the Senate there are enough votes to pass it, mabye even if Obama vetoes it. But being an election year he might sign it. If it does become law I have 2 questions. The first question is, is there any State where a NAA mini is illegal? The second question is what gun would you carry across State lines if it became legal? | ||
| Dinadan Message Board Member Username: Dinadan Post Number: 718 Registered: 11-2010  |
Santa - I do not know what state you are in, but many states already have reciprocity. I am in Alabama, and all of the surrounding states and most of the nearby states share reciprocity. A person does still need to check a particular state's law to make certain about the details of CCW in that state. Here is a link to a site that has information about reciprocity among states. In my state any gun you can legally own and can conceal is legal. http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html | ||
| Santa Message Board Member Username: Santa Post Number: 111 Registered: 08-2011 |
Thanks but I already have and am quite aware of what States accept my permit. There are 25 States including my home State of Washington that accept my permit. But I make frequent trips South and Oregon as well as Kailfornia do not honor my permit. Oregon MIGHT issue a non-resident IF you ask the right Sheriff. Kalifornia wont issue to non-residents at all and will not recognize any out of State permit. But I wonder IF National Reciprocity comes about, will any particlar hand gun be legal or illegal? I heard an unconfirmed rumor that NAA mini's were not legal in ALL states. | ||
| Gunr Message Board Member Username: Gunr Post Number: 1184 Registered: 09-2011  |
Santa, I'm ashamed to say you can't legally bring it down here to Oregon. They don't accept ANY other states CCW permit. Bad Law! | ||
| Santa Message Board Member Username: Santa Post Number: 112 Registered: 08-2011 |
Hey Gunr. I wish Oregon did. There is a Sheriff on the East side of the State that will issue non-resident permits but it is a 6-7 hour drive each way from my house. Plus being robbed(cost of gas) at the gas stations. It sure was nice visiting with you on the phone and anytime you feel like doing it again lets do it. | ||
| Chopprs Message Board Member Username: Chopprs Post Number: 6450 Registered: 09-2009  |
No matter what Congress passes even if Obama signs it Illinois, California and New York will not allow it. The problem is that gun laws are enforced on a state level and the Fed has an issue pushing codes on a state by state basis. If even one state refuses, and we KNOW that Illinois will, the rest have argument to follow. The whole thing is a joke as if you have a good attorney in Any state and get arrested for any associated code you can push it to SCOTUS and they have no choice but to dismiss it as it is Constitutional Law. Most will not spend the time or money but the Constitution does say that we "ALL" have a right to have a gun and swing it around in the middle of a mall if you so feel the need....... Seriously if we harken back to the time when it was written, having a gun was nowhere neer as outside the norm as it has been pushed to be seen in today's world. People walked down the street with rifles and dead varmints slung over their sohulders as we hold an iPhone in our hands today! It really is so very sad that the general public has beeen trained to be scared of firearms as they are no more dangerous than your average saw, axe or hammer.......which is pretty much how they were viewed when the constitution was written......truly a disgusting triumph by the Liberal Left! | ||
| Gunr Message Board Member Username: Gunr Post Number: 1186 Registered: 09-2011 |
It might be getting worse! Now, a lot of people want to change the "stand your ground" law, after this dip shit Zimmerman shot the black kid. Did anybody hear yet what he was doing there. Did he live there? Most of black America has got Poor ol Georgie porgie already tried and convicted, and are putting a rope around his neck. I'll bet I know what he's thinking right now. He's shure as hell is hoping he doesn't get a black judge at his trial! | ||
| Millsriver Message Board Member Username: Millsriver Post Number: 13 Registered: 02-2012  |
From the North Carolina DOJ: "Permits Honored in Other States - Permit holders should know that while they can legally carry a concealed handgun while visiting these states, they’re subject to that state’s laws state and are responsible for learning about those laws. States with North Carolina Agreements - Alabama, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Alaska, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Michigan, South Carolina, Arkansas, Mississippi, South Dakota, Colorado, Missouri, Tennessee, Delaware, Montana, Texas, Florida, Nebraska, Utah, Georgia, Nevada, Virginia, Idaho, New Hampshire (resident permits only), Washington, Indiana, New Mexico, West Virginia, Iowa, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Kansas, Ohio, Wyoming". I will welcome a National Right to Carry, but we will still need be aware of each states local rules. Kalifornia, ILLinois and The People's Republic of D.C. will never change. | ||
| Redhawk4 Message Board Member Username: Redhawk4 Post Number: 3019 Registered: 02-2009  |
I hadn't thought of it this way until now. We are always complaining about the Federal Government forcing stuff on us, in the excitement about National Reprocity it's easy to forget that it is a case of the Federal Government forcing something onto states, which those who are already anti concealed carry don't want. | ||
| Coinchop Message Board Member Username: Coinchop Post Number: 2105 Registered: 02-2009 |
It still needs to be worked out so we are covered everywhere by the 2nd Admendment. Some how.../ | ||
| Redhawk4 Message Board Member Username: Redhawk4 Post Number: 3022 Registered: 02-2009 |
I agree Coin that if it's a Constitutional issue there would be more justification for the Feds to tell the States to tow the line. However am I not right in thinking that the concept of a concealed carry permit is not directly a 2nd Amendment issue, thereby giving wiggle room to the States and Courts? | ||
| Coinchop Message Board Member Username: Coinchop Post Number: 2106 Registered: 02-2009 |
How many admendments require a permit? Free speech dosn't. There are places where some free speech is restricted. Not all bad. There are places where shooting is restricted. Not all bad. If I cross the state line I can take my voice, and I can use it with commen sense. Should be able to do the same with my gun? Bottom line, my life is worth as much to me in any other state as it is in the state where I live. Its hard to knock the Federal gov. if they are trying to protect my rights rather than take some away... Just my shot! | ||
| Lohman446 Message Board Member Username: Lohman446 Post Number: 1869 Registered: 10-2010 |
You all think that this sounds like a good idea. Yeh, lets get the federal government at all involved in the permit system. Lets not. They screw it up. Pretty soon California will whine that Florida laws do not properly qualify people and we will all move to California style laws under the guise of some national reciprocity. A good general rule of thumb: if you want to screw something up get the federal government involved. | ||
| Redhawk4 Message Board Member Username: Redhawk4 Post Number: 3025 Registered: 02-2009 |
Agreed Coin - if only it were that simple. Lohman - unfortunately while anti 2nd Amendment people stalk the halls of Washington, I have to agree that there is potential for this to become a double edged sword. We need to be cautious. | ||
| Flowder Message Board Member Username: Flowder Post Number: 5 Registered: 03-2012 |
The government gets you to agree with one side of the sword and slices with the other side of the sword. The interesting repercussions result in an across the board "control" and monitoring and securing for obvious reasons. | ||
| Uncle_lee Message Board Member Username: Uncle_lee Post Number: 2162 Registered: 09-2009  |
The very fact that any state can infringe upon my right to keep and bear arms with any permit or license is in my opinion against the Constitution of The United States of America. If you OK any destruction of any part of it then you will eventually OK the destruction of all of it. They will take it away a little at a time and you will say OK to each bite until it is all gone. Good men put their lives and all their possessions on the line to get us the freedoms that we have and we just negotiate them away. They were willing to give up everything for us and we let it all be taken away. Not negotiate for we never get anything in return when some of our rights are taken away. We just yell to each other, cuss, holler, stamp our feet, slap on meaningless bumperstickers, and come up with COOL sayings about cold dead hands & guns not killing people & etc. Total waste of time and energy. Might as well go watch a ballgame. SHAME! | ||
| Lohman446 Message Board Member Username: Lohman446 Post Number: 1876 Registered: 10-2010 |
Uncle Lee I agree that they are violating the second amenedment. I would also say that regulating of firearms not in plain sight is probably against the 4th amendment. That being said the solution is not to get the feds involved in regulating it in any way shape or form. | ||
| Uncle_lee Message Board Member Username: Uncle_lee Post Number: 2166 Registered: 09-2009 |
That is correct, there should be NO regulations. That is what the Constitution says.(period) | ||
| Heyjoe Message Board Member Username: Heyjoe Post Number: 2657 Registered: 02-2009  |
the way i understood the bills were that states wold have to recognize other states permits just as they recognize each others drivers licenses. states have different standards for drivers licenses but this doesnt stop someone from new york with a drivers license from driving in florida (much to the chagrin of floridians). so there really are no federal standards imposed by the bills just recognition. | ||
| Uncle_lee Message Board Member Username: Uncle_lee Post Number: 2171 Registered: 09-2009 |
If it is like the driving laws, then you should know all the laws on carring in the state you are going to. Here in Indiana we don't wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle but if you cross the river into Kentucky, you better have one with you and put it on. What the government can "give" you with a bill, they can TAKE with a bill. They are playing where they should not play. They smile as they infringe. | ||
| Chopprs Message Board Member Username: Chopprs Post Number: 6516 Registered: 09-2009 |
Yeah, this easily smells to me like they want to make it easier to revoke ALL licences on a Federal level! | ||
| Uncle_lee Message Board Member Username: Uncle_lee Post Number: 2177 Registered: 09-2009 |
I think this is the first step to a "National Carry License". That way they would have all the names in one file. | ||
| Jestus Message Board Member Username: Jestus Post Number: 1 Registered: 06-2012 |
