NRA

[packinpatland]

If there was EVER a reason to NOT support the NRA, here it is.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/04/pittsburgh.officers.shot/index.html

[HowardRoark]

If there was EVER a reason to NOT support immigration, here it is.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090404/D97BTI0O0.html

[packinpatland]

Give me a break........were your ancestors here to meet the Mayflower?

[packinpatland]

If there was EVER a reason to NOT support immigration, here it is.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090404/D97BTI0O0.html

The guy used an assault rifle to kill three policemen!!!!!!
What does that have to do with immigration?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

All legal immigrants should be given an assault rifle upon entering the country.

Nothing says welcome like knowing you might need an assault rifle in order to stay alive.

[HowardRoark]

If there was EVER a reason to NOT support immigration, here it is.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090404/D97BTI0O0.html

The guy used an assault rifle to kill three policemen!!!!!!
What does that have to do with immigration?

Jiverly Wong killed three policemen?

What do policemen have to do with Wong?

[crosbiegrad]

What does this guy have to do with the NRA exactly? What this does prove is that we need to be more vigilant in enforcing our laws, the guy had police at his house several times and it doesnt say that he ever found himself in the slammer. At the very least he should have been stripped of his rights to own any kind of gun if he was such an obvious blight on the community. Leave the NRA and us legally Immigrated gun owners alone, were not hurting anyone

[Tyrone Bigguns]

What does this guy have to do with the NRA exactly? What this does prove is that we need to be more vigilant in enforcing our laws, the guy had police at his house several times and it doesnt say that he ever found himself in the slammer. At the very least he should have been stripped of his rights to own any kind of gun if he was such an obvious blight on the community. Leave the NRA and us legally Immigrated gun owners alone, were not hurting anyone

You are either really dumb or willfully obtuse.

[MJZiggy]

Just for clarity's sake. What exactly is the current gun law? What's legal and what's not and what does the NRA think should be legal?

[HowardRoark]

What does this guy have to do with the NRA exactly? What this does prove is that we need to be more vigilant in enforcing our laws, the guy had police at his house several times and it doesnt say that he ever found himself in the slammer. At the very least he should have been stripped of his rights to own any kind of gun if he was such an obvious blight on the community. Leave the NRA and us legally Immigrated gun owners alone, were not hurting anyone

You are either really dumb or willfully obtuse.

You are either really dumb or willfully obtuse.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

What does this guy have to do with the NRA exactly? What this does prove is that we need to be more vigilant in enforcing our laws, the guy had police at his house several times and it doesnt say that he ever found himself in the slammer. At the very least he should have been stripped of his rights to own any kind of gun if he was such an obvious blight on the community. Leave the NRA and us legally Immigrated gun owners alone, were not hurting anyone

You are either really dumb or willfully obtuse.

You are either really dumb or willfully obtuse.

You are either really dumb or willfully obtuse.

[packinpatland]

If there was EVER a reason to NOT support immigration, here it is.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090404/D97BTI0O0.html

The guy used an assault rifle to kill three policemen!!!!!!
What does that have to do with immigration?

Jiverly Wong killed three policemen?

What do policemen have to do with Wong?

Nothing Howard.........you're talking about another senseless killing spree.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30046812/

Try to follow along.

[packinpatland]

Just for clarity's sake. What exactly is the current gun law? What's legal and what's not and what does the NRA think should be legal?

I don't know what the current gun law is. But if anyone can defend the use of assault rifles, I'd like to hear it.

[HowardRoark]

If there was EVER a reason to NOT support immigration, here it is.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090404/D97BTI0O0.html

The guy used an assault rifle to kill three policemen!!!!!!
What does that have to do with immigration?

Jiverly Wong killed three policemen?

What do policemen have to do with Wong?

Nothing Howard.........you're talking about another senseless killing spree.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30046812/

Try to follow along.

Once again, you step in the trap and don't even know it. You follow along.

[packinpatland]

If there was EVER a reason to NOT support immigration, here it is.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090404/D97BTI0O0.html

The guy used an assault rifle to kill three policemen!!!!!!
What does that have to do with immigration?

Jiverly Wong killed three policemen?

What do policemen have to do with Wong?

Nothing Howard.........you're talking about another senseless killing spree.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30046812/

Try to follow along.

Once again, you step in the trap and don't even know it. You follow along.

Explain please.........
.....this should be interesting.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Get this crap out of my Romper Room.

[MJZiggy]

If there was EVER a reason to NOT support immigration, here it is.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090404/D97BTI0O0.html

The guy used an assault rifle to kill three policemen!!!!!!
What does that have to do with immigration?

Jiverly Wong killed three policemen?

What do policemen have to do with Wong?

Nothing Howard.........you're talking about another senseless killing spree.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30046812/

Try to follow along.

Once again, you step in the trap and don't even know it. You follow along.

Not until you answer my question. I want to make sure we all know what we're discussing here and working off the same page.

[packinpatland]

Howard, the original post was about a man killing 3 police officers with an assault rifle.
You counter with a comment about not supporting immigration.
Mr. Wong was an American citizen.......just as crazy as any of the other lunatics that shoot or blow up other Americans. I don't defend the man, any more than I would that young, homegrown, cornfed, Mr. Timothy McVeigh.

Two questions unanswered........
1. Your ancestery
2. Why anyone needs an assault rifle.

[TravisWilliams23]

I don't think it's a question of "need" but more of a question of "want".

The Bill of Rights says I can have one.

It's like a car. Nobody "needs" a sporty car that can go 200 MPH and exceed the posted speed limits but they may "want" one to drive. The difference in this example is, of course, that driving is a privilege and gun ownership is a right.

Emotion plays a part in this topic. Good, law abiding people don't want to see murder and violence visited upon innocents so what might sound like a great idea of restricting the tools used actually leaves the "good" people at the mercy of the "bad" people who won't abide by the law anyway.

I refuse to let anyone argue me out of my "right" or turn it into a privilege, or regulate and restrict that which "shall not be infringed", or who demand I justify my "need" to exercise my right. They are not concerned with gun control, public safety, or prevention of crime. They are concerned simply with control and this is one avenue they travel in pursuit of it.

[MJZiggy]

What a load of BS. Control? Really. Yes, they just want to control you from using something that can kill what? 10 people per second? Perhaps by your logic, you can call a nuke arms and demand that all citizens have the right to bear them. It's says arms right? Oh. Except that in this case, when the law was enscripted, the craziest weaponry available was a 6-foot-long musket that fired off one round every couple of minutes. A little tough to conceal and go off killing in a crowd without warning, no?

Great Britain is pretty free--ask them what they think of our gun laws.

[SkinBasket]

I don't see anything about the NRA in that article.

I think it's much more reasonable to conclude that since his name indicates he's a big Pollack and he went to Catholic high school, we should all agree not to support Pollacks who attend Catholic high school. In fact we should probably round them all up right now and shoot them with assault rifles and abort any children they may have conceived, no matter how old they are.

[packinpatland]

I don't think it's a question of "need" but more of a question of "want".

The Bill of Rights says I can have one.

It's like a car. Nobody "needs" a sporty car that can go 200 MPH and exceed the posted speed limits but they may "want" one to drive. The difference in this example is, of course, that driving is a privilege and gun ownership is a right.

Emotion plays a part in this topic. Good, law abiding people don't want to see murder and violence visited upon innocents so what might sound like a great idea of restricting the tools used actually leaves the "good" people at the mercy of the "bad" people who won't abide by the law anyway.

I refuse to let anyone argue me out of my "right" or turn it into a privilege, or regulate and restrict that which "shall not be infringed", or who demand I justify my "need" to exercise my right. They are not concerned with gun control, public safety, or prevention of crime. They are concerned simply with control and this is one avenue they travel in pursuit of it.

When the framers of our Constitution and Bill of Rights wrote what they wrote, I doubt they knew we would have to deal with assault rifles. I
I am not concerned with whether you own a hand gun or a deer hunting-type rifle.




Jefferson said:

Original Passage:
"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the same coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

-- to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1810

In other words...........we must change with the times. No one is asking you to give up your right to bear arms.

[packinpatland]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090405/ap_on_re_us/children_slain


23 people died in the past 4 days from guns being in the hands of people that were not in their right mind.
..............and these are just the ones that made the front page news.

[SkinBasket]

23 people died in the past 4 days from people not in their right mind using guns... and these are just the ones that made the front page news.

It is clear, my friends, that we must ban people who are not in their right mind.

[MJZiggy]

Skin, you know very well that without military assault weaponry far fewer people would have died. The fact that one of them changed course and killed himself was called a blessing this week considering how much ammunition the man had on him at the time. Maybe if he doesn't have easy access to an instrument specifically designed to kill human beings quickly, he gets in a fist fight and no one has to think of a person's suicide as a "blessing."

[HowardRoark]

If there was EVER a reason to NOT support immigration, here it is.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090404/D97BTI0O0.html

The guy used an assault rifle to kill three policemen!!!!!!
What does that have to do with immigration?

Jiverly Wong killed three policemen?

What do policemen have to do with Wong?

Nothing Howard.........you're talking about another senseless killing spree.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30046812/

Try to follow along.

Once again, you step in the trap and don't even know it. You follow along.

Explain please.........
.....this should be interesting.

Skin is doing a fine job.

[MJZiggy]

Mocking the argument makes it no less valid.

[HowardRoark]

Mocking the argument makes it no less valid.

PIP typically will pull out her broad brush on any subject and paint it with the brush. The ideas probably come from DailyKos, Maureen Dowd or someplace as such. Whenever she is presented with a counterpoint, the :lol: emoticons :lol: come out….or a quick rebuke of the poster. That’s it. When Obama made the mistake of poking fun of Special Olympians on Leno, she thought that was A.O.K. (because, as a parent of a special needs child, she could empathize). When I rudely used similar language (for effect), she thought it was “childish”…..which it obviously was. But, it was also childish for Barack. Her intellectual dishonesty was noted. :oops:

Yesterday, the sad and horrible crime against these three police officers occurred. That is enough evidence for people to NEVER support the NRA. I disagree. With her logic.

Unfortunately, I was able to post a different horrific crime that occurred the day before by a Vietnamese immigrant. It is irrelevant that he was or is an immigrant. By her logic, we should ban all immigrants. I can use a broad brush too.

The Second Amendment was not put there to protect hunters. That is the way it has been manipulated these days. The Second Amendment was/is there to protect the citizenry of the country from tyrannical governments.

I don’t own a gun, nor am I a member of the NRA. There certainly can be a debate about firearms in our country; I just don’t think that emotionally making broad statements after a horrendous crime is the proper way to have the debate.

[SkinBasket]

Skin, you know very well that without military assault weaponry far fewer people would have died. The fact that one of them changed course and killed himself was called a blessing this week considering how much ammunition the man had on him at the time. Maybe if he doesn't have easy access to an instrument specifically designed to kill human beings quickly, he gets in a fist fight and no one has to think of a person's suicide as a "blessing."