New to the board but not to life. I've served my country, love my wife and friends and own several dogs. And I'm a liberal gun owner. As to national reciprocity I haven't looked into the bill yet. At first thought, if it is to allow me to carry my pistol with me as I drive across country I am for it. If you are all worried about a national data base, you are already in it. If you served your country your fingerprints are on file. If you own a cellphone your location is no secret. So, what do you have to hide? Are any engaged in illegal activity? States are way more restrictive than the national government. Anyone looked at Massachusetts gun laws? BTW, I don't think our minis are legal to purchase there. http://www.fsguns.com/fsg_information.html I agree that there are too many gun laws. I think that we are a united bunch of attitude, not states. I think most gun laws are state initiated not federal. So, think again when you complain about federal government restricting your rights and the 2nd Amendment. As for Obama, the only thing I heard him say about guns is he's not going to take them away. Those are the words he used. If you want to base your position on fear or conjecture then you better not leave your doorway, because if you are paranoid it doesn't mean they aren't out to get you, LOL. If you want to get all hot and bothered about surveillance and airport restrictions and wiretaps, etc., remember who gave us "Homeland Security". Try not to let passionate patriotism restrict intellect. What worries me most is corporate control of our government. Don't blame the liberals for that. The real problem in America today is not whether one is a conservative thinker or a liberal thinker (thinking is good!). The problem is that the power of your vote is minuscule compared to the voting power of corporate money. Me I'd rather travel the country and have peace of mind that my mini is in my pocket because of federal law protecting my rights. -New guy with 2 cents to his name.  ) | ||
| Uncle_lee Message Board Member Username: Uncle_lee Post Number: 2802 Registered: 09-2009 |
I am sick of the idea of giving up your rights and if you don't then you MUST be doing some illegal. Well, Well, you don't need a warrent to search my home. Come right on in and rip it apart. I am doing nothing wrong. I just don't know what to add here. Madcow eating up a brain. | ||
| Red14 Message Board Member Username: Red14 Post Number: 2086 Registered: 02-2009  |
I don't want the federal government involved. Any government that can give you everything, can also take it away. I have no desire to go to California, Oregon, Illinois, or New York. Leave gun rights to the respective states. I have enough government intrusion now. | ||
| Uncle_lee Message Board Member Username: Uncle_lee Post Number: 2807 Registered: 09-2009 |
+1 on that Red. We don't need any more federal laws. | ||
| Bud Message Board Member Username: Bud Post Number: 2318 Registered: 10-2009 |
Sure don't want to move to Massachusetts! | ||
| Gunpacker Message Board Member Username: Gunpacker Post Number: 64 Registered: 05-2012  |
I dont know which woman it was but her suggestion for national carry was a wonderful little detail that 'need' had to be shown to carry concealed. Im all in favor of being allowed to carry in every state. Im just not in favor of it being the federal government giving the ok. Theyve made it clear they cannot be trusted with ANY of our rights. | ||
| Gunpacker Message Board Member Username: Gunpacker Post Number: 65 Registered: 05-2012 |
"As for Obama, the only thing I heard him say about guns is he's not going to take them away. Those are the words he used. If you want to base your position on fear or conjecture then you better not leave your doorway, because if you are paranoid it doesn't mean they aren't out to get you, LOL. " ======================================================== Fast and Furious mean anything? How about a UN Small Arms Treaty? 'Under the radar" gun control ring any bells? | ||
| Tranquilo Message Board Member Username: Tranquilo Post Number: 1162 Registered: 06-2009 |
Jestus, surely you jest us when it comes to bho! Surely you have posted here before under another name (names). | ||
| Roguets1 Message Board Member Username: Roguets1 Post Number: 434 Registered: 09-2011 |
Just because one is not doing anything illegal one should not care about their rights being infringed upon? This may ring true on paper but the Governments are not known for being fine and upstanding when it comes to respecting the individual. Sooner usually than later they begin to take advantage of the powers given them and that is what we call "the abuse of power." If you give it to them they will twist it and use it against you whether you are right or wrong. It is just human nature and hence you must restrict them. Kind of like Communism. It sounds great on paper but in the real world it can never work for there are those out there that are dubious, lazy and deceitful and will take advantage the first oppurtunity available to them. If not sure take a look at this lecture provided at a well to do law school: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86XmQra5WMU&list=FLQZUQL0jUHHUX8YQ1pEbKUg&index=1&feature=plpp_video | ||
| Jestus Message Board Member Username: Jestus Post Number: 5 Registered: 06-2012 |
Tranquilo, I've not been on this forum before early on the 14th. You guys are much too paranoid about conjecture than what already exists. Homeland Security is real and just one step away from an abuse of power. There is no need to fear what the government "might" do. With Homeland Security the door is open already. I know I didn't vote for that. Maybe some should investigate political asylum in another, better country if there are fears about this one. Some balance of opinions and facts need to be presented here before someone blows an artery. Turn the channel and get some different perspectives. Would we rather anarchy? Don't think so. If we hand this government over to big money through "Citizens United" (a misnomer...should be "Corporations United") then you will indeed see our country and our dreams go bye bye. | ||
| Newguy Message Board Member Username: Newguy Post Number: 149 Registered: 11-2010  |
Yes, the current regime is looking out for us good guys! Obama said he is not going to take our guns, and why would he lie? He has been the most honest president in generations and with the full disclosure of all that is going on that he promised in full swing, what is to fear? Thanks for posting Jestus. Welcome to the board and we need a bunch more liberal submissive types on here to balance the independent right wingers! NG | ||
| Uncle_lee Message Board Member Username: Uncle_lee Post Number: 2808 Registered: 09-2009 |
 | ||
| Heyjoe Message Board Member Username: Heyjoe Post Number: 3201 Registered: 02-2009 |
Jestus dont forget to visit our gunowners for obama unite!!! thread. http://www.naaminis.com/discus/messages/27213/42075.html?1338935155 | ||
| Louiethelump Message Board Member Username: Louiethelump Post Number: 3631 Registered: 12-2010  |
Is that your Boy Scout flag you are running up there Uncle Lee????? Aren't they usually marked BSA? Idiots deserve a bit of BS from time to time. | ||
| Chopprs Message Board Member Username: Chopprs Post Number: 7514 Registered: 09-2009 |
.......just exactly what is a "Liberal Gun Owner"? Is that like anything like a used douche? I mean, are you saying that you are on Welfare and love it and think we should have way higher taxes and we should all surrender our guns........that is everyone....but.......YOU? Gimme a break. Liberal Gun Owner. What dipzhit would even say that seriously? | ||
| Lohman446 Message Board Member Username: Lohman446 Post Number: 2278 Registered: 10-2010 |
"Maybe some should investigate political asylum in another, better country if there are fears about this one. " I think this is the best country on earth. I am concerned when the president and his entourage espouse a lack of pride and talk about changing it so much. "Would we rather anarchy? Don't think so. " Under what terms? This is what the liberals fail to understand. Teaming up with the anarchists is teaming up with people who will demand independence on a personal level - without government handouts. As I consider myself one of the strong and able to care for myself I am not as afraid of anarchy as the liberals would like me to be. I question why the liberals that cannot care for themselves embrance the anarchists. | ||
| Jestus Message Board Member Username: Jestus Post Number: 6 Registered: 06-2012 |
Chopprs, et al, Are we lowering to personal attacks now, with name calling, etc.? "Used douche?" "Dipzhit?" What a nice discussion. FWIW, I have an open mind, of which I make liberal use. I have owned a gun since I was in my teens. I think everyone should know how to use one. That's one of the reasons I signed onto this board. I work hard for my meager existence and our house is full of love and laughter and hot food on the table every night. I do not get where you think you can lambast me because I think liberally. You obviously have a one track mind and cannot conceive that people can make choices with their brains and are not just one way/one-sided thinkers. I work alongside folks who, like you, have limited scope in their thinking. Don't believe that you can bully me with your diatribes. (If you own a dictionary you might have to look that one up.) Now if you have something constructive to say, fine. But save your name calling and cowardly personal attacks for some other venue, like your schoolyard. As for other points made here, I can understand fears of losing basic tenets of the Constitution. But do recall that the Founding Fathers did not originally want a democracy, because they didn't think the common populace was intelligent enough to vote on matters of national importance. They (Founding Fathers, such a paternal, fostering term) were from aristocracy and that's why we have a Republic and not a true democracy. (So, why aren't we fighting for "republics" around the world or are we selling folks a snow job there, too?) Our government has always been run by folks looking after us peons. We, who are too ignorant to make thoughtful decisions. Well, listening to some contributors on this board, they may still be right. BTW, all guns were registered during the Revolutionary War. (Look it up) Higher taxes? Our income taxes are at the lowest they've been since the inception of income tax. In the "heyday" of America, those "Fabulous Fifties" when we were King of the Hill after WWII, the middle class was paying a 50% tax rate and millionaires were paying 90% (look it up). Since then, tax rates (government income) have gradually decreased. But the expenses we created (the highway system, for instance, that allows your NAA revolver to get from Utah to Podunk) still need money to run and maintain. That's darn ole' society for ya'. We want stuff but bellyache about paying for it. Want corporations to start taking over? A government is not a corporation and a corporation is not a person. At least with government we can vote. Not so with a corporation. Who do you complain to if the tolls on a privately owned highway go up? Who will listen? Do we really want to return to frontier times? How romantic. Which candidate is really Daniel Boone? | ||
| Uncle_lee Message Board Member Username: Uncle_lee Post Number: 2812 Registered: 09-2009 |
Why not Daniel Boone? We already have Alfalfa. | ||
| Lohman446 Message Board Member Username: Lohman446 Post Number: 2280 Registered: 10-2010 |
"Since then, tax rates (government income) have gradually decreased. But the expenses we created (the highway system, for instance, that allows your NAA revolver to get from Utah to Podunk) still need money to run and maintain. That's darn ole' society for ya'. We want stuff but bellyache about paying for it." Let me make sure I understand something. You are making the argument that tax rate decreases must lead to decreased government income am I correct? Its an interesting argument and ignores the concept of the Laffer curve and a tremendous amount of historical data that supports it. As long as we are not discussing a decrease to 0 a decrease in tax rates has not been proven to correlate to a decrease in government revenue. Your statement that government revenue is down since the 50's is ignorant of fact. In 2011 goverment revenue (in billions of dollars) was 2303.5. In 1950 it was 43.5 (you picked the 50's) and 1960 99.8. You are arguing off a false premise. The premise is that government revenue has gone down since the 50's. Actually government revenue has gone up. Since the entirety of your argument is based on a false premise we can basically disregard it unless you find factual premises to support it. http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/year_revenue_1960USbn_13bs1n#usgs302 | ||
| Bud Message Board Member Username: Bud Post Number: 2320 Registered: 10-2009 |
Another vote for Obama!  | ||
| Louiethelump Message Board Member Username: Louiethelump Post Number: 3637 Registered: 12-2010 |
Income taxes started at a flat 1%. Look it up. As a typical liberal you presume you are the smartest person in the room, when in fact you are a fool. "All guns were registered during the Revolution." This is also a lie. Guns were hand made and not ser numbered and could not be registered. They did an inventory of weapons held by the militia so they would know their fighting strength. Income taxes did not start in the 1950's. look it up. The Christian Crusades were not to force religion, but to take back the Holy land from the invading Muslims who had taken it and put all Christians to the sword. Look it up. They are still at that today. Look it up. The Christian world stopped doing that sort of thing 500+ years ago. The Muslim world is still at it. Look it up. You are a fool jestus, and referred to by regimes such as Obama's, as "useful idiots" along with the "occupy" people. You and your ilk will be slaughtered without mercy when they are through with you just as they were on the "night of the long knives" by Hitler. LOOK IT UP! You are worthy of no more of my time. | ||
| Chopprs Message Board Member Username: Chopprs Post Number: 7517 Registered: 09-2009 |
....it is the like mindset that got us where we are! .........AND GREECE WHERE THEY ARE!!!!!!! | ||
| Jestus Message Board Member Username: Jestus Post Number: 10 Registered: 06-2012 |
Lohman446, The population of the U.S. has nearly doubled since 1955 from 165,931,202 to the 2010 census count of 308,745,538 and the Social Security mean wage index has grown from $3,301.44 in 1955 to $41,673.83 in 2010. Income tax rates have decreased but incomes and population have not. That would explain your revenue numbers. Yes revenue has gone up, but not as much as it could have if we were paying even the same rates we were paying in the '80's. Our GNP for the four quarters of 1955 ranged from 0.40 - 0.43. In 2011 our GNP was 15.26 -15.55. We don't live in a static situation and our rate of taxation relative to the wage index has decreased. Any wonder why the government is in debt? It is not due to the current administration alone as you tend to believe but years of big money paying less and less of their share, and more and more of the middle class shouldering the load. And now the middle class is broken and we're all angry about it. Not just you. | ||
| Dracothered Message Board Member Username: Dracothered Post Number: 46 Registered: 05-2012  |
Here is something to think about if you are an Obumer supporter... (CNSNews.com) - The Obama administration passed another fiscal milestone this week, according to new data released by the Treasury Department. As of the close of business on Oct. 3, the total national debt was $14,837,099,271,196.71—up about $44.8 billion from Sept. 30. That means that in the less-than-three-years Obama has been in office, the federal debt has increased by $4.212 trillion--more than the total national debt of about $4.1672 trillion accumulated by all 41 U.S. presidents from George Washington through George H.W. Bush combined. | ||
| Lohman446 Message Board Member Username: Lohman446 Post Number: 2284 Registered: 10-2010 |
Jestus, You are being intelligently stupid if you honestly think that I believe the entire current national debt is due to Obama. You have ignored the concept of the Laffer curve. The "big money" that you refer to. How much is their fair share? Out of every dollar they make how much should they be allowed to keep? I hear "they don't pay their fair share" and I need to ask what their fair share is exactly? What is the fair share of every citizen who takes part in this democracy? Let us say we accept that the progressive tax system (where tax rates rise as income rises) is acceptable. What should the tax rates be at all brackets? Should there be a 0% bracket? Should there be, as some of my friends get, a less than 0% bracket? Your real enemy is the rampant inflation that has occured since the 1950s. Look at this chart and consider consumer prices were nearly stable through the 1950's and then make a sudden curve http://whatisthatwhistlingsound.blogspot.com/2010/12/monetary-policy-as-tool-for-evil.html. This is partially the cause of the suffering of the middle class. The other cause is an entitlement problem in the middle class. I am lower middle class (under 50K a year). I assure you I am living a far more material lifestyle than my grandparents (who were upper middle class +) did. Despite the doom and gloom outlook of the middle class our problems are not material they are fiscal problems brought on by our own habits The fiscal problems in America are not just "those mean rich people". I don't know what we should tax the rich at exactly for them to be paying their fair share. I do know that with somewhere around 40-50% of Americans paying no federal income tax that there are plenty of people not paying their fair share as I am certain 0% is not a fair share as we cry to shift the burden to other people. | ||
| Lohman446 Message Board Member Username: Lohman446 Post Number: 2285 Registered: 10-2010 |
Obama has given trillions of dollars to the wealthiest of the wealthiest with no strings attached. He has effectively paid those "evil rich peoples" bonuses with tax money. He is hosting $40,000 a plate dinners. Tell me again how much he is for those who are not rich? He has failed to curb rising gas prices. He has added trillions to the debt (not his alone). What bothers me is that some people honestly think Obama is about something different than other politicians. He is not. He has catered to the people who can do him the most good and have the most money. Yet he is supposed to be for the rest of us? Lets be serious and judge the man by his actions. | ||
| Chopprs Message Board Member Username: Chopprs Post Number: 7519 Registered: 09-2009 |
Obama was elected on the premise that he would do exactly the opposite of what he has done. He vowed to lower the debt and he has raised it exponentially. He vowed to be transpaerent and he is the most sneaky and behind closed doors President in my life time and perhaps ever. Literally every single promise that he made was not only a lie but has gone so far the other way as to leave unexplainable how the American people as a whole could have been so blind and gotten so screwed! ......yet there are bucket loads of those that say he is great and has kept all of his promises, simply dumbfounding! | ||
| Gunpacker Message Board Member Username: Gunpacker Post Number: 71 Registered: 05-2012 |
"......yet there are bucket loads of those that say he is great and has kept all of his promises, simply dumbfounding!" ======================================================== Willful ignorance is the most disgusting human trait short of being a criminal. | ||
| Gunpacker Message Board Member Username: Gunpacker Post Number: 72 Registered: 05-2012 |
"The fiscal problems in America are not just "those mean rich people". I don't know what we should tax the rich at exactly for them to be paying their fair share. I do know that with somewhere around 40-50% of Americans paying no federal income tax that there are plenty of people not paying their fair share as I am certain 0% is not a fair share as we cry to shift the burden to other people." ===================================================== One huge problem with our economy is these tax credits whereby a family can not pay a single dime in taxes, but because they cant quit having kids they cant afford they end up getting upwards of $5000 back at refund time. $5000 x the number of families who get it is a huge ••• amount of money. For the last 6 years or so I have figured our taxes and we were supposed to get what we paid in back in refund. EVERY single year of those the IRS has REfigured our taxes and sent us back WAY more than we paid in. In one case it was FIVE times the amount I had figured. Its not free money, although some people seem to think it is. Its TAX PAYER money that should be being used for something other than going on a big screen TV for a family who wouldnt otherwise be able to afford one. The numbers I saw were staggering concerning these 'credits' and how much gets paid out each year to pay them. It wouldnt balance the budget to stop paying these ridiculous tax credit refunds out, but it sure as •••• would be a good place to start. | ||
| Chopprs Message Board Member Username: Chopprs Post Number: 7530 Registered: 09-2009 |
1) Everyone on Welfare should have to take a drug test once a month to get their check. This would likely eliminate half of the scumbags collecting and spending the money on drugs while they pay no taxes! 2) If we put half of the unemployed back to work instead of collecting Unemployment then they could pay taxes. This sure would help! 3) Close the borders and got rid of all of the illegals we then would have a MASS surplus of money as they would not be in our schools and Hospitals and on Welfare costing us money! These three things would solve all of the fiscal issues of this country. It really is simple.... | ||
| Roguets1 Message Board Member Username: Roguets1 Post Number: 440 Registered: 09-2011 |
Do not forget that when a business is taxed the cost gets passed onto the consumer driving prices up. So by taxing the so called greedy drastically more one drives the consumer prices that all pay for a product up. This has a much bigger effect on those making less money than on those making more. A tax no matter where it is placed always affects everybody else economically. Place it higher up and the cost gets passed down the ladder and everybody makes less money. Place it lower down the ladder and consumers have less money to spend on wants or needs and once again everybody makes less money. The moral of the story is; taxes are a necessary evil but they must be managed and kept low. Out of control taxation anywhere on the ladder leads to a breakdown in our economic society. | ||
| Chopprs Message Board Member Username: Chopprs Post Number: 7531 Registered: 09-2009 |
.......actually, if you look a little farther down the road a World Economy is what is desired by the Left. This is where they tried to go with the Carbon Tax. They WANT everything to get expensive so they can introduce a new currency, a World Currency. It really is the same old delusional, "Control The World" scenario. The scary part is that it is true! | ||
| Jestus Message Board Member Username: Jestus Post Number: 12 Registered: 06-2012 |