No, I don't know that. Mainly because it isn't true. Do you know the difference between what you're calling a military assault rifle and a completely legal civilian rifle?

People want to get up in arms about the term "assault rifle" because it's sexy and conveys certain images that further perceptions and misconceptions about the weapons.

In a brief survey of the stories being lumped together here in a stereotypically clueless way, the ESL chinaman used two handguns of the most common variety (and had a hunting knife!!! ZOMG time to regulate those kitchen knives!!!). The trailer park dad used a shotgun. Hardly "military weaponry." Not that it matters anyway. The Pollack ambushed the police officer, and either poor training or poor decision making skills in the response led to the deaths of the other 2. I doubt getting shot at close range in the skull with an "assault rifle" was any more deadly than being shot at close range in the head with any other rifle.

I haven't heard how the chinaman acquired his weapons, so I can't speak to how "easy" it was for him to gain access to such dastardly instruments of human destruction, but chances are he had plenty of time to think about the difference between killing a building full of people execution style and getting into a fist fight with someone who mocked his goofy accent and shitty English skills.

Maybe without such "easy" access to guns, the fucker would have barricaded the other doors and set the whole fucking place on fire, killing everyone inside. Maybe he sets pipe bombs at the entrances and kills several first responders as well. Maybe it's a "blessing" that he used ballistic weapons instead.

[TravisWilliams23]

When the framers of our Constitution and Bill of Rights wrote what they wrote, I doubt they knew we would have to deal with assault rifles. I
I am not concerned with whether you own a hand gun or a deer hunting-type rifle.




Jefferson said:

Original Passage:
"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the same coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

-- to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1810

In other words...........we must change with the times. No one is asking you to give up your right to bear arms.[/quote]

YET!

I do not own an assault rifle but you seem to be asking me to give up
my right to own one.

Article V of the Constitution spells out the processes by which amendments can be proposed and ratified. I believe this is what Jefferson was writing about in the letter you highlighted.

History teaches us one of the first steps to tyranny is gun control.
Ex: Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 (Translated to English)

* Classified guns for "sporting purposes".
* All citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and have a background check.
* Presumed German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazis from the gun control law.
* Gave Nazis unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons.
* The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats.
* Juveniles under 18 years could not buy firearms and ammunition.

I'm not saying we're Nazi's. Just trying to show why I strongly oppose the government imposing any restrictions on my "right" to bear arms.

[3irty1]

packinpatland, rest assured Uncle Sam already sees things your way when it comes to fully automatic weapons. AK-47's are already very much illegal. This Richard Poplawski guy already violated weapons laws just by having one in his possession.

[SkinBasket]

packinpatland, rest assured Uncle Sam already sees things your way when it comes to fully automatic weapons. AK-47's are already very much illegal. This Richard Poplawski guy already violated weapons laws just by having one in his possession.

Are you trying to tell me that a law didn't stop this guy from shooting someone?!?!?!

But surely, if we banned all rifles, they would simply cease to exist, right? And we could all leave our front doors unlocked without fear? And Micheal Moore could just stroll in and sit down and talk to us and we'd all be friends and love each other? Right?
.
..
...
right?

[packinpatland]

Mocking the argument makes it no less valid.

PIP typically will pull out her broad brush on any subject and paint it with the brush. The ideas probably come from DailyKos, Maureen Dowd or someplace as such. Whenever she is presented with a counterpoint, the :lol: emoticons :lol: come out….or a quick rebuke of the poster. That’s it. When Obama made the mistake of poking fun of Special Olympians on Leno, she thought that was A.O.K. (because, as a parent of a special needs child, she could empathize). When I rudely used similar language (for effect), she thought it was “childish”…..which it obviously was. But, it was also childish for Barack. Her intellectual dishonesty was noted. :oops:

Yesterday, the sad and horrible crime against these three police officers occurred. That is enough evidence for people to NEVER support the NRA. I disagree. With her logic.

Unfortunately, I was able to post a different horrific crime that occurred the day before by a Vietnamese immigrant. It is irrelevant that he was or is an immigrant. By her logic, we should ban all immigrants. I can use a broad brush too.

The Second Amendment was not put there to protect hunters. That is the way it has been manipulated these days. The Second Amendment was/is there to protect the citizenry of the country from tyrannical governments.

I don’t own a gun, nor am I a member of the NRA. There certainly can be a debate about firearms in our country; I just don’t think that emotionally making broad statements after a horrendous crime is the proper way to have the debate.

Attack and snipe...........what you're best at Howard.

[Patler]

Skin, you know very well that without military assault weaponry far fewer people would have died. The fact that one of them changed course and killed himself was called a blessing this week considering how much ammunition the man had on him at the time. Maybe if he doesn't have easy access to an instrument specifically designed to kill human beings quickly, he gets in a fist fight and no one has to think of a person's suicide as a "blessing."

The man who killed the most people, the one at the community center who then committed suicide, used handguns. He had a permit for at least one for more than 10 years, according to several articles I have read. To have prevented that situation you would have to completely outlaw ownership of all firearms.

[retailguy]

Attack and snipe...........what you're best at Howard.




Whenever she is presented with a counterpoint, the :lol: emoticons :lol: come out….or a quick rebuke of the poster. That’s it.

PIP - I think that Howard has you figured out.




I just don’t think that emotionally making broad statements after a horrendous crime is the proper way to have the debate.

Howard - My vote for "best quote of the year". You win, hands down.

[retailguy]

Skin, you know very well that without military assault weaponry far fewer people would have died. The fact that one of them changed course and killed himself was called a blessing this week considering how much ammunition the man had on him at the time. Maybe if he doesn't have easy access to an instrument specifically designed to kill human beings quickly, he gets in a fist fight and no one has to think of a person's suicide as a "blessing."

The man who killed the most people, the one at the community center who then committed suicide, used handguns. He had a permit for at least one for more than 10 years, according to several articles I have read. To have prevented that situation you would have to completely outlaw ownership of all firearms.

Ding, Ding, Ding. Patler wins the "hidden goal" sweepstakes. Of course, you were primed with the goal in an earlier post, when ziggy said to "check with the British". Yes, the British have it all figured out, don't they? :wink:

[packinpatland]

Article VII, Amendment II

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

[Patler]

Article VII, Amendment II

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Your point???

[MJZiggy]

Skin, you know very well that without military assault weaponry far fewer people would have died. The fact that one of them changed course and killed himself was called a blessing this week considering how much ammunition the man had on him at the time. Maybe if he doesn't have easy access to an instrument specifically designed to kill human beings quickly, he gets in a fist fight and no one has to think of a person's suicide as a "blessing."

The man who killed the most people, the one at the community center who then committed suicide, used handguns. He had a permit for at least one for more than 10 years, according to several articles I have read. To have prevented that situation you would have to completely outlaw ownership of all firearms.

Ding, Ding, Ding. Patler wins the "hidden goal" sweepstakes. Of course, you were primed with the goal in an earlier post, when ziggy said to "check with the British". Yes, the British have it all figured out, don't they? :wink:


What's my goal?

[packinpatland]

Article VII, Amendment II

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Your point???

My point is, we have the National Guard, we do not need a 'well regulated militia'. At the time of the writing or the Constitution this was paramount. It was taken for granted guns were needed for hunting.......and defense.

Howard,

PIP typically will pull out her broad brush on any subject and paint it with the brush. The ideas probably come from DailyKos, Maureen Dowd or someplace as such. Whenever she is presented with a counterpoint, the emoticons come out….or a quick rebuke of the poster. That’s it. When Obama made the mistake of poking fun of Special Olympians on Leno, she thought that was A.O.K. (because, as a parent of a special needs child, she could empathize). When I rudely used similar language (for effect), she thought it was “childish”…..which it obviously was. But, it was also childish for Barack. Her intellectual dishonesty was noted.

I didn't use any emoticons.....you used 3.
I didn't read Dowd, or DailyKos.
When something as terrible as those killing happen, is that NOT the time to bring up the fact that laws need to be changed?

[Patler]

Article VII, Amendment II

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Your point???

My point is, we have the National Guard, we do not need a 'well regulated militia'. At the time of the writing or the Constitution this was paramount. It was taken for granted guns were needed for hunting.......and defense.


Try as I might, I just don't see where the Constitution says those rights evaporate because of the existence of the National Guard, or because we as a society no longer rely on hunting and gathering for daily sustenance.
Some may argue the need for defensive purposes exits to this day. It also can be argued that the National Guard is more governmental armed forces than it is a militia of the citizenry.

[Patler]

Article VII, Amendment II

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Your point???

My point is, we have the National Guard, we do not need a 'well regulated militia'. At the time of the writing or the Constitution this was paramount. It was taken for granted guns were needed for hunting.......and defense.



The right expressed, "...of the people to keep and bear Arms" is very clear. Any "qualifier" is specifically excluded by the phrase, "shall not be infringed". Any limitation, for the reasons you expressed or for others, is an infringement of the basic right to keep and bear arms. Therefore, the change requires a Constitutional Amendment.

[packinpatland]

I am not disputing the 'right'. I am simply saying the type of arms needs to revisited.

[crosbiegrad]

I am British and have only lived in America for the last 3 years, gun laws in Britian are extremely strict. Do you think that prevents psycho's and criminals from obtaining them?No. It does prevent honest law abiding citizens from having them though, leaving one of those two groups vulnerable.
When I say British, I actually mean I am Scottish, have a lookat the fall out after the Scots had their rebellion in 1744-45, first thing the English set about doing was banning Scots from having any weaponry, subduing the Scots under English control.
Also, nowhere in the constitution does it imply the right to bear arms is for the purpose of hunting. Having dealings with the redcoats does make you want to be able to defend yourself though.

[Patler]

I am not disputing the 'right'. I am simply saying the type of arms needs to revisited.

Our Founding Fathers included many ingenious individuals, inventors and developers of various types, so much so that the original documents provided for the protection of inventors' inventions by patent rights. In no way shape or form did they expect that "Arms" would forever be limited to the muzzle-loaders that existed that day. They prepared a document intended to exist for the ages, into a time they could not even dream of. They knew that changes would be needed as society and mankind changed, so they provided for a procedure of Amendment.

So, what is meant by "Arms"? Should the rights granted by the Second Amendment be interpreted as broadly as those under the First Amendment? A literal approach to interpretation would lead one to the conclusion "Arms" means any and all weaponry. It did at the time the Constitution was written and amended. I believe that is what was meant at the time, but I also believe our Founding Fathers would not now want the result that occurs, because applying that to today allows "the people" to own tanks, missiles, even nuclear weapons.