Lohman, No offense intended, as I am sure you intend me none. I hear a lot of folks blame Obama for stuff that has really occurred over the past 50 -60 years, sorry to have alluded your membership in that club. Yes, inflation, agreed (as I tried to indicate with the mean wage index). Consumerism is a big portion of our problem, an ever expanding economy is "impossible" to accomodate. We have many more possessions than our forbearers. I too have fallen prey to this over the years and I wonder, as my interests, abilities and income changes (or not), what 'good" these "things" are. I think it's a matter of maturation that brings us to a level of knowing what is truly important in life. We, hopefully, all realize this at some point or other. As to where it's all going? Entropy. Resistance is futile ) Might as well take George Carlin's advice. Enjoy your life. Mother nature will make the final decision, though it may not be to our benefit. | ||
| Uncle_lee Message Board Member Username: Uncle_lee Post Number: 2822 Registered: 09-2009 |
"1) Everyone on Welfare should have to take a drug test once a month to get their check. This would likely eliminate half of the scumbags collecting and spending the money on drugs while they pay no taxes!" This has been tried. It is not legal. It is a violation of their Constitutional rights. The only persons not protected by the Constitution is the ones that work and pay the taxes that support the rest.  | ||
| Chopprs Message Board Member Username: Chopprs Post Number: 7536 Registered: 09-2009 |
Georgia is and has been doing it for over a year now! (I think it is Georgia, one of those Reb states anyway...) | ||
| Roguets1 Message Board Member Username: Roguets1 Post Number: 445 Registered: 09-2011 |
They should just make it voluntary. You do not have to take a drug test. You only have to take the test if you want to be on the program. I think the easier and much more economical thing to do is what I call the "2 Balogna Sandwich Program." Very economical, no drug testing, nobody starves to death and best of all the taxpayer keeps most of his money. | ||
| Lohman446 Message Board Member Username: Lohman446 Post Number: 2290 Registered: 10-2010 |
I have major problems with the social welfare system as it is set up now and I think it needs to be addressed. The fact that the people I know who receive food stamps buy better cuts of meat than I do bothers me. That is another story though I think that those of us who think we have it hard need to step back and look around. I can walk into the grocery store and buy basically anything I want. Feeding my family on my income is almost a given and having more than enough on the table to go around is no problem. My grandparents farmed and canned and preserved to be able to do this. When I want to go out to dinner I can. Basically whenever I want. My grandparents probably not. I work about a 9-10 hour work day. My grandparents likely had 8 in before lunch. I have two cars in my driveway, a motorcycle in the garage, electricity that is always on and affordable, too many tv channels to count, access to information via the web at a touch of the button, access to products delivered to my house. Heat that is reliable and affordable enough it stays on (some of you older people who lived up north will recall your water freezing in the glass next to your bed overnight). For all the "OMG look how bad it is" we have it, materially, pretty darn good. | ||
| Roguets1 Message Board Member Username: Roguets1 Post Number: 446 Registered: 09-2011 |
I agree but if we look at what the Governments are taking percentage wise and where that money is going everybody should have a big beef. I, no matter how much I have, do not work so others can benefit from it. I think it fair that I should have the choice to choose when I have enough to be happy with and then can plan my lifestyle accordingly with more or less work to do so. I do not think it fair that I have to work more to keep what I have so another who does not or even can not can live closer to my lifestyle. Now that is talking about the fairness in relation to those that can still have basically what they want. Let us consider the working stiff who works hard all week just to make ends meet. When you add them to the equation and the welfare shopper is looked at; this working man and his lifestyle are leap frogged and the welfare person is now living better than the working man without putting an ounce of effort into it. That is just wrong no matter how you look at it. He tries and gets nowhere while the lacky does not try and is rewarded. I believe this to be a fair summary of what drives most of us crazy. Remember "charity" is a voluntary thing; "welfare" is done at the muzzle of a gun. | ||
| Lohman446 Message Board Member Username: Lohman446 Post Number: 2291 Registered: 10-2010 |
I understand what you are saying Rogue and I think that is one of the hardest points of the debate. What is a reasonable tax rate? Let's step away from the idea of a flat tax and assume a progressive tax rate (where you pay a higher percentage the more you make) is acceptable. What is the lowest reasonable tax rate? What is the highest? The problem we run into is many of those who are accused of "not paying their fair share" are paying over 50% of their income in taxes by the time you add up the taxes they are paying. I just want to know what the max reasonable tax rate is to other people. I don't know where the bottom is. Let us say 1%. The top I would argue is less than 50%. I would also argue that any future changes should involve "across the board" so that we can force our politicians to stop playing bread and circus politics. | ||
| Lohman446 Message Board Member Username: Lohman446 Post Number: 2292 Registered: 10-2010 |
A government, through its very existence, owes some duty to its citizens. The exact boundaries of those duties are up for debate. IMO some form of a welfare system falls within those duties though our current form has gotten out of hand. | ||
| Redhawk4 Message Board Member Username: Redhawk4 Post Number: 3144 Registered: 02-2009 |
In the UK in the 70's there was a 90% income tax band, which I know my Dad fell into at one point and so put some money in to pensions to avoid - kind of a no brainer, would you like to keep 10% of your money or put 100% into a pension. I'm not sure what the level was exactly, but it couldn't have been that high, while my Dad earned decent money, he was certainly not some tycoon in the city or a movie star/pop star. Of course now they have a 19% sales tax and are still broke - the price of socialism Creating a fair tax system is indeed a complex issue and certainly not something you will ever likely get all those who pay taxes to agree is fair. What is happening with the national reciprocity thing? - I've not heard anything lately | ||
| Bud Message Board Member Username: Bud Post Number: 2333 Registered: 10-2009 |
As of April 17th 2012: Dianne Feinstein WASHINGTON -- Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) on Tuesday placed a hold on two controversial pieces of legislation that would force states that allow the concealed carrying of guns to recognize each other's permits. Feinstein informed party leadership that she would oppose the quick passage of two concealed carry reciprocity bills that critics argue would cause a "race to the bottom" in terms of concealed weapon law in the United States. The senator cited the shooting of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed teenager killed in Florida, as one of the reasons she was applying the legislative brakes. "Besides putting domestic violence victims in danger, the concealed carry reciprocity bills would also create potentially life threatening situations for law enforcement officers," Feinstein wrote in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). "In recent weeks, our nation has witnessed tragic gun violence in Sanford, Florida and in Oakland, California, which is only a short drive from my home. Notably, George Zimmerman, the man who shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida, had been issued a concealed carry permit under Florida law, even though he had previously been subject to a court order for domestic abuse of his ex-fiancée. Congress should heed the warnings of law enforcement and not force states to recognize the permits issued to individuals by other states." In putting a hold on both bills, the "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012," and the "Respecting States' Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012," Feinstein is denying them the easiest avenue of passage: unanimous consent. The hold does not eliminate the possibility of passing the bills through regular order, with 60-vote requirements to start and end debate. But it's unclear whether enough support actually exists in the Senate. Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), for instance, has said he would oppose the first bill, which cleared the House of Representatives in November with 43 Democrats supporting it and only seven Republicans voting against it. If, in fact, both bills stall in the Senate, it would constitute a rare defeat for the gun rights lobby, which has had a series of legislative wins on both the state and federal level. And for that, Feinstein's hold gave fellow gun control advocates a rare reason to gloat. "We hear regularly that senators of both parties are getting tired of being ordered around by the gun lobby, and forced reciprocity is exhibit a," emailed Mark Glaze, the director of the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns. "It has nothing to do with the second amendment and everything to do with replacing individual state decisions about public safety with the NRA leadership's wish list." | ||
| Redhawk4 Message Board Member Username: Redhawk4 Post Number: 3145 Registered: 02-2009 |
Thanks Bud, if I had had to guess on who might be involved in holding this up, Dianne Feinstein would have been in my top 10 LOL. My guess is there are many in Washington who would have an issue with this bill and would be happy if it were held up until after the upcoming election because their opinions differ too greatly with the majority of those who elected them. | ||
| Jestus Message Board Member Username: Jestus Post Number: 13 Registered: 06-2012 |
Louiethelump, Yes, I did speak in error regarding the current tax rate as being the lowest since inception. U.S. Income Tax chart for your perusal (adjusted for inflation): http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-federal-individual-income-tax-rates-history-1913-2011-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets However, tax rates were not at 1% flat rate, as you state. For the first 20 years rates remained fairly stable but in 1941 the rates skyrocketed and the brackets were changed. Louie, you are out of line casting me as a know-it-all and by judging all liberals as the same. Should I be judge of you in the same manner? You set the table, sir. I am certainly willing to learn and research material. As for the Crusades, it was still a holy war. And Holy and War don't really jive in my book. Zealots are zealots no matter whose holy book they wave towards heaven. As for the "the Christian world stopped doing that 500 years ago." tell that to the Native Americans who were slaughtered in the path of a Christian nation. Go ahead pull the high and mighty card and cast me off. Just proves you must be the true know-it-all on the board. At least I'm open minded and open to opposing views and corrections when due. | ||
| Jestus Message Board Member Username: Jestus Post Number: 14 Registered: 06-2012 |
National reciprocity does have it's "issues". Certainly allowing someone involved in domestic abuse any access to firearms is a dangerous move (ref. Florida case). As any cop will tell you, domestic violence cases are the most dangerous scenarios (and all too common). Certainly some plain language and common minimal standards can be set in place to allow interstate concealed carry, just as there are with driving licenses. And, though no one really needs to be reminded,... cars kill more people each year than guns, yet guns save more lives or prevent more crime than any car will (save for emergency responders). Common minimal standards...But is this possible? "Politics" aside, the Constitutional rights need to be interpreted for the society we have become. We are no longer a small nation of ~2.5 million as we were in 1776. We are now over 300 million with all the layers of complexity that entails. Who do we want to be as a nation and individuals? If we are a nation of individuals what do we see in the mirror each morning? Do we want some hostile, emotionally unstable person judged legal to carry in Florida (not referencing Zimmerman) to carry into "our" state, where domestic violence charges limit gun carry for our family's safety? ( There's a good argument for a standard set of minimum values.) BTW, I mentioned earlier about arms registration in the Revolutionary War. No, there were no serial numbers, but if you owned a gun your name was registered (by the Colonials) and your affiliation was noted (for or against the British). Gee, I wonder whose guns were marked for confiscation? Jeffrey Snyder in his "Gun Rights" column in "American Handgunner" magazine (Nov/Dec 1996) explained the two basic differences in crimes as noted in English common law. (Quote) "...crimes that were "malum in se", or morally wrong in themselves, like rape, murder or robbery, and crimes that were "malum prohibitum", wrong because prohibited by a legislative pronouncement." What happens in a man's pursuit of a safe society for all, is that "malum prohibitum" restricts the law-abiding in order to protect from the outlaw. We are then ruled, not on our morals, but on the lack of morals of a few. A true social quandary. But Jeff was a little too basic in his original argument. We cannot trust an untrustworthy person to NOT buy a gun. We cannot trust an emotionally unstable person to NOT buy a gun. If we follow that we all have a "right" to bear arms, then we have just afforded a common right to an "uncommon" person. Do you see how complex this gets? What is "uncommon"? What is "normal"? Do we truly want that known nutcase next door to own a gun? If we afford the right to own and carry to all citizens, does that not put everyone in jeopardy of a few? Then the only law abiding would be that of "malum in se" or "after the fact". When we look down at a shot child, then we can say, "a law has been broken, he shall hang". A lot of good that did the child and the future of the good family's gene pool. Is that the basic tenet of this argument of the Second Amendment? That any citizen shall have the right to bear a gun without respect to his/her moral standing or historical record? By following that tenet, you have just empowered the lawless. Where does "upping the ante" stop? Machine guns?, missiles? At some point, some level of common sense has to pervade in a society of men (and women). Society is the ability of a group of people to lead reasonably safe, hopefully, productive lives. The society, like a herd, if you will, is supposed to protect itself for the sake of continuation, if nothing else. And therein may lie the answer, "common man". A convict is not a common man. He has broken the commonality. An insane man is not a common man. These folks are exceptional. Each an individual among individuals. Now multiply that by 300 million. ) No, I don't have an answer. How could anyone? The tenets of the Constitution were written for simpler times. Could they have imagined the current population, economy, industry, technology, science, communication and with that, the concurrent expansion of man's talents and evils? Man has expanded his world and his possibilities, both good and bad. Are we "too big to fail". Good Gawd! I think I'll stop writing now (you are welcome ) and go get a beer. BTW, a driver's license is a "privilege" not a "right", yet it is honored in all 50 states. Does that help us any in this discussion? I need an antacid... | ||
| Lohman446 Message Board Member Username: Lohman446 Post Number: 2294 Registered: 10-2010 |
Laws and Constitutional authority prevents the right of the few from being trampled by the will of the many. I know it sounds like a sound bite but its a single premise that is stated as such. You seem willing to reject it as a valid premise. Once it is rejected you move to a system where laws are built on a utilitarian logic where the needs of the many and of society are more valuable than the autonomy of individuals. Moral autonomy is tossed out the window along with the theory of legal autonomy. Having looked at where utilitarian society leads, even with the best of intentions, you will have to forgive me if I argue that utilitiarian logic must be applied sparingly and with utmost care | ||
| Jestus Message Board Member Username: Jestus Post Number: 16 Registered: 06-2012 |
Lohman, I will consider your post but do not have time at present to respond (it's my lunch hour). Just a quick thought.. so, then, why do states laws trump the 2nd Amendment and, why, then, are several on this board upset that some fed. law wants to make it possible to better exercise the 2nd Amendment by National Reciprocity? There are a lot of conflicting views represented here, unless you throw out all the laws since The Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Is that the point? And I thought a democracy was run by the majority (the will of the many)? Lots of innuendo and shades of definitions running around here. Does anyone have a plan? Or is this a colloquial "free for all" cluster f---? | ||
| Bud Message Board Member Username: Bud Post Number: 2338 Registered: 10-2009 |
Jestus, Where do you work that allows you to spend all this time on the computer? You must be in the union! | ||
| Louiethelump Message Board Member Username: Louiethelump Post Number: 3685 Registered: 12-2010 |
Fortunately, we do not live in a Democracy; but a Republic. This needs to be understood BEFORE any discussion of the Constitution can take place with any intelligence. | ||
| Lohman446 Message Board Member Username: Lohman446 Post Number: 2295 Registered: 10-2010 |
Why do state laws trump the second amendment? Because our government is left to check itself. The bill of rights and the Constitution are meant to impose limits on the government at both the state and federal levels. Unfortunately our check and balance system is not perfect and judges are beholden to others through the poltical process. It keeps the checks and balances from being truly strong. Let me put it another way. Lets say you and I have a disagreement on a contract and you get to select and pay the arbitrator who is going to settle the disagreement. Are all of those arbitrators going to be neutral? Are you going to seek out a neutral one or one who, at least in theory, agrees with you? Here is a very simple statement I will make: any law that runs counter to the bill of rights should be thrown out. I accept that as a valid premise. It does not mean they are. Allowing the will of the majority to rule without the checks and balances of a strong constitution and laws protecting the rights of the few results in bread and cirus politics (google it - it is also referenced as bread and games). Why am I upset that the federal government wants to be involved? Because I think it will ultimately lead to less gun rights and more blatant violations of the second amendment. Saying something will happen is far different than from passing judgement of right or just on it | ||
| Jestus Message Board Member Username: Jestus Post Number: 17 Registered: 06-2012 |
Bud, I work at an employee owned lumber yard. The arrangement is called an ESOP (Employee Stock Option Plan). We are not union. I am on my computer at home, late in the evening, sometimes in the wee hours. At my age I don't sleep much. As Vincent Gardenia said to Cher in "Moonstruck", "Sleep...It'sa too much like death." ) I live only 5 blocks from work so I come home for lunch. Is there any more "esplainin'" you require? BTW, who appointed you hall monitor? Louie, As I said in an earlier post, the U.S. has been spreading the idea of "democracy" around the world for decades. What kind of story is that, when we ourselves, are a republic? Lohman, et al, You've got a lot of laws to weed through. Humans are not infallible and that's why there are three branches of government to maintain the checks and balances. And that, as the pendulum of public and court opinion swings from left to right and back again, it crosses the middle twice and the middle is what guides our course over the long term. (Imagine a sine wave) Currently there is extreme polarity in this country and we are not going to get anywhere when we as a people are at odds like this. It's happening in Congress and it's happening on the street and where does that lead? Nowhere. We need common ground. Let's make some instead of shredding 236 years of history to pieces. This forum reminds me of my first school dance. No dancing. Everyone was too afraid to cross the gym from the boys' side to the girls' side (and vice versa). But I did. I walked up to this big, tall, shy girl, named Marjorie and asked her to dance. I was 4'-10" and she was a skyscraper. We were as different as night and day but we broke the ice and we danced and that is what it was all about. I entered this forum to discuss a variety of topics and instead I get lambasted from all sides because I think liberally. I was verbally insulted here after my very first post. Is this the kind of public persona you want to represent your deeply thought out solutions, if you really have any? And certain folks here seem to have me canned and put on a shelf labeled dumb---. So, if you all just want to stew in your own sauce why bother even talking to each other? Your minds are made up. Obviously, you've solved all the country's and world's problems already so what are you waiting for? Do you need a support group? What really do you think will happen if we all keep bickering and making blanket judgements? Nothing. Big money will be making those choices for you while you're busy calling me a liberal know-it-all. Because we all know how important it is to label someone because it really changes things, right? While you keep bad mouthing me as a liberal (whatever you think that means) and as I keep turning the other cheek (I have four like everyone else ) the movers and shakers in this country are calmly turning the wheels in their favor. Super PAC's are making the everyman vote a JOKE. Think tanks are coining phrases to make us all feel comfy and self-righteous while they herd us where they want. Take for instance "Citizens United" . WTF is that? It's not about citizens. It's about corporate money influencing politics in anonymity. Nice label. Makes you think they are on the side of John Q. Public. NOT. Who do you work for? What have you done today to help your neighbor? How have you contributed to a better world today? It doesn't have to be a big thing, maybe you helped someone push start their car, or put them at ease about their late sprouting vegetable garden or drove somebody to a doctor appointment. Unless, of course, they were a liberal, right? | ||
| Roguets1 Message Board Member Username: Roguets1 Post Number: 449 Registered: 09-2011 |
Wait a minute Jestus; what is wrong with owning machine guns? I own several............. I don't see that to be unreasonable or odd as insinuated. Surely you do not see that as wrong do you? | ||