Our Founding Fathers, being pretty clever, forward-thinking guys, realized they could not foresee the result of all they wrote. So... we get back to the idea of an Amendment. Limiting rights under the Constitution fits nicely with all those purposes listed in the Preamble, "...in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..." Basically, it tells us what we all know, that in a civilized society, most rights are not absolute and unbounded.

Some of those rights are limited by other factors. The inherent dangers of certain materials limits the unregulated right to own those materials and the nuclear weapons that can be created from them. But for others, like perhaps howitzers, .50 cal. machine guns, missile launchers and the like, we get back to a properly passed Amendment, not judicial or legislative applied limits on the Constitutional Rights granted, as the best solution to deal with it.

[MJZiggy]

Patler, are you sure that's not the very thing she's suggesting?

[Patler]

Patler, are you sure that's not the very thing she's suggesting?

She suggested a need for limitations, cited existing language in the constitution for support, and offered an interpretation of that language. That leads me to the conclusion that she is looking for a fast resolution via legislation or judicial interpretation based on the existing language, not an Amendment. I recognize that she may be unwilling to admit that now, or that I may have been wrong in my conclusion. However, if I am wrong in my conclusion, and she really does favor an Amendment, in my opinion there is an analytic disconnect in her arguments in this thread.

[packinpatland]

Patler, are you sure that's not the very thing she's suggesting?

She suggested a need for limitations, cited existing language in the constitution for support, and offered an interpretation of that language. That leads me to the conclusion that she is looking for a fast resolution via legislation or judicial interpretation based on the existing language, not an Amendment. I recognize that she may be unwilling to admit that now, or that I may have been wrong in my conclusion. However, if I am wrong in my conclusion, and she really does favor an Amendment, in my opinion there is an analytic disconnect in her arguments in this thread.

Good God!
Patler, don't read into this more than I intended.
There was no way in the 1700's that those men could have forseen the weapons that now exist.
I am simply saying that laws must change to accomodate change.

[Patler]

Patler, are you sure that's not the very thing she's suggesting?

She suggested a need for limitations, cited existing language in the constitution for support, and offered an interpretation of that language. That leads me to the conclusion that she is looking for a fast resolution via legislation or judicial interpretation based on the existing language, not an Amendment. I recognize that she may be unwilling to admit that now, or that I may have been wrong in my conclusion. However, if I am wrong in my conclusion, and she really does favor an Amendment, in my opinion there is an analytic disconnect in her arguments in this thread.

Good God!
Patler, don't read into this more than I intended.
There was no way in the 1700's that those men could have forseen the weapons that now exist.
I am simply saying that laws must change to accomodate change.

I'm trying not to read anything into it, just understand your position.

You started this thread with an anti-NRA comment, and transitioned into a Constitutional commentary. I stayed out of it for nearly two pages, until you had posted 11 comments on those two pages. Now you accuse me of trying to read too much into it? :roll:

[packinpatland]

Patler, are you sure that's not the very thing she's suggesting?

She suggested a need for limitations, cited existing language in the constitution for support, and offered an interpretation of that language. That leads me to the conclusion that she is looking for a fast resolution via legislation or judicial interpretation based on the existing language, not an Amendment. I recognize that she may be unwilling to admit that now, or that I may have been wrong in my conclusion. However, if I am wrong in my conclusion, and she really does favor an Amendment, in my opinion there is an analytic disconnect in her arguments in this thread.

Good God!
Patler, don't read into this more than I intended.
There was no way in the 1700's that those men could have forseen the weapons that now exist.
I am simply saying that laws must change to accomodate change.

I'm trying not to read anything into it, just understand your position.

You started this thread with an anti-NRA comment, and transitioned into a Constitutional commentary. I stayed out of it for nearly two pages, until you had posted 11 comments on those two pages. Now you accuse me of trying to read too much into it? :roll:

Patler, TravisWilliams23 brought up the Bill of Rights.
And since when is it not OK for members to voice an opinion on this site?
My opinion is that the NRA needs to be revamped. That there is no justification for assualt weapons. No one has even come close to coming up with anything other than 'it's my right'. Well, it should be my right to not wear a seat belt, but the law says I have to. So I do. If I don't, I only hurt myself.....that's not the case with assault weapons.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Personally, I don't think you should have to wear a seatbelt, but that's another law that liberals crammed down our throats. They love to pass laws protecting you from yourself, and they don't know when to stop.

[Patler]

Patler, TravisWilliams23 brought up the Bill of Rights.
And since when is it not OK for members to voice an opinion on this site?
My opinion is that the NRA needs to be revamped. That there is no justification for assualt weapons. No one has even come close to coming up with anything other than 'it's my right'. Well, it should be my right to not wear a seat belt, but the law says I have to. So I do. If I don't, I only hurt myself.....that's not the case with assault weapons.

You then quoted the Second Amendment, with no comment.
I asked what you meant by that quotation.
Did I ever, in any way suggest you should not express an opinion?
ABSOLUTELY NOT! Instead, I tried to find out what you were getting at.
Once you expressed it, (the National Guard, hunting, defense explanation) I replied, disagreeing. You brought up revisiting what arms should be allowed, and I proposed a way of doing that, by Amendment.

Why are you so blasted defensive about my comments? Because I suggested you were most likely looking for a more immediate solution like legislation or judicial interpretation? Am I allowed to respond to you only if I agree with you?

Now you confuse me even more. You quoted, commented on and interpreted the Second Amendment. Now you say, "My opinion is that the NRA needs to be revamped." I honest to God do not understand what you mean by that. How would revamping the NRA address the right to bear arms, if the right itself is not properly limited? The NRA does not define the right.

Just to be clear, I am not disputing your right to hold that opinion. I am trying to understand what that opinion is so that we might discuss it. Isn't that what this board is for????

[Patler]

Personally, I don't think you should have to wear a seatbelt, but that's another law that liberals crammed down our throats. They love to pass laws protecting you from yourself, and they don't know when to stop.

I suspect they have met me. I probably need to be protected from myself! :lol:

[3irty1]

PIP, you know that the NRA (National Rifle Association) is just a non profit organization right? Are you suggesting that they need to pay their lobbyists less or what?

Like I said before, it is already illegal to buy, sell, or own fully automatic assault rifles and machine guns like the one used by this clown in your story. Its also illegal to shoot and/or murder people. Is that not enough laws? Are the existing laws not enforced with the appropriate penalties in order to deter criminals who break them? Spell out for us exactly what you'd like to see changed.

[Patler]

PIP, you know that the NRA (National Rifle Association) is just a non profit organization right? Are you suggesting that they need to pay their lobbyists less or what?

Like I said before, it is already illegal to buy, sell, or own fully automatic assault rifles and machine guns like the one used by this clown in your story. Its also illegal to shoot and/or murder people. Is that not enough laws? Are the existing laws not enforced with the appropriate penalties in order to deter criminals who break them? Spell out for us exactly what you'd like to see changed.

I am not a member of the NRA, although I was a long time ago when I was a member of a competitive rifle team as a teenager (no, we didn't shoot flint-locks!). I could be wrong, but I think there remains a lot of confusion when people discuss weapons bans because of inconsistent and inaccurate use of terminology. Too often appearance alone seems to dictate. Semi-automatic rifles with folding or open stocks, pistol grips and the like, in weapon-function terms are no different than the "deer rifle" people say they have no intention of banning. Yet seeing the weapon adorned in camouflage paint they scream "assault rifle" and argue that it should be banned.

[Dylan McKay]

Personally, I don't think you should have to wear a seatbelt, but that's another law that liberals crammed down our throats. They love to pass laws protecting you from yourself, and they don't know when to stop.


I cut the seatbelts out of my car and replaced them with fully automatic
rifles.

[Little Whiskey]

I'm not sure what laws will do to keep this from happening. Lawbreakers (ie criminals/murders) do exactly what their title says, break laws.

If the gov't wants to take away our RIGHT to have firarms then make them do it the right way and put there name on an ammendment.

to say that the founding fathers didn't mean "assault rifles" or any more than flint locks is just as absurd as saying that freedom of press or speach doesn't include internet, tv, or alike.

a militia is a "army of citizens" if citizens don't have access to weapons they cannot forma militia.

just be careful of the RIGHTS you want them to take away. the gov't may just take away one that you care about.

[mraynrand]

Be careful what you add to the Reichsgesetzblatt.

[packinpatland]

PIP, you know that the NRA (National Rifle Association) is just a non profit organization right? Are you suggesting that they need to pay their lobbyists less or what?

Like I said before, it is already illegal to buy, sell, or own fully automatic assault rifles and machine guns like the one used by this clown in your story. Its also illegal to shoot and/or murder people. Is that not enough laws? Are the existing laws not enforced with the appropriate penalties in order to deter criminals who break them? Spell out for us exactly what you'd like to see changed.

I am not a member of the NRA, although I was a long time ago when I was a member of a competitive rifle team as a teenager (no, we didn't shoot flint-locks!). I could be wrong, but I think there remains a lot of confusion when people discuss weapons bans because of inconsistent and inaccurate use of terminology. Too often appearance alone seems to dictate. Semi-automatic rifles with folding or open stocks, pistol grips and the like, in weapon-function terms are no different than the "deer rifle" people say they have no intention of banning. Yet seeing the weapon adorned in camouflage paint they scream "assault rifle" and argue that it should be banned.

Patler, the killer of the 3 police officers used an AK-47.
These are the kinds of guns I wish were banned. I just can't see what pupose they serve. 40 rounds a minute........
http://www.proguns.com/ak47-assaultrifles.asp

[Patler]

Patler, the killer of the 3 police officers used an AK-47.
These are the kinds of guns I wish were banned. I just can't see what pupose they serve. 40 rounds a minute........
http://www.proguns.com/ak47-assaultrifles.asp

I understand that, and I wasn't suggesting there was confusion with respect to the one incident. I think there is some confusion when people try to discuss the issue generally.

Per the information provided by 3irty1, buying, selling or owning that particular weapon is already illegal. So, I will ask again in another way, what are you suggesting in stating that it should be "banned"?

I am not arguing with you, I am trying to understand your position so that we might discuss it. If it is already illegal to buy, sell or own it, what more do you think should be done?

[mraynrand]

PIP, you know that the NRA (National Rifle Association) is just a non profit organization right? Are you suggesting that they need to pay their lobbyists less or what?

Like I said before, it is already illegal to buy, sell, or own fully automatic assault rifles and machine guns like the one used by this clown in your story. Its also illegal to shoot and/or murder people. Is that not enough laws? Are the existing laws not enforced with the appropriate penalties in order to deter criminals who break them? Spell out for us exactly what you'd like to see changed.

I am not a member of the NRA, although I was a long time ago when I was a member of a competitive rifle team as a teenager (no, we didn't shoot flint-locks!). I could be wrong, but I think there remains a lot of confusion when people discuss weapons bans because of inconsistent and inaccurate use of terminology. Too often appearance alone seems to dictate. Semi-automatic rifles with folding or open stocks, pistol grips and the like, in weapon-function terms are no different than the "deer rifle" people say they have no intention of banning. Yet seeing the weapon adorned in camouflage paint they scream "assault rifle" and argue that it should be banned.

Patler, the killer of the 3 police officers used an AK-47.
These are the kinds of guns I wish were banned. I just can't see what pupose they serve. 40 rounds a minute........
http://www.proguns.com/ak47-assaultrifles.asp

Where would you draw the line? 30 rounds/minute, 1 round per minute? Would those rules have prevented the killer from obtaining a semi-automatic gun that fires 40 rounds/minute. What if he used a machete that was ultra sharp? Should we pass a law saying that machetes have to be relatively dull? How about outlawing knives or 'any instrument that can be used to kill?' Please outline what your criteria are for outlawing certain implements and how you would ensure that these implements would not fall into the hands of criminals.

[Little Whiskey]

PIP, the point is that it is our Constitional Right to be able to own a firarm. It they want to change it make them follow the process, not just pussy-foot around and take the short cuts.

Are more people killed each day due to highspeed auto crashes? (I realize there are more cars than guns) Should the gov't (like mentioned ealier) ban all sports cars? or install governors on all cars that only allow them to reach 55 mph?

[swede]

I went to do a little target practice with my son-in-law and his new .40 caliber pistol.

We had to go to three different stores before we found ammunition.

The word on the street is that the Obama administration has been messing with ammunition manufacturers.

I'm willing to believe that demand for ammo has simply gone up as Americans have watched Obama kneel before Europe and offer to disarm for the sake of world peace.

Edit: I am a horrible shot. At 25 yards I only put three out of 16 rounds in the black. It seems like the easiest thing in the world to do, but being accurate within a few inches in twenty-five yards is tough sledding.

[Patler]

But if owning this weapon was already illegal, a Constitutional Amendment wouldn't help, better definition wouldn't help. I'm not sure you can make it "more illegal" than it already is in a hope to achieve compliance. Perhaps increasing the penalty would help dissuade some from violating laws that already exist, but not all would be dissuaded.

[packinpatland]

Patler, the killer of the 3 police officers used an AK-47.
These are the kinds of guns I wish were banned. I just can't see what pupose they serve. 40 rounds a minute........
http://www.proguns.com/ak47-assaultrifles.asp

I understand that, and I wasn't suggesting there was confusion with respect to the one incident. I think there is some confusion when people try to discuss the issue generally.

Per the information provided by 3irty1, buying, selling or owning that particular weapon is already illegal. So, I will ask again in another way, what are you suggesting in stating that it should be "banned"?

I am not arguing with you, I am trying to understand your position so that we might discuss it. If it is already illegal to buy, sell or own it, what more do you think should be done?

If any one weapon is banned, couldn't we just stop the production of bullets? Is that too simplistic? Where are most of these guns, banned or not, produced? Are they meant for military use, and they find their way into the hands of 'civilian' dealers? And if that kind of weapon is illegal and banned, as 3irty1 says, why are they for sale on the internet? Maybe the AK-47 isn't one of those banned....yet?
I too am just trying to understand.

[Little Whiskey]

If any one weapon is banned, couldn't we just stop the production of bullets? Is that too simplistic? Where are most of these guns, banned or not, produced? Are they meant for military use, and they find their way into the hands of 'civilian' dealers? And if that kind of weapon is illegal and banned, as 3irty1 says, why are they for sale on the internet? Maybe the AK-47 isn't one of those banned....yet?
I too am just trying to understand.

most class 3 fire-arms (machine guns, full auto) are not allowed to be produced an more. but you can buy them (if your state allows) from other previous owners. all are pre-1970's (i think pre-1968).

[SkinBasket]

PIP, you know that the NRA (National Rifle Association) is just a non profit organization right? Are you suggesting that they need to pay their lobbyists less or what?

Like I said before, it is already illegal to buy, sell, or own fully automatic assault rifles and machine guns like the one used by this clown in your story. Its also illegal to shoot and/or murder people. Is that not enough laws? Are the existing laws not enforced with the appropriate penalties in order to deter criminals who break them? Spell out for us exactly what you'd like to see changed.

I am not a member of the NRA, although I was a long time ago when I was a member of a competitive rifle team as a teenager (no, we didn't shoot flint-locks!). I could be wrong, but I think there remains a lot of confusion when people discuss weapons bans because of inconsistent and inaccurate use of terminology. Too often appearance alone seems to dictate. Semi-automatic rifles with folding or open stocks, pistol grips and the like, in weapon-function terms are no different than the "deer rifle" people say they have no intention of banning. Yet seeing the weapon adorned in camouflage paint they scream "assault rifle" and argue that it should be banned.

Patler, the killer of the 3 police officers used an AK-47.
These are the kinds of guns I wish were banned. I just can't see what pupose they serve. 40 rounds a minute........
http://www.proguns.com/ak47-assaultrifles.asp

Where would you draw the line? 30 rounds/minute, 1 round per minute? Would those rules have prevented the killer from obtaining a semi-automatic gun that fires 40 rounds/minute. What if he used a machete that was ultra sharp? Should we pass a law saying that machetes have to be relatively dull? How about outlawing knives or 'any instrument that can be used to kill?' Please outline what your criteria are for outlawing certain implements and how you would ensure that these implements would not fall into the hands of criminals.

I've already pointed out why it didn't matter what weapon that guy used. PIP doesn't want to see things for what they are. She wants to see them for what she wants them to be. The officers were shot at close range in the head. What relevance does rounds/minute have?

Does anyone even know if the AK was modified for full auto? If not, then it's pretty much the same as any other rifle. Again, not that it mattered in this situation and not that it has anything to do with the NRA.

[mraynrand]

If any one weapon is banned, couldn't we just stop the production of bullets? Is that too simplistic?

Of course it is. Think, Mcfly, THINK.

[Zool]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ak47

A little info on the AK and its variants.

[SkinBasket]

If any one weapon is banned, couldn't we just stop the production of bullets? Is that too simplistic?

Of course it is. Think, Mcfly, THINK.

They sell bullets by size, not by weapon. Any number of weapons can use the same sized ammunition. The AK-47 uses a very common type of ammunition. Another reason it's still used around the world today.

[Freak Out]

Get this crap out of my Romper Room.

If anything is FYI material this is.....Mods?

[Freak Out]

Edit: I am a horrible shot. At 25 yards I only put three out of 16 rounds in the black. It seems like the easiest thing in the world to do, but being accurate within a few inches in twenty-five yards is tough sledding.

Common.

[mraynrand]

[quote=HarveyWallbangers]Get this crap out of my Romper Room.

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0bcc7Fy4fneeJ/610x.jpg

[hoosier]

The discussion in this thread has focused on militias a bit more than on the individual's right to own a handgun to protect life and property, or a rifle to hunt with.

The accepted original intention of the Second Amendment is that it sought to preserve the public's right to form an armed militia in case of emergency to prevent a government (such as the British) from tyrannizing the people through the use of a permanent army. People like James Madison and Webster even argued that the Second Amendment was unnecessary because they thought no government could ever form an permanent army that was large and powerful enough to defeat a militia.

Things have changed considerably in the last 200+ years. The firepower of any standing army of any country in the world is vastly superior to what any civil militia could hope to put together. Who seriously thinks that the original rationale behind the 2nd amendment (the right to bears arms protects us against tyranny) has any real meaning to us today? What scenarios do you envision where the right to bear arms would contribute meaningfully to preserving liberty?

[Patler]

The discussion in this thread has focused on militias a bit more than on the individual's right to own a handgun to protect life and property, or a rifle to hunt with.

The accepted original intention of the Second Amendment is that it sought to preserve the public's right to form an armed militia in case of emergency to prevent a government (such as the British) from tyrannizing the people through the use of a permanent army. People like James Madison and Webster even argued that the Second Amendment was unnecessary because they thought no government could ever form an permanent army that was large and powerful enough to defeat a militia.

Things have changed considerably in the last 200+ years. The firepower of any standing army of any country in the world is vastly superior to what any civil militia could hope to put together. Who seriously thinks that the original rationale behind the 2nd amendment (the right to bears arms protects us against tyranny) has any real meaning to us today? What scenarios do you envision where the right to bear arms would contribute meaningfully to preserving liberty?

Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion.

[swede]

The discussion in this thread has focused on militias a bit more than on the individual's right to own a handgun to protect life and property, or a rifle to hunt with.

The accepted original intention of the Second Amendment is that it sought to preserve the public's right to form an armed militia in case of emergency to prevent a government (such as the British) from tyrannizing the people through the use of a permanent army. People like James Madison and Webster even argued that the Second Amendment was unnecessary because they thought no government could ever form an permanent army that was large and powerful enough to defeat a militia.

Things have changed considerably in the last 200+ years. The firepower of any standing army of any country in the world is vastly superior to what any civil militia could hope to put together. Who seriously thinks that the original rationale behind the 2nd amendment (the right to bears arms protects us against tyranny) has any real meaning to us today? What scenarios do you envision where the right to bear arms would contribute meaningfully to preserving liberty?

Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion.

When the time comes, all it takes is guts and a monkeywrench to fight.

Obama is proving the opposite to be true as well. You can be the strongest nation in the world and still surrender if your leader is gutless enough.

[hoosier]

The discussion in this thread has focused on militias a bit more than on the individual's right to own a handgun to protect life and property, or a rifle to hunt with.

The accepted original intention of the Second Amendment is that it sought to preserve the public's right to form an armed militia in case of emergency to prevent a government (such as the British) from tyrannizing the people through the use of a permanent army. People like James Madison and Webster even argued that the Second Amendment was unnecessary because they thought no government could ever form an permanent army that was large and powerful enough to defeat a militia.

Things have changed considerably in the last 200+ years. The firepower of any standing army of any country in the world is vastly superior to what any civil militia could hope to put together. Who seriously thinks that the original rationale behind the 2nd amendment (the right to bears arms protects us against tyranny) has any real meaning to us today? What scenarios do you envision where the right to bear arms would contribute meaningfully to preserving liberty?

Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion.

Supplied by the CIA. Hardly an example of a civilian militia. But that still doesn't address the fact that we're talking about the US. Which aggressor or tyrant is a US civilian militia going to save us from? To me the whole thing smacks of arrested adolescent fantasy movies like Wolverines.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Which aggressor or tyrant is a US civilian militia going to save us from?

http://bfgreen.com/photos/obama1.jpg

Socialism or Death!

[SkinBasket]

Which aggressor or tyrant is a US civilian militia going to save us from?

I don't know, maybe our government. Read some history. Stranger shit has happened.