| Jestus Message Board Member Username: Jestus Post Number: 18 Registered: 06-2012 |
Roguets1, Nothing is wrong with owning a machine gun unless you are intent on damaging the general public or using it to make a point over a discrepancy in the family checking account. ) But if you start collecting rocket launchers and land mines, I might start to worry about possible ulterior motives. Were you a "Gunney" in the service? What do you do now, or still? My point was about "anyone", with a criminal history or mental health problem, being allowed access to such power, is a slippery slope. That was in answer to the premise that gun ownership does not denote criminal or amoral intent. But where do you draw the line? "Here little boy, take this loaded gun and go play." Obviously a line to be drawn there, right? What then is society's responsibility to itself? Where does it draw the line between rights and risk? A contemplative subject, is all. | ||
| Dracothered Message Board Member Username: Dracothered Post Number: 51 Registered: 05-2012 |
The slippery sloop is when you start writing laws that restrict law abiding citizen their rights to own a fire arm they choose to buy. At one point you could go to any local hardware store and buy Thompson Machine guns and sticks of Dynamite without the blink of an eye. So along comes prohibition and the crime goes up because you couldn't legally get a drink. Thompson Machine guns dynamite and many more things get regulated. You can't cut your shot gun barrel down under 18" or you are breaking the law. Much of the evil that gets pinned on guns and many of the other things is due to the government over regulating things and has many coming from the liberal side of it. So when you say you are liberal in thinking you will get pinned with the opinion that you are the type that caused much of the regulating. | ||
| Jestus Message Board Member Username: Jestus Post Number: 21 Registered: 06-2012 |
As the saying goes, "Guns don't kill people. People do." The problem then, is how to stop people from using guns to kill people. Do you stop the guns or the people? Or do you ignore the issue? Or stop both guns and people? Or just have a free for all, with mob justice? Vigilantes? Or let nature take it's course? Do we think we are all cowboys and are gonna draw down on a guy who holds up a liquor store or sprays a mall with lead? By then it's too late. Granted the gun laws we have are too numerous, too confusing, overlapping and many are totally ineffective. But living in a Republic (as many here have insisted on pointing out) decisions like this are made on our behalf, not by popular vote. So the few decide in favor of the safety of the many. If you have a solution, I and many others would like to know it. What is a society supposed to do for it's citizens? We don't all need to go squirrel hunting anymore. There's not enough game or open space to allow for everyone to walk around with a hunting rifle on their shoulder anymore, as someone here romantically pined about our past. Nor is there a need. To feed our population we need vast food supply infrastructures. And with population density as it is, hunting in the confines of a city would be ridiculous. Cities themselves create social anxieties that lead to frustration and violence. Why add fuel to the fire? De-intensifying cities might be a consideration. What? Birth control? Move to the suburbs? If it was just man, gun and nature, that's one thing, but now we have very complicated social constructs and cultural evolution. Many Europeans think our proclivity for guns is ludicrous. I enjoy shooting guns and own a few, but I don't know as we "need" them in our society as much as we" want" them. I think there's a certain 'blood lust" in everyman that makes him want to be the defender, the protector, the provider. In today's society with women working and no bears to kill, well, perhaps we all feel somehow emasculated by the civility of society. That's why we turn to the exciting news on TV and watch "Justified" (Yeah! ) And every time some one of the 300 million people in this country uses a gun for defense or violence we are all over the incident as if it happened in our living room (well, it does...on the TV news!) It gives us a reason to feed the "Y" chromosome. I know I am prey to all that I have posted above. If you aren't prey to the same then you are lying to yourself. I was reading about bomber pilots and flyers in WWII. When interviewed decades later they admitted that war time was the most exciting time of their lives. Not just exciting, but groin achingly exciting. Maybe that's why we always seem to be at war with someone??? How do we satisfy our need to be the strong man. I don't mean some pansy psychoanalytical bull pucky about guns and groins. What I mean is social recognition of man and manhood. The man can't even go out and bring home enough bacon anymore. Commonly, the spouse works as well. What are we missing? A Rite of Passage. We used to have the draft. No need anymore. But yes there is a need. national service of some kind for all boys (and girls) as they come of age (18). Boot camp followed by required service to society. A connection to society and a recognition of accountability. While we are at it what ever happened to the Mason's and Key Club? Hunting clubs, skeet, etc. What about a smoker or men's club? Really. It's okay for men and women to socialize but women have book clubs and sewing circles and coffee with the girls, ...activities where men are not really welcome. Where's the guy things? There has to be social circles for men. Not just sitting' on the back porch havin' a smoke and a drink. I think society needs to bring back the man with a formal recognition. I've been in the local VFW with a retired military friend. We go and have a couple of beers and chew the fat. It could be a good gathering place, but it's really a rather pathetic venue. Sad. Sorry to be so long winded, but I hope this has been worthy of thought. It is somewhat related to national carry rights... | ||
| Uncle_lee Message Board Member Username: Uncle_lee Post Number: 2828 Registered: 09-2009 |
Most leberials ARE long winded. And don't say much either. | ||
| Lohman446 Message Board Member Username: Lohman446 Post Number: 2297 Registered: 10-2010 |
The right to arm oneself was never protected and included in the Constitution due to the need for hunting for putting food on the table. I suggest you read the historical papers surrounding the Constitution for understanding it. The Constitution was meant to limit the role of the government on both a state and federal level. It was meant to limit what the federal government could force on the states and limit what the states could force on the citizens. The people in the cities can live however they want to. They do not have the right to restict my autonomy based on some utilitarian argument that is only needed in the cities. I believe it tantamount that a person be able to take care of their own basic needs (they can elect not to). Those in the cities who cannot have, based on that inability, given up some of THEIR autonomy. They need not take mine because they do not understand freedom requires responsibility and ability. When you start placing the wants (I used the word wants) of society over the rights of the individual you have violated the moral principle of autonomy. You then begin to make utilitarian arguments that insist on helping society as a whole rather than respecting individuals as autonomous. History tells us a society that allows this ultimaty crumbles. I can give you recent examples but one such argument would be "the people need entertained, let's toss a few slaves to the lions". | ||
| Bud Message Board Member Username: Bud Post Number: 2341 Registered: 10-2009 |
Jestus, I guess I can't count on your vote to be hall monitor.  With you being on the computer during working hours, and then when it's lunch time [your time] you have to get off it. Just sounded like an AFL CIO employee. | ||
| Dracothered Message Board Member Username: Dracothered Post Number: 52 Registered: 05-2012 |
Jestus, I believe many of those clubs have gone bye bye because of the over regulating and liberal thinking people. They regulated out the places you could have your gun clubs and all of that. Sorry to say I don't think you are a true liberal, but you are liberal enough that you drive many crazy with your ideas. You own guns so that make you a farther right liberal than most. | ||
| Chopprs Message Board Member Username: Chopprs Post Number: 7554 Registered: 09-2009 |
I think Uncle Lee and Bud have hit the nail on the head..... On another note, there is a town Meeting here where I live tonight, I AM GOING! I live out in the country with a small by comparison piece of property at 14 acres. I used to have another 151 but sold it as I did not use it. Apparently down in the city some idiot was shooting in his back yard so the local Libs have proposed a law that allows for no discharge of firearms at all within the Town limits. There are already laws that prohibit the discharge of firearms within 500 feet of a structure, which this idiot was already in violation of. Why we need ANOTHER, MORE RESTRICTIVE LAW is beyond me. Most of my neighbors have hundreds of acres on which they and their friends hunt. This would instantly become illegal. It is my understanding that literally hundreds of people are going to show up...in a room that holds only fifty chairs. It should be interesting! | ||
| Ikoiko Message Board Member Username: Ikoiko Post Number: 120 Registered: 02-2012 |
Chopprs Please post outcome of the meeting. | ||
| Redhawk4 Message Board Member Username: Redhawk4 Post Number: 3155 Registered: 02-2009 |
It sounds like the old chestnut of, people aren't obeying this law so we'll make another, which if enacted, will be obeyed only by the people who were abiding by the original law. The result, great inconvenience and further restrictions for law abiding folks while stupid still isn't fixed. | ||
| Jestus Message Board Member Username: Jestus Post Number: 22 Registered: 06-2012 |
Lohman, When our forebears roamed the countryside with their muskets on their shoulders it was primarily for food. They also were able to fend off occasional threats from Native Americans. The 2nd Amendment comes from the need to structure, promote, honor (pick an adjective) a public militia to assist the formal military. If we had a system of Home Guard, as in Switzerland, that would solve a lot of our issues and problems with definition. It would give each and every citizen the proper training and "rite of passage" necessary in a society to signify adulthood and all the responsibility that comes with it. It would also put a gun in every home with someone that knows how to use it. Personally, though, I am tiring of you putting words in my mouth and then running off full steam on something I didn't say. Stick to the text or be accused of blustering, sir. As to the hunting remark I was referring to something another poster said about shooting a few squirrels for dinner. Our former primary need for firearms was to collect food, not defense. Just look out the window in the fall and you'll see hundreds of trucks with rifles in the back window. They aren't out defending families, they are hunting for food. As to current needs, I have no problem with sane, law-abiding citizens owning guns for self defense, hunting, target practice, collecting, or competition. I have no problems with sane, law-abiding citizens utilizing CCW. We've changed in 236 years, we've evolved. If your whole being revolves around the need to own and carry a gun, I am sorry for your small sense of life's picture. You already have the right to own and carry. If your state does not allow that then you have a state problem not a federal problem. Your state is violating your Constitutional rights. Take it up with them. But we have evolved. If you want to keep your rifle well oiled for the next conflict on our soil (it's been 150 years since the last one), you are free and welcome to in my book. But technology has far surpassed any ground wars and I doubt a small team of homeowners would stand a chance against trained guerrilla fighters of any invading (or domestic) army. The Constitution was written before repeating rifles, long range artillery, electronic surveillance, telephones, Face Time or man in space...and before vaccines, x-rays, college trained doctors, modern anesthesia, or a myriad number of other things. In the face of all that, my five shot revolver seems picayune and really infinitesimal in importance compared to the great strides in man's growth and potential. I am sorry you are that self-absorbed to not see a greater world outside of your right to bear arms (a right you still have, BTW). | ||
| Dracothered Message Board Member Username: Dracothered Post Number: 53 Registered: 05-2012 |
Jestus, I hate to inform you, but it has been about 67 years since the last conflict on our soil. Have you not heard the Japanese did land on the island off of Alaska which is US soil and we had to fight them back and force them to leave. Also there has been college trained doctors well before the Constitution was ever written or the New World known about by the Europeans. Plus the 2nd Amendment isn't about a Militia, it is about giving the citizens the means to over turn a government if it over steps its bounds as the English did. Also your thoughts on joe average and his buddies not being able to fight off a high tech military just take a look at what has happened over the modern history of warfare with guns and you will see high tech isn't always top gun. | ||
| Louiethelump Message Board Member Username: Louiethelump Post Number: 3699 Registered: 12-2010 |
According to history, Japan considered a full scale invasion of the USA in WWII, and it was decided against as they were aware of an armed population and a "rifle behind every blade of grass" as the Japanese commander supposedly put it. (I was not there) That is a strong argument for the use of weapons by the general poplulation. As a side note but related to the discussion, are you aware of the organization called "Every Jew a .22"? This is an organized group encouraging the Jewish people to arm themselves as a form or resistance in the event of future attempts at holocaust. 50 or 60 million armed citizens defending their homes is not a force to be underestimated. This is the reason that oppressive regimes disarm the public FIRST. This is NOT to prevent hunting. | ||
| Roguets1 Message Board Member Username: Roguets1 Post Number: 454 Registered: 09-2011 |
I see; ok was just a little concerned and just checking on your meaning. My personal thoughts I would rather be responsible for myself and my charges when the crazy with a gun shows up. I would rather take matters for me and mine into my own hands than have the government make edicts to supposedly protect me. | ||
| Chopprs Message Board Member Username: Chopprs Post Number: 7558 Registered: 09-2009 |
...went to the meeting tonight. 162 people opposed showed up including the New York State NRA rep. ....one in favor! She was a PIZZED OFF BIATCH that had a bullet hole in her kitchen window. Apparently some kid with a .22 shot her house so the local Democrats saw fit to propose a new law that pretty much outlawed any gun play in a town of 16,456 people. Typical Liberal CRAP! One person wants a law to fit them and they could care less who they offend. She continually interrupted speakers with her rhetoric and was told by the Chairman to stop or she would be removed. Person after person, including local Legislature and other officials spoke as to the ridiculousness of the proposition.......then....one little old Farmer stood up and asked by what right the local Town Board had to change State and Federal law......that was the end of it! | ||
| 22man Message Board Member Username: 22man Post Number: 573 Registered: 10-2011 |
JPFO video(pro-gun Jews): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eP8DIB7T2eQ&feature=player_embedded#! | ||
| Jestus Message Board Member Username: Jestus Post Number: 23 Registered: 06-2012 |
Bud, The only computer I use at work is work related; orders, invoices, inventory and the like. I enjoin in forum discussions on my own time, sometimes during my lunch with a sandwich in my hand (does slow down the typing though). But I gotta stop the lunchtime online discussions, 'cause, though they are lots of fun, I can't be late getting back to work. ) I have a buddy that works for UPS. It pays well, but he earns every penny. The company rules are severe. He hates the company and the union, but realizes w/o the union the employees would be further nutted down. His back is worn out his knees are going but he's not in a position to quit (why quit a job in this economy?). So, unions somehow still hold back the weight of slave-driving corporations, but in other cases unions are just middleman corporations ...argh! The employee almost becomes a pawn in the power play between corporation and union. Certainly unions had their day in the early part of the 20th century, but now, unchecked, the whole association of union/corporation has spiraled upward and created a juggernaut. Yet, they still protect employees. So, there's a need for balance, but the growth (and possible corruption) of union power... egads! Can't we all just get along? ) Apparently not when money or power is involved... Now, the union mill workers in our town are an example of unions gone awry. They are a spoiled bunch of little boys. We've had a couple of former millworkers try working in our store but they were disappointed they didn't get a pay raise after 30 days. They spent so much time complaining and saying, "that's not my job", we were glad when they quit. They were making more work for everyone else. Of course, all this is anecdotal and may represent only a small perspective of the big picture in either scenario. That said, worker's rights need protection and a union can help with that. It's the "above and beyond" that a union does, that makes people despise them. Fortunately, I work for a local company that was owned by a couple. When they wanted to retire they sold the business to the 70+ employees (ESOP). Nine years now as an ESOP. I've just passed my 14th year of employment with them. What makes it work is that what you put in, you get out. Hard work really does pay off. We've stayed viable, though the belt is tight, through this slump. And we're in the building industry, no less! I think our advantage is that we are small enough to stay light on our feet and adaptive. Small business "rules" in my book! | ||
| Jestus Message Board Member Username: Jestus Post Number: 24 Registered: 06-2012 |
Chopprs, Glad the meeting turned out well. I live in a small city of ~18,000. It is the county seat with a total county population of ~100,000. No firearms are to be discharged in city limits, though I shot a nuisance crow out of a tree at ~100yds once, about 30 years ago, and no one said anything, And another fellow shot a cougar that was perched on a limb above his chicken coop. He got his picture in the paper with the cougar, but no fine. (No one took a picture of me and the crow.) We did have a drive-by a few years ago. Some hooligans shot up an RV parked in front of a guy's house. It was occupied at the time (I don't think the shooter's knew that). No new laws or ordinances came of any of that. Of course, today's atmosphere is a bit more edgy perhaps, since 9/11. In the county, you can shoot on your land if you have ten acres or more (in one spot). I think that is pretty reasonable for hunting, plinking and neighbor safety purposes. There has been difficulty in locating a formal, open, public shooting range, however. NIMBY's for one, and concerns about lead deposits in water tables another. Here in Washington we do have beautiful rivers and salmon etc. God's country, really. There are two local skeet ranges, a bird hunting reserve, an indoor small caliber range, an archery range and then there's the law enforcement range out at the Waste Transfer Station (formerly known as "the dump"). Kinda fun to be dropping off yard waste and hear some of the firepower ripping over there. I've noticed a few bursts that weren't rapid single fire...Of course, besides local LEO's, there's now dozens of Border Patrol and Homeland Security agents stationed out here now. We rate, ay? Mostly we find old gravel pits to do our shooting in. They are getting harder to find as the housing pushes further into the foothills. But that has stopped now since the housing bubble burst. A double edged sword, since I work in the building industry. We are careful to police our brass, avoid using glass as targets and clean up our target debris after our sessions. Leave a mess and someone's gonna get pissed. But, Life is good. | ||
| Dracothered Message Board Member Username: Dracothered Post Number: 54 Registered: 05-2012 |
Here you all go...  | ||
| Jestus Message Board Member Username: Jestus Post Number: 25 Registered: 06-2012 |
Louie & Dracothered (BTW, Drac, what's the source of your nom de plume? Louie's is self explanatory ) Thanks for the correction on the occupation of the Aleutians. The Japs may have well attacked the moon as that place. There's still a note in one of the buildings at Adak that says, "Will the last person to leave Adak, please turn out the lights." Nice place. Maybe we should have let them take it. They could build computers there using our technology while freezing their butts off. ) The Russians tried to coerce the Native populations up there in the 18th and 19th centuries. Trappers and fur trade people. At least one or two forced the natives to paddle them in their baidarkas all the way down the coast, I think as far as San Francisco. Their efforts didn't take hold though. Rough territory, competition for furs from Hudson Bay Co., the Brits, and the Americans, plus warring with the Aleuts and Tlingits finally proved a losing proposition for the Russians. They were glad to sell it to us in 1867. Too bad they didn't know about the gold and oil there... Unforgiving environment up there, raw and yet beautiful. | ||
| Dracothered Message Board Member Username: Dracothered Post Number: 55 Registered: 05-2012 |
If you are meaning my user name then if you break it down you will see what it means. dracothered = draco the red Draco = the Latin word for dragon So you get The Red Dragon | ||
| Jestus Message Board Member Username: Jestus Post Number: 26 Registered: 06-2012 |
Dracothered, Bennie was a positive thinker, "Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight." He sounds like a hippie motivational speaker ) And he was a man of reason and peace: "All Wars are Follies, very expensive, and very mischievous ones. When will Mankind be convinced of this, and agree to settle their Differences by Arbitration? Were they to do it, even by the Cast of a Dye, it would be better than by Fighting and destroying each other." and, "There never was a good war or a bad peace." You will also note that your quote says, "In a republic the individual is protected from the majority" Interesting then that corporations have recently been ruled as persons/individuals and are thus protected from the rest of us. Who's taking control of this country while we squabble over the fence? Big corporations. Just think about it is all I'm suggesting. And thanks for the wolf/lamb quote. Remember, Teddie R. said, "Walk quietly and carry a big stick." (or a little .22 in your pocket ) | ||