[SkinBasket]

Harvey beat me to Zool's mom, now he beats me to the punch here. There's something unnatural about that fella.

[hoosier]

Civilian militias are going to protect us against our government. Right. :lol:

[retailguy]

Civilian militias are going to protect us against our government. Right. :lol:

As farfetched as it may seem, if the choice is Obama, or the militia? Tex sign me up, I'm coming down! :D

[Little Whiskey]

Civilian militias are going to protect us against our government. Right. :lol:

I'll bet there were a few that thought like you in 1776 too. A bunch of colonies rising up to take on, at the time, the most powerful nation in the world.

[packinpatland]

Civilian militias are going to protect us against our government. Right. :lol:

As farfetched as it may seem, if the choice is Obama, or the militia? Tex sign me up, I'm coming down! :D

Yes, now it's time to move this to the FYI.

[Freak Out]

How in the hell did this puss filled colostomy bag of a thread get started again? The latest slaughter on American streets the past week? Sad stuff to be sure but Americans will never give up their guns...period. The cold dead hands thing is true. The Obama boogeyman thing just cracks me up though...he's going to take our guns and ammo away.... :lol:

Didn't we just go through this in DC? It's a local issue and will remain one for the most part. Congress or the Prez will never take away the right of the US citizen to own a gun.

[HowardRoark]

Didn't we just go through this in DC? It's a local issue and will remain one for the most part. Congress or the Prez will never take away the right of the US citizen to own a gun.

Got this from a NRA friend today......



Pertaining specifically to the Second Amendment, the State of Montana, in
particular, seems to have it all together. In anticipation of the recent
Heller Supreme Court decision, a host of Montana's senators and
representatives--along with its Secretary of State-- proposed a resolution
stating "that any 'collective rights' holding in D.C. v. Heller
will violate
Montana's compact with the United States, the contract by which Montana
entered the Union in 1889."

The Montana resolution recalls, "When Montana entered into
statehood and adopted the Compact as a part of the Montana Constitution in
1889, included was a provision guaranteeing the right to bear arms to 'any
person.'"

The resolution continues, "To be clear, the wording of the right to bear
arms reservation in the Montana constitution is exactly the same today as it
was in 1884."

Furthermore, the Montana resolution says, "There is no question that the
contract into which Montana entered for statehood was predicated upon an
understanding that the people of Montana would benefit from an individual
and personal right to bear arms, protected from governmental interference by
both the federal and Montana constitutions. That was the clear intent of the
parties to the contract."

The resolution ended by stating sternly, "A collective rights holding in
Heller would not only open the Pandora's box of unilaterally morphing
contracts, it would also poise Montana to claim appropriate and historically
entrenched remedies for contract violation."

In other words, representatives and senators in the State of Montana
unequivocally put Washington, D.C., on notice that it would not tolerate the
infringement of its citizens' right to keep and bear arms. I don't
think I'm
reading anything into the resolution by assuming that they were implying
that they would secede before they let the federal government trample their
Second Amendment liberties. (Plus, I've just been told that New Hampshire
may also be preparing to propose such a resolution.

[HowardRoark]

Civilian militias are going to protect us against our government. Right. :lol:

The President will hire and fire CEOs of major industries and set salaries of middle managers across the country. Right. :lol:

[packinpatland]

Take a few minutes, this is interesting reading.

http://www.bradycenter.org/xshare/pdf/reports/guns-2008election.pdf

[hoosier]

Didn't we just go through this in DC? It's a local issue and will remain one for the most part. Congress or the Prez will never take away the right of the US citizen to own a gun.

Got this from a NRA friend today......



Pertaining specifically to the Second Amendment, the State of Montana, in
particular, seems to have it all together. In anticipation of the recent
Heller Supreme Court decision, a host of Montana's senators and
representatives--along with its Secretary of State-- proposed a resolution
stating "that any 'collective rights' holding in D.C. v. Heller
will violate
Montana's compact with the United States, the contract by which Montana
entered the Union in 1889."

The Montana resolution recalls, "When Montana entered into
statehood and adopted the Compact as a part of the Montana Constitution in
1889, included was a provision guaranteeing the right to bear arms to 'any
person.'"

The resolution continues, "To be clear, the wording of the right to bear
arms reservation in the Montana constitution is exactly the same today as it
was in 1884."

Furthermore, the Montana resolution says, "There is no question that the
contract into which Montana entered for statehood was predicated upon an
understanding that the people of Montana would benefit from an individual
and personal right to bear arms, protected from governmental interference by
both the federal and Montana constitutions. That was the clear intent of the
parties to the contract."

The resolution ended by stating sternly, "A collective rights holding in
Heller would not only open the Pandora's box of unilaterally morphing
contracts, it would also poise Montana to claim appropriate and historically
entrenched remedies for contract violation."

In other words, representatives and senators in the State of Montana
unequivocally put Washington, D.C., on notice that it would not tolerate the
infringement of its citizens' right to keep and bear arms. I don't
think I'm
reading anything into the resolution by assuming that they were implying
that they would secede before they let the federal government trample their
Second Amendment liberties. (Plus, I've just been told that New Hampshire
may also be preparing to propose such a resolution.

That's hilarious, Howie. Thanks for the laugh. Will you be taking the entire state of Montana with you in your quest for an underpopulated, unregulated island in the Caribbean?

[hoosier]

Civilian militias are going to protect us against our government. Right. :lol:

As farfetched as it may seem, if the choice is Obama, or the militia? Tex sign me up, I'm coming down! :D

Yes, now it's time to move this to the FYI.

Somebody is being derilict in their self-appointed duties.

[SkinBasket]

Take a few minutes, this is interesting reading.

http://www.bradycenter.org/xshare/pdf/reports/guns-2008election.pdf

Why would anyone "take a few minutes" when you refuse to even acknowledge posts that completely refute your own reactionary and ill-informed brain farts?

[SkinBasket]

Civilian militias are going to protect us against our government. Right. :lol:

If they have the means, yes. But some people want to put all the weapons in the hands of those with political power. I'm not interested in living under a dictatorship, no matter how well intentioned it is with it's redistribution of wealth and state ownership of businesses.

On a side note, I'm looking forward to buying my new Obama LS economy sedan next year. My comrades have noted how inefficient my current pick-up is.

[mraynrand]

Civilian militias are going to protect us against our government. Right. :lol:

If they have the means, yes. But some people want to put all the weapons in the hands of those with political power. I'm not interested in living under a dictatorship, no matter how well intentioned it is with it's redistribution of wealth and state ownership of businesses.

On a side note, I'm looking forward to buying my new Obama LS economy sedan next year. My comrades have noted how inefficient my current pick-up is.
I's a good car...
http://www.allcarpictures.com/pictures/hindustan/ambassador-classic/hindustan-ambassador-classic.jpg

[HowardRoark]

Civilian militias are going to protect us against our government. Right. :lol:

If they have the means, yes. But some people want to put all the weapons in the hands of those with political power. I'm not interested in living under a dictatorship, no matter how well intentioned it is with it's redistribution of wealth and state ownership of businesses.

On a side note, I'm looking forward to buying my new Obama LS economy sedan next year. My comrades have noted how inefficient my current pick-up is.
I's a good car...
http://www.allcarpictures.com/pictures/hindustan/ambassador-classic/hindustan-ambassador-classic.jpg

The Pelosi GTxi SS/RT Sport Edition is cooler.

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

[packinpatland]

Howard, is your boat big enough to carry a car too?

[mraynrand]

The Pelosi GTxi SS/RT Sport Edition is cooler.

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

1974 Detroit is back with a vengeance!

http://mentalfloss.cachefly.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/peel_p50.jpg

[mraynrand]

The changing face of NYC:

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-DL221_segway_D_20090407005950.jpg

[swede]

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z236/dsteenswede44/IT_South_Park_The_Entity.jpg

[MJZiggy]

http://technabob.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/uno_motorcycle_segway.jpg

[bobblehead]

Just for clarity's sake. What exactly is the current gun law? What's legal and what's not and what does the NRA think should be legal?

I don't know what the current gun law is. But if anyone can defend the use of assault rifles, I'd like to hear it.

Would you like to hear it, or would you listen to it??

[mraynrand]

"nice guns don't kill nice people."

http://collateraldamage.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/kittyrifle.jpg

[swede]

I just got one of those for my grandaughter!

I had to adjust the trigger tension a little, but that little Sugarbooger can really shoot the black out at 50 paces.

[packinpatland]

Just for clarity's sake. What exactly is the current gun law? What's legal and what's not and what does the NRA think should be legal?

I don't know what the current gun law is. But if anyone can defend the use of assault rifles, I'd like to hear it.

Would you like to hear it, or would you listen to it??

No one has even come close to a reasonable explanation of why we need these guns. I'll listen.

[mraynrand]

Just for clarity's sake. What exactly is the current gun law? What's legal and what's not and what does the NRA think should be legal?

I don't know what the current gun law is. But if anyone can defend the use of assault rifles, I'd like to hear it.

Would you like to hear it, or would you listen to it??

No one has even come close to a reasonable explanation of why we need these guns. I'll listen.

I didn't realize 'need' was in the second amendment.

[Freak Out]

I just got one of those for my grandaughter!

I had to adjust the trigger tension a little, but that little Sugarbooger can really shoot the black out at 50 paces.

:lol:

[Freak Out]

I have a neighbor who is the classic Alaska survivalist...loads of guns and ammo..canned goods and rations out at the cabin, hates liberals...other than that he is a nice guy...anyway he was telling me that Obama was destroying ammunition and passing laws that would limit brass recycling and was the cause of the ammo "shortage" in America. I tried to tell him that there was a shortage because wackos like him made a huge run on guns and ammo before, during and after the election and that we were still fighting two wars.....of course he would have none of it. :lol:

I have heard numbers from gun dealers that sales were up at least 45 percent nationwide and have stayed high even after the election.

[3irty1]

Just for clarity's sake. What exactly is the current gun law? What's legal and what's not and what does the NRA think should be legal?

I don't know what the current gun law is. But if anyone can defend the use of assault rifles, I'd like to hear it.

Would you like to hear it, or would you listen to it??

No one has even come close to a reasonable explanation of why we need these guns. I'll listen.

The US agrees that there is a limit to what guns the normal Joe should be able to buy and own. Where do you draw the line? Right now that line is drawn at fully automatic weapons. These are the weapons that you can hold down the trigger and shoot a lot of bullets in very short time. We do allow semi-automatic guns that shoot each time you pull the trigger without having to be manually cock it. Guns have to be put into these categories. Assault rifles might look scary but if its not fully automatic its no more dangerous than a typical gun used for hunting.

[bobblehead]

Just for clarity's sake. What exactly is the current gun law? What's legal and what's not and what does the NRA think should be legal?

I don't know what the current gun law is. But if anyone can defend the use of assault rifles, I'd like to hear it.