| Dracothered Message Board Member Username: Dracothered Post Number: 56 Registered: 05-2012 |
A corporation has always been an umbrella of protection for the individuals that run it. I don't agree with the idea that it is a person/individual. Corporate personhood is the legal concept that a corporation may sue and be sued in court in the same way as natural persons or unincorporated associations of persons. This doctrine in turn forms the basis for legal recognition that corporations, as groups of people, may hold and exercise certain rights under the common law and the U.S. Constitution. The doctrine does not hold that corporations are "people" in the literal sense, nor does it grant to corporations all of the rights of citizens. | ||
| Lohman446 Message Board Member Username: Lohman446 Post Number: 2303 Registered: 10-2010 |
Jestus: You missed the first paragraph. The right of the people to keep and bear arms was a protected right for a reason, and that reason was not putting food on the table or native American invasion. The reason was that the people had just used those arms to throw off a government that they felt was no longer representative of them. The historical documents of the time will give you a better idea what well regulated meant - it had to do with well provisioned. The fact of the matter is the purpose of the second amendment was to assure that the people were always allowed to be armed because our forefathers had the sense to know that an armed populace was vital to prevent abuse of power. My whole being does not revolve around the right to carry a gun. My sense of morality derives, at least primarly, from the concept of the principle of autonomy. As such this document that acts to protect individual autonomy from the government is important to me. If we have evolved to where it needs updated and changed there is a formal method for doing so that is not an appointed judge "reinterperting" it outside of its original intent. Your arguments are utilitarian in nature (the good of society, we don't NEED) and are ignoring the entire purpose of protecting individual rights in that document. The fact that you want to use those arguments to ignore the Constitution alarms me. Utilitarian societies have always failed in the past and generally committed great atrocities while doing so. You will will forgive me (or not) if I reject utilitarian arguments in regards to ignoring the Constitution | ||
| Lohman446 Message Board Member Username: Lohman446 Post Number: 2305 Registered: 10-2010 |
*IF* the purpose of the second amendment was, as you argue, about external threats and lifestyle then the right to keep and bear arms and the desires of the government would have aligned. There would have been no purpose to add it to a document intended to limit the power of the government. | ||
| Dracothered Message Board Member Username: Dracothered Post Number: 57 Registered: 05-2012 |
Has anyone here ever wondered why there has been no attempt at a full scale invasion of the US in any of the World wars except for the Alaskan islands (Also why pick there). The reason is the populace is well armed and most know how to use what they have. The only other attacks that have happened are terrorist attacks which isn't full scale invasion. Even our own government knows the only way is through restriction and disarming. If you follow the one link above about the Jewish group they even have proof that many of the current gun control acts are patterned after Nazi Germany's gun control acts. Now is that what you call the good for Americans??? | ||
| Dracothered Message Board Member Username: Dracothered Post Number: 58 Registered: 05-2012 |
here is the link from above JPFO video(pro-gun Jews): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eP8DIB7T2eQ&feature=player_embedded#! | ||
| Heyjoe Message Board Member Username: Heyjoe Post Number: 3215 Registered: 02-2009 |
Japan attacked the Aleutian Island of Attu as a diversion attempt from their coming attack on Midway. | ||
| Louiethelump Message Board Member Username: Louiethelump Post Number: 3704 Registered: 12-2010 |
Just for the Jestus know it all: (first sign of ignorance in the claim to knowledge) LOUIE THE LUMP (6/15/99-11/24/09)  | ||
| Redhawk4 Message Board Member Username: Redhawk4 Post Number: 3158 Registered: 02-2009 |
I don't know if Japan ever had the capability to realistically consider invading the main body of the USA, that would be pretty difficult with the amount of sea in between to make an effective landing that would have given a strong enough foothold and bee adequately supplied to not have been quickly repelled. However from a tactical viewpoint, millions of well armed citizens in addition to your military forces would make the reality of taking a country over very costly for any enemy and make the stoic sentements of Winston Churchill a reality in deed "....... we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender" It's good to recall that the King had to order Churchill not to go on the D day landings because he was to valuable to his country to risk him being killed at that stage of the war - so they were not empty words when he made that statement, he would personally have been fighting until the end. I don't think we have any such leaders any more, they'd in the main be quickly suing for a peace that saved their and their family's skins and to •••• with the rest of us. The more I've learned about Churchill during WWII the better I understand why my Father held him in such high esteem and why as very young children we were gathered around a Black and White TV to watch his state funeral. | ||
| Satchel Message Board Member Username: Satchel Post Number: 163 Registered: 07-2011  |
I really like how the Swiss handle firearm ownership as someone mentioned earlier. I believe the intent for the right to bear arms was indeed to keep folks honest and to aid in creation of a militia should one ever be needed (the expulsion of foreign or domestic enemies). I would fully support the federal government requiring armed citizens to undergo some kind of formal training (provided by government at the closest base/camp) because just being armed does not fulfill the "intent" but rather being armed and having the knowledge to safely and accurately discharge a round would. Basically I support the right for all to possess firearms...but what good is a loaded rifle/pistol when you have no idea on how to adjust for range or clear misfires and how to control that adrenaline rush one gets when they are being shot at. Perhaps requiring this mini-boot camp would deter the would-be crazies that most anti-gun folks fear. I understand this view seems a little radical but I am also of the belief that every American should serve a 4 year minimum in the military (If its against your religion then you can cook, become a corpsman, or do something else in support of the ones fighting for your religious freedom)! A national reciprocity is the way to go in theory but without convincing the ubber restrictive states to relax and accept the law and all the rights that come with it then we should not expect anything to change anytime soon. I like the drivers license comparison as it reflects the way concealed carry should be (yes a license is a privilege but it is only a regulation for your "right" to travel as per the Privileges and Immunities Clause contained within the constitution). I don't think technology will ever make firearms obsolete as a tool to be used in resisting an invasion. No doubt it would be difficult for me to fight off a few dozen UAVs or a tank division but gorilla warfare would be the logical way of conducting a counter-attack making a foreign army slow their advance and in the case of Vietnam...repel the more advanced military force. Liberal and Democrat don't always mean the same thing and there are a lot of folks that consider the terms synonymous but hopefully most know that our political beliefs are too varied to just be thrown in one of two different camps. Jestus, I think its great that you are a pro-gun advocate that is also a liberal, if only all liberals were that way as then there would be no need for this thread. I think Chopprs is just a little sour is all...he might be overly excitable at the sound of "liberal" but his intentions are in the right place, same goes for quite a few folks on here but don't let that scare you away from this forum as those same folks are full of useful firearm related information. -satchel | ||
| Jestus Message Board Member Username: Jestus Post Number: 33 Registered: 06-2012 |
Lohman, Your comments are duly noted and appreciated. Louie, A good pic of your dear friend. Thanks for sharing. And a great name, too. Dogs do "relaxed" really well, don't they? ) Redhawk, The immensity of our country, being the breadth of the continent, coupled with an ocean on either side, does indeed give us a natural geographic defense, much like Switzerland and it's surrounding mountains. I once read an account of a German commander having a discussion with his counterpart in the Swiss Guard. The German officer proposed that the Swiss had a regional force of only ten thousand guarding a pass. What would they do then, if he invaded them with a force of 100,000 troops? The Swiss officer calmly replied, "Then, sir, each of my men would have to fire their weapon ten times." Satchel, Thanks for your comments. It was getting a little chilly out here. | ||
| Georgeh Message Board Member Username: Georgeh Post Number: 146 Registered: 02-2009 |
Japan did consider invasion, but rejected the idea due to the belief that Americans would snipe at them from every corner. | ||
| Heyjoe Message Board Member Username: Heyjoe Post Number: 3218 Registered: 02-2009 |
Japan couldnt invade California because their guns are not on the approved list. | ||
| Chopprs Message Board Member Username: Chopprs Post Number: 7600 Registered: 09-2009 |
.....seriously, WWII their guns were JUNK! They didn't know how to make good stuff until we showed them how to after the war. They took the ball and ran with it and we left the game....  | ||
| Unkei Message Board Member Username: Unkei Post Number: 8 Registered: 10-2009  |
The NRA is offering us the chance to obtain an " All In" Challenge Coin, the idea being not to let our President the chance for a second term. He and the First Lady have already made their opinions about our "Gun Rights" well known, as have the Chief Justices in his pocket. If re-elected, he will not have to worry about winning another election, and will have our constitution changed to reflect his views. Let's all think of what this could mean for we voters that support or second amendment rights! Unkei | ||
| Uncle_lee Message Board Member Username: Uncle_lee Post Number: 2906 Registered: 09-2009 |
I am so completely, to the bone, happy and feel privileged to have the coin made available to me but I can’t understand what power it has in determining the outcome of an election. I’ll betcha it ain’t free either……  | ||
| Louiethelump Message Board Member Username: Louiethelump Post Number: 3829 Registered: 12-2010 |
Of course not. It is a fund raiser and the funds are what is used to help determine the outcome of an election. | ||
| Uncle_lee Message Board Member Username: Uncle_lee Post Number: 2914 Registered: 09-2009 |
OOOOOO OK Sorry, obama has already bought up all the "for sale" votes. |