Would you like to hear it, or would you listen to it??

No one has even come close to a reasonable explanation of why we need these guns. I'll listen.

I guess I could just say that no one has ever come close to a reasonable explanation why I can't have these guns.

I could also ask why liberals are cool with Iran having nuclear weapons, but don't want me to have an assault weapon.

I could point out that Hitler came in, disarmed the population, then killed all the jews when they couldn't defend themselves.

I could say that the entire reason we have the right to weapons is so, if necessary, we can rise up and fight an overreaching government and in order to do this we need more than a six shooting revolver.

I'm quite sure you wouldn't consider any of those "reasonable" so I guess I revert to that document, The Constitution, that says you don't get to tell me NOT to have a weapon even if you don't think I NEED it.

Edit: I can think of a lot of things you don't NEED. Alcohol. Free health care that someone else pays for. Shoes and socks.

I guess I would ask you why I should have to convince you or anyone else that I need something that I want...something that makes me feel really safe in my home. I think you should convince me why anyone NEEDS to drive a car when bicycles will get you from A to B, otherwise we should outlaw them...global warming and all. GW is a threat to humanity, guns in the wrong hands is a threat to a few people. We should outlaw cars long before we outlaw guns.

[swede]

Amen, Bobble.

I've come a long way since I voted for Clinton in '92.

[mraynrand]

Amen, Bobble.

I've come a long way since I voted for Clinton in '92.

Me too. The most influential events were, in order

1) The debate over Affirmative Action in California
2) University professor gloating over having Boxer and Feinstein as Senators, because they were women and didn't have much else of substance to offer (For the record, I voted for Feinstein over Huffington, but voted for Hershenshon over Boxer - OY!)
3) Murphy Brown 'debate.' I argued that all things being equal, being raised by a married father and mother was preferable to being raised by single Mom. INtelligent friend pointed out that less than 20,000 years ago, humans lived in collective tribes, so there was no 'ideal' living situation. Another friend pointed out he had been raised by his mother and so I didn't know what I was talking about. He didn't talk to me for a month. Another pointed out that Dan Quayle - was a 'fucking moron.'
4) Reading 'The Agenda' by Woodward. Clinton was the ultimate pragmatist - and a man who wanted to be liked/adulated more than anything else. Policy decisions seemed to follow the polling winds.
5) The 2000 Presidential election. First encountered Chris Matthews and other cable TV personalities. Tried to grasp how anyone could think the election was stolen. Realized that Al Gore was insane. Finally dawned on me that people who had distinct ideologies viewed everything through their own prism, picking and choosing only facts or opinion that supported their POV. Bad enough from the conservatives, but out of control from the liberals, including, I realized in full glory for the first time, almost every single ostensibly 'neutral' TV news anchor. Charlie Rose and McNeil/Lehrer seemed the only sane folks in the mix. Recognized liberals in all their glory pretty much for the first time.

[Little Whiskey]

http://www.fieldandstream.com/files/imagecache/photo-gallery/trophyroom/2733/974449634_l.jpg

the Whiskey's at Thanksgiving.

[Little Whiskey]

No one has even come close to a reasonable explanation of why we need these guns. I'll listen.

PIP, have you read any other posts in this thread? the explanations have been posted many times. you've never once replied to any of them, yet you keep asking the same question.

[Patler]

No one has even come close to a reasonable explanation of why we need these guns. I'll listen.

Why do we "need" the freedom to practice whatever religion we want? Atheists will tell you they see no "need" for that right. While we have allowed them to curb that freedom to some extent, so far we have not allowed them to take it from us completely.

For many of the basic rights granted to us by the Constitution "need" is an individual feeling. While you or I may see no "need" for ourselves, others do have the "need". There is nothing that allows you or I to inflict our standard on those who have the "need".

If the "need" were a universal feeling, it would not be necessary to specify it in a document as basic to society as the Constitution. If it were universal, everyone would want it and demand it. No one would deny it. It is only because some perceive certain rights as necessary while others do not, and specifically because some may perceive those rights as an evil and would seek to ban them, that the framers of the Constitution deemed it necessary to specifically grant the rights.

In this instance, the debate is not whether there is a "need". That is irrelevant. The debate is only to what extent a particular "arm" is included as "arms" within the Constitution.

[GrnBay007]

the Whiskey's at Thanksgiving.

LOL!



Nobody is a good shot???? I don't see any dead animals on the table. :D

[mraynrand]

the Whiskey's at Thanksgiving.

LOL!



Nobody is a good shot???? I don't see any dead animals on the table. :D

I think the varmint is in the kettle in the middle of the table. Damn, nothing says 'thanksgiving' like a big 'ole bag of Doritos.

[Little Whiskey]

LOL!


Nobody is a good shot???? I don't see any dead animals on the table. :D

still cooking.

Notice Grandma Whiskey the matriarch with the sniper rifle! even with the peg leg and twiches she is still a crack shot!

[Little Whiskey]

Damn, nothing says 'thanksgiving' like a big 'ole bag of Doritos.

you forgot to mention the big o jug of grape cool-aid.

[mraynrand]

I'm surprised that they seem to have drywall up. Where's the partiarch? Must be out taking a few morning shots at the Hatfields.

[Little Whiskey]

I'm surprised that they seem to have drywall up. Where's the partiarch? Must be out taking a few morning shots at the Hatfields.

he is running the camera.

we just added this wing on to the trailer. We couldn't find any of the dark-wood paneling from the neighbors, so we decided to class up the place with drywall. first one in the county.

[packinpatland]

No one has even come close to a reasonable explanation of why we need these guns. I'll listen.

Why do we "need" the freedom to practice whatever religion we want? Atheists will tell you they see no "need" for that right. While we have allowed them to curb that freedom to some extent, so far we have not allowed them to take it from us completely.

For many of the basic rights granted to us by the Constitution "need" is an individual feeling. While you or I may see no "need" for ourselves, others do have the "need". There is nothing that allows you or I to inflict our standard on those who have the "need".

If the "need" were a universal feeling, it would not be necessary to specify it in a document as basic to society as the Constitution. If it were universal, everyone would want it and demand it. No one would deny it. It is only because some perceive certain rights as necessary while others do not, and specifically because some may perceive those rights as an evil and would seek to ban them, that the framers of the Constitution deemed it necessary to specifically grant the rights.

In this instance, the debate is not whether there is a "need". That is irrelevant. The debate is only to what extent a particular "arm" is included as "arms" within the Constitution.


Why do we "need" the freedom to practice whatever religion we want?

Practicing your religion doesn't kill other people.

[bobblehead]

Amen, Bobble.

I've come a long way since I voted for Clinton in '92.

Well, at least I wasn't the only one fooled. I guess thats why in the campaign season you and I specifically remembered which campaign promises Clinton broke when he returned to tax and spend the day after the election. Fool me once......

The defense I always use is that I was 23, young and naive, and freshly indoctrinated from UW-XYZ.

[Little Whiskey]

[quote]Why do we "need" the freedom to practice whatever religion we want?

Practicing your religion doesn't kill other people.

neither does owning a gun......any gun. thats the point. its what people do with there right. just ask Jim Jones and david koresh

[mraynrand]

Practicing your religion doesn't kill other people.


Allah Akbar!!!

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/wtc1heli.jpg

[Freak Out]

There goes the thread.

[Little Whiskey]

but really show how religion has killed people. no one has shown me yet

[retailguy]

but really show how religion has killed people. no one has shown me yet

lol :P

[mraynrand]

but really show how religion has killed people. no one has shown me yet

This man was done in by a brutally boring sermon

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/111/290235064_a74b24ca23.jpg

[Patler]

No one has even come close to a reasonable explanation of why we need these guns. I'll listen.

Why do we "need" the freedom to practice whatever religion we want? Atheists will tell you they see no "need" for that right. While we have allowed them to curb that freedom to some extent, so far we have not allowed them to take it from us completely.

For many of the basic rights granted to us by the Constitution "need" is an individual feeling. While you or I may see no "need" for ourselves, others do have the "need". There is nothing that allows you or I to inflict our standard on those who have the "need".

If the "need" were a universal feeling, it would not be necessary to specify it in a document as basic to society as the Constitution. If it were universal, everyone would want it and demand it. No one would deny it. It is only because some perceive certain rights as necessary while others do not, and specifically because some may perceive those rights as an evil and would seek to ban them, that the framers of the Constitution deemed it necessary to specifically grant the rights.

In this instance, the debate is not whether there is a "need". That is irrelevant. The debate is only to what extent a particular "arm" is included as "arms" within the Constitution.


Why do we "need" the freedom to practice whatever religion we want?

Practicing your religion doesn't kill other people.

The vast majority of those who own weapons of any type will never go out an kill someone with it. Those that do are really no different than James Jones or fundamentalists in any religion who find it necessary to kill nonbelievers or their followers in the name of their religion.

Time and again people mis-using the practice of their religion have killed or been killed. How is that any different than someone mis-using their right to own a gun?

[hoosier]

No one has even come close to a reasonable explanation of why we need these guns. I'll listen.

Why do we "need" the freedom to practice whatever religion we want? Atheists will tell you they see no "need" for that right. While we have allowed them to curb that freedom to some extent, so far we have not allowed them to take it from us completely.

For many of the basic rights granted to us by the Constitution "need" is an individual feeling. While you or I may see no "need" for ourselves, others do have the "need". There is nothing that allows you or I to inflict our standard on those who have the "need".

If the "need" were a universal feeling, it would not be necessary to specify it in a document as basic to society as the Constitution. If it were universal, everyone would want it and demand it. No one would deny it. It is only because some perceive certain rights as necessary while others do not, and specifically because some may perceive those rights as an evil and would seek to ban them, that the framers of the Constitution deemed it necessary to specifically grant the rights.

In this instance, the debate is not whether there is a "need". That is irrelevant. The debate is only to what extent a particular "arm" is included as "arms" within the Constitution.


Why do we "need" the freedom to practice whatever religion we want?

Practicing your religion doesn't kill other people.

The vast majority of those who own weapons of any type will never go out an kill someone with it. Those that do are really no different than James Jones or fundamentalists in any religion who find it necessary to kill nonbelievers or their followers in the name of their religion.

Time and again people mis-using the practice of their religion have killed or been killed. How is that any different than someone mis-using their right to own a gun?

I can answer this one: I think it's just a little bit harder to argue that you're "misuing" a gun when you kill someone with it.

What was the original point or debate that got this thread going again?

[mraynrand]

I think it's just a little bit harder to argue that you're "misuing" a gun when you kill someone with it.

You're not misusing the gun, you're misusing your right to use a gun (and taking away the rights of another), if you murder someone using a gun (or using your hands, a knife, a commercial jet, etc).

[retailguy]

What was the original point or debate that got this thread going again?

Assault weapons are EVIL and should be banned immediately. Rights be damned.

Yeah. That's it.

[hoosier]

What was the original point or debate that got this thread going again?

Assault weapons are EVIL and should be banned immediately. Rights be damned.

Yeah. That's it.

I think this is the crux of the problem: the discussion keeps circling around banning weapons that are already banned. The core of this thread is a non-issue. Nobody here, as far as I know, is arguing that currently legal handguns or rifles should be banned, nor is anyone arguing that fully automatic rifles should be legalized. At least nobody has made any of those arguments as far as I can see. So what exactly is the point of contention? I'm not asking this to be snippy, I'm seriously confused about what is being debated. So somebody please make a clear and controversial statement that can be argued ("all guns should be banned," "legalize howitzers now," "free Charlie Manson now") so we can know what we're shooting at.

[Patler]

The topic as the thread started was an assertion that the murder of the police officer by the deranged individual with an AK-47 was reason to not support the NRA. Here is the initial post:


If there was EVER a reason to NOT support the NRA, here it is.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/04/pittsburgh.officers.shot/index.html

I guess what we really should be debating is what the NRA stands for, what it does both "good" and "bad" in our opinions.

[mraynrand]

What was the original point or debate that got this thread going again?

Assault weapons are EVIL and should be banned immediately. Rights be damned.

Yeah. That's it.

I think this is the crux of the problem: the discussion keeps circling around banning weapons that are already banned. The core of this thread is a non-issue. Nobody here, as far as I know, is arguing that currently legal handguns or rifles should be banned, nor is anyone arguing that fully automatic rifles should be legalized. At least nobody has made any of those arguments as far as I can see. So what exactly is the point of contention? I'm not asking this to be snippy, I'm seriously confused about what is being debated. So somebody please make a clear and controversial statement that can be argued ("all guns should be banned," "legalize howitzers now," "free Charlie Manson now") so we can know what we're shooting at.

Well 'NRA' was in the title, but the real question is HOW to restrict weapons (arms) of particular types and remain constitutionally sound. Patler pointed out that the correct procedure would be the amendment process. The rest is typical thread wandering. (Unless I am just being willfully obtuse)

[retailguy]

yeah, I forgot about the NRA part.... The NRA is evil because some idiot used an illegal weapon to kill 13 people. Or, at least thats one of the things I got from it. :oops:

[SkinBasket]

yeah, I forgot about the NRA part.... The NRA is evil because some idiot used an illegal weapon to kill 13 people. Or, at least thats one of the things I got from it. :oops:

Last I read that idiot used two perfectly legal and registered handguns. Only the guy who ambushed the police used an AK-47, which still hasn't been shown to have been modified to be fully automatic - the only thing that would differentiate from any other rifle.

[Little Whiskey]

I think this is the crux of the problem: the discussion keeps circling around banning weapons that are already banned. The core of this thread is a non-issue.

Actually, machine guns are not banned. just the sale of new fully auto guns. you can still own and purchase these guns used. of course you have to pay a "tax" to the gov't in order to transfer the title. funny huh

[/url]http://www.gunlawnews.org/NFA-34.html

[hoosier]

What was the original point or debate that got this thread going again?

Assault weapons are EVIL and should be banned immediately. Rights be damned.

Yeah. That's it.

I think this is the crux of the problem: the discussion keeps circling around banning weapons that are already banned. The core of this thread is a non-issue. Nobody here, as far as I know, is arguing that currently legal handguns or rifles should be banned, nor is anyone arguing that fully automatic rifles should be legalized. At least nobody has made any of those arguments as far as I can see. So what exactly is the point of contention? I'm not asking this to be snippy, I'm seriously confused about what is being debated. So somebody please make a clear and controversial statement that can be argued ("all guns should be banned," "legalize howitzers now," "free Charlie Manson now") so we can know what we're shooting at.

Well 'NRA' was in the title, but the real question is HOW to restrict weapons (arms) of particular types and remain constitutionally sound. Patler pointed out that the correct procedure would be the amendment process. The rest is typical thread wandering. (Unless I am just being willfully obtuse)

An amendment to restrict weapons is cumbersome, both politically and legally. I guess that's part of its attraction for those who oppose restrictions. The biggest problem is that the amendment option doesn't allow specific communities to decide on anything more or less restrictive than the amendment. If DC wants to ban handguns? Sorry, out of luck, because that would be impinging on the rights of Wyomingans who want to go to DC packing heat. So much for states rights--I guess that principle is only valid when it's convenient.

[mraynrand]

What was the original point or debate that got this thread going again?

Assault weapons are EVIL and should be banned immediately. Rights be damned.

Yeah. That's it.

I think this is the crux of the problem: the discussion keeps circling around banning weapons that are already banned. The core of this thread is a non-issue. Nobody here, as far as I know, is arguing that currently legal handguns or rifles should be banned, nor is anyone arguing that fully automatic rifles should be legalized. At least nobody has made any of those arguments as far as I can see. So what exactly is the point of contention? I'm not asking this to be snippy, I'm seriously confused about what is being debated. So somebody please make a clear and controversial statement that can be argued ("all guns should be banned," "legalize howitzers now," "free Charlie Manson now") so we can know what we're shooting at.

Well 'NRA' was in the title, but the real question is HOW to restrict weapons (arms) of particular types and remain constitutionally sound. Patler pointed out that the correct procedure would be the amendment process. The rest is typical thread wandering. (Unless I am just being willfully obtuse)

An amendment to restrict weapons is cumbersome, both politically and legally. I guess that's part of its attraction for those who oppose restrictions. The biggest problem is that the amendment option doesn't allow specific communities to decide on anything more or less restrictive than the amendment. If DC wants to ban handguns? Sorry, out of luck, because that would be impinging on the rights of Wyomingans who want to go to DC packing heat. So much for states rights--I guess that principle is only valid when it's convenient.

Think deeper. Your conceptualization of the amendment seems pretty limited.

[swede]

...The biggest problem is that the amendment option doesn't allow specific communities to decide on anything more or less restrictive than the amendment. If DC wants to ban handguns? Sorry, out of luck, because that would be impinging on the rights of Wyomingans who want to go to DC packing heat. So much for states rights--I guess that principle is only valid when it's convenient.

Yikes, man.

The powers granted to the Federal Government are limited and specific.

The power granted to the states are many and limited only insofar as the states may not make laws that infringe upon or violate the constitution and its Bill of Rights and other amendments.

The principle of states' rights is valid when it is constitutionally correct, not simply when it is convenient to either invoke it or forget about it.

This is why I'm kind of ambivalent when it comes to issues such as gay marriage. Certainly civil unions are entirely in keeping with the constitution.

[bobblehead]

What was the original point or debate that got this thread going again?

Assault weapons are EVIL and should be banned immediately. Rights be damned.

Yeah. That's it.

I think this is the crux of the problem: the discussion keeps circling around banning weapons that are already banned. The core of this thread is a non-issue. Nobody here, as far as I know, is arguing that currently legal handguns or rifles should be banned, nor is anyone arguing that fully automatic rifles should be legalized. At least nobody has made any of those arguments as far as I can see. So what exactly is the point of contention? I'm not asking this to be snippy, I'm seriously confused about what is being debated. So somebody please make a clear and controversial statement that can be argued ("all guns should be banned," "legalize howitzers now," "free Charlie Manson now") so we can know what we're shooting at.
Quite the contrary, I made that very argument. The framers gave us the right to weaponry for a purpose. That very purpose was to fight an oppressive gov't if need be. You can not tell me that having registered handguns protects that right. (gee, they know where to go, and they have you seriously outgunned). For this right to be useful we must have weaponry that allows us to confront an oppressive police force. ie...damn near anything we can afford. And we have the right to anything we can procure until we break a law and forfeit that right.

Furthermore the gov't does NOT have the right to use the military against citizens ever for any purpose.

[mraynrand]

dp

[mraynrand]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/99/Governor_George_Wallace_stands_defiant_at_the_Univ ersity_of_Alabama.jpg/762px-Governor_George_Wallace_stands_defiant_at_the_Univ ersity_of_Alabama.jpg

[mraynrand]

tp

[hoosier]

What was the original point or debate that got this thread going again?

Assault weapons are EVIL and should be banned immediately. Rights be damned.

Yeah. That's it.

I think this is the crux of the problem: the discussion keeps circling around banning weapons that are already banned. The core of this thread is a non-issue. Nobody here, as far as I know, is arguing that currently legal handguns or rifles should be banned, nor is anyone arguing that fully automatic rifles should be legalized. At least nobody has made any of those arguments as far as I can see. So what exactly is the point of contention? I'm not asking this to be snippy, I'm seriously confused about what is being debated. So somebody please make a clear and controversial statement that can be argued ("all guns should be banned," "legalize howitzers now," "free Charlie Manson now") so we can know what we're shooting at.

Well 'NRA' was in the title, but the real question is HOW to restrict weapons (arms) of particular types and remain constitutionally sound. Patler pointed out that the correct procedure would be the amendment process. The rest is typical thread wandering. (Unless I am just being willfully obtuse)

An amendment to restrict weapons is cumbersome, both politically and legally. I guess that's part of its attraction for those who oppose restrictions. The biggest problem is that the amendment option doesn't allow specific communities to decide on anything more or less restrictive than the amendment. If DC wants to ban handguns? Sorry, out of luck, because that would be impinging on the rights of Wyomingans who want to go to DC packing heat. So much for states rights--I guess that principle is only valid when it's convenient.

Think deeper. Your conceptualization of the amendment seems pretty limited.

Limited, yes, but limited because of what it is politically feasible to expect. An amendment that allowed specific communities to decide what kind of restrictions to impose on handgun possession (for example) would never get the 75% state support it would need for ratification.

[hoosier]

What was the original point or debate that got this thread going again?

Assault weapons are EVIL and should be banned immediately. Rights be damned.

Yeah. That's it.

I think this is the crux of the problem: the discussion keeps circling around banning weapons that are already banned. The core of this thread is a non-issue. Nobody here, as far as I know, is arguing that currently legal handguns or rifles should be banned, nor is anyone arguing that fully automatic rifles should be legalized. At least nobody has made any of those arguments as far as I can see. So what exactly is the point of contention? I'm not asking this to be snippy, I'm seriously confused about what is being debated. So somebody please make a clear and controversial statement that can be argued ("all guns should be banned," "legalize howitzers now," "free Charlie Manson now") so we can know what we're shooting at.
Quite the contrary, I made that very argument. The framers gave us the right to weaponry for a purpose. That very purpose was to fight an oppressive gov't if need be. You can not tell me that having registered handguns protects that right. (gee, they know where to go, and they have you seriously outgunned). For this right to be useful we must have weaponry that allows us to confront an oppressive police force. ie...damn near anything we can afford. And we have the right to anything we can procure until we break a law and forfeit that right.

Furthermore the gov't does NOT have the right to use the military against citizens ever for any purpose.

Ok, I was wrong. And you are a wing nut if you think (a) that any civilian group is going to stand a chance against a trained, well-equiped military force in this country, and (b) supposing it WERE possible to arm a civilian group sufficiently so that it could take on a professional police or military force in the US, that that would be a good thing--putting that much destructive capability in the hands of a group that doesn't answer to any law other than its own. Thanks but no thanks.

[Little Whiskey]

[
Ok, I was wrong. And you are a wing nut if you think (a) that any civilian group is going to stand a chance against a trained, well-equiped military force in this country, and (b) supposing it WERE possible to arm a civilian group sufficiently so that it could take on a professional police or military force in the US, that that would be a good thing--putting that much destructive capability in the hands of a group that doesn't answer to any law other than its own. Thanks but no thanks.

what has changed (proportionally) from 1770's to 2009?

[HarveyWallbangers]

Ok, I was wrong. And you are a wing nut if you think (a) that any civilian group is going to stand a chance against a trained, well-equiped military force in this country, and (b) supposing it WERE possible to arm a civilian group sufficiently so that it could take on a professional police or military force in the US, that that would be a good thing--putting that much destructive capability in the hands of a group that doesn't answer to any law other than its own. Thanks but no thanks.

Interesting question. Theoretically, let's say Obama and his liberal counterparts in Congress circumvented the Constitution and made guns illegal. A major uprising in this country ensued. Obama authorized use of military force against this large group of civilian dissenters. I'm guessing there would be a great deal of discord in the ranks of our professional, well-trained military. Many would break ranks. Our military is disproportionately rural and conservative. I'm guessing many would have a hard time squashing a movement that many of them would support.

[SkinBasket]

Ok, I was wrong. And you are a wing nut if you think (a) that any civilian group is going to stand a chance against a trained, well-equiped military force in this country, and (b) supposing it WERE possible to arm a civilian group sufficiently so that it could take on a professional police or military force in the US, that that would be a good thing--putting that much destructive capability in the hands of a group that doesn't answer to any law other than its own. Thanks but no thanks.

Interesting question. Theoretically, let's say Obama and his liberal counterparts in Congress circumvented the Constitution and made guns illegal. A major uprising in this country ensued. Obama authorized use of military force against this large group of civilian dissenters. I'm guessing there would be a great deal of discord in the ranks of our professional, well-trained military. Many would break ranks. Our military is disproportionately rural and conservative. I'm guessing many would have a hard time squashing a movement that many of them would support.

Besides, assuming no popular revolt, can you imagine the logistics of trying to collect all the newly banned weaponry out there? Obama and his community organizers can't even run a guns for cash program that collects anything other than a few rusted out revolvers.

[mraynrand]

Ok, I was wrong. And you are a wing nut if you think (a) that any civilian group is going to stand a chance against a trained, well-equiped military force in this country, and (b) supposing it WERE possible to arm a civilian group sufficiently so that it could take on a professional police or military force in the US, that that would be a good thing--putting that much destructive capability in the hands of a group that doesn't answer to any law other than its own. Thanks but no thanks.

Interesting question. Theoretically, let's say Obama and his liberal counterparts in Congress circumvented the Constitution and made guns illegal. A major uprising in this country ensued. Obama authorized use of military force against this large group of civilian dissenters. I'm guessing there would be a great deal of discord in the ranks of our professional, well-trained military. Many would break ranks. Our military is disproportionately rural and conservative. I'm guessing many would have a hard time squashing a movement that many of them would support.

Besides, assuming no popular revolt, can you imagine the logistics of trying to collect all the newly banned weaponry out there? Obama and his community organizers can't even run a guns for cash program that collects anything other than a few rusted out revolvers.

One of my friends has invested in several high tech guns with scopes. Claims he can shoot a soda can off a post at 300 yards. About the impending ammunition changes (making lead illegal, forcing the hand over of illegal ammunition) he says: "If they want to take my bullets, they can come and take them - I'll give 'em to them, one at a time."

[mraynrand]

Ok, I was wrong. And you are a wing nut if you think (a) that any civilian group is going to stand a chance against a trained, well-equiped military force in this country, and (b) supposing it WERE possible to arm a civilian group sufficiently so that it could take on a professional police or military force in the US, that that would be a good thing--putting that much destructive capability in the hands of a group that doesn't answer to any law other than its own. Thanks but no thanks.

Interesting question. Theoretically, let's say Obama and his liberal counterparts in Congress circumvented the Constitution and made guns illegal. A major uprising in this country ensued. Obama authorized use of military force against this large group of civilian dissenters. I'm guessing there would be a great deal of discord in the ranks of our professional, well-trained military. Many would break ranks. Our military is disproportionately rural and conservative. I'm guessing many would have a hard time squashing a movement that many of them would support.

The French Navy would also come to their/our aid.

[bobblehead]

What was the original point or debate that got this thread going again?

Assault weapons are EVIL and should be banned immediately. Rights be damned.

Yeah. That's it.

I think this is the crux of the problem: the discussion keeps circling around banning weapons that are already banned. The core of this thread is a non-issue. Nobody here, as far as I know, is arguing that currently legal handguns or rifles should be banned, nor is anyone arguing that fully automatic rifles should be legalized. At least nobody has made any of those arguments as far as I can see. So what exactly is the point of contention? I'm not asking this to be snippy, I'm seriously confused about what is being debated. So somebody please make a clear and controversial statement that can be argued ("all guns should be banned," "legalize howitzers now," "free Charlie Manson now") so we can know what we're shooting at.
Quite the contrary, I made that very argument. The framers gave us the right to weaponry for a purpose. That very purpose was to fight an oppressive gov't if need be. You can not tell me that having registered handguns protects that right. (gee, they know where to go, and they have you seriously outgunned). For this right to be useful we must have weaponry that allows us to confront an oppressive police force. ie...damn near anything we can afford. And we have the right to anything we can procure until we break a law and forfeit that right.

Furthermore the gov't does NOT have the right to use the military against citizens ever for any purpose.

Ok, I was wrong. And you are a wing nut if you think (a) that any civilian group is going to stand a chance against a trained, well-equiped military force in this country, and (b) supposing it WERE possible to arm a civilian group sufficiently so that it could take on a professional police or military force in the US, that that would be a good thing--putting that much destructive capability in the hands of a group that doesn't answer to any law other than its own. Thanks but no thanks.

You do a nice job of 2 things...calling names and making pointless arguments. First it IS possible to arm the populace enough to overthrow our military or police force. Do you think 300 Million people with assault weapons couldn't' conquer 1 million with tanks?? I bet a couple years ago you were preaching that our military couldn't compete with the battle hardened Taliban.

As far as not answering to any law...what a straw man. I answer to every law on the books as is required for me to own my weapons. And the LAW of the constitution gives me that right.

Finally as I said, the military isn't allowed to be ordered to take action against civilians (unless a democrat is commander in chief). If it were to happen we would have a true revolutionary situation that would leave 10's of millions dead. And yes, I firmly believe that if any CIC ordered martial law even the most apathetic Americans would revolt.

[hoosier]

What was the original point or debate that got this thread going again?

Assault weapons are EVIL and should be banned immediately. Rights be damned.

Yeah. That's it.

I think this is the crux of the problem: the discussion keeps circling around banning weapons that are already banned. The core of this thread is a non-issue. Nobody here, as far as I know, is arguing that currently legal handguns or rifles should be banned, nor is anyone arguing that fully automatic rifles should be legalized. At least nobody has made any of those arguments as far as I can see. So what exactly is the point of contention? I'm not asking this to be snippy, I'm seriously confused about what is being debated. So somebody please make a clear and controversial statement that can be argued ("all guns should be banned," "legalize howitzers now," "free Charlie Manson now") so we can know what we're shooting at.
Quite the contrary, I made that very argument. The framers gave us the right to weaponry for a purpose. That very purpose was to fight an oppressive gov't if need be. You can not tell me that having registered handguns protects that right. (gee, they know where to go, and they have you seriously outgunned). For this right to be useful we must have weaponry that allows us to confront an oppressive police force. ie...damn near anything we can afford. And we have the right to anything we can procure until we break a law and forfeit that right.

Furthermore the gov't does NOT have the right to use the military against citizens ever for any purpose.

Ok, I was wrong. And you are a wing nut if you think (a) that any civilian group is going to stand a chance against a trained, well-equiped military force in this country, and (b) supposing it WERE possible to arm a civilian group sufficiently so that it could take on a professional police or military force in the US, that that would be a good thing--putting that much destructive capability in the hands of a group that doesn't answer to any law other than its own. Thanks but no thanks.

You do a nice job of 2 things...calling names and making pointless arguments. First it IS possible to arm the populace enough to overthrow our military or police force. Do you think 300 Million people with assault weapons couldn't' conquer 1 million with tanks?? I bet a couple years ago you were preaching that our military couldn't compete with the battle hardened Taliban.
As far as not answering to any law...what a straw man. I answer to every law on the books as is required for me to own my weapons. And the LAW of the constitution gives me that right.

Finally as I said, the military isn't allowed to be ordered to take action against civilians (unless a democrat is commander in chief). If it were to happen we would have a true revolutionary situation that would leave 10's of millions dead. And yes, I firmly believe that if any CIC ordered martial law even the most apathetic Americans would revolt.

Your analogies and hypothetical scenarios are baffling to me, and I can't believe that you take them seriously. 300 million Americans arming themselves and rising up against the US army? When and how do you envision this happening? A popularly elected US president suspending the Constitution and imposing a reign of terror? I think you're trying to base an argument about realities (restrictions on guns) on a wild fantasy. Given that, I also don't think we have anything to talk about.

[mraynrand]

I think you have it backwards. The presence of an armed populace is the ultimate deterrent against an oppressive government. Absent the guns, it's much easier to impose more and more restrictions and then quickly stifle any uprising. It's much easier to load you into railcars when you aren't firing your weapons.

[hoosier]

I think you have it backwards. The presence of an armed populace is the ultimate deterrent against an oppressive government. Absent the guns, it's much easier to impose more and more restrictions and then quickly stifle any uprising. It's much easier to load you into railcars when you aren't firing your weapons.

I don't think I have it backwards at all. The problem with your armed civilians=deterrant against oppression argument is that it's ahistorical. You're treating every society as if it were late 18th century America.

The technological difference is one thing: in order to create a civilian militia that could pose a threat against a professional army or police force you would need to start distributing heavy artillery and depleted uranium munitions to every household in the country, and hope you don't see a sudden spike in armored car robberies. In all seriousness, how do you see arming civilians on that level working?

The other thing is that US today has a long standing tradition of respect for rule of law that, at the present moment, far outweighs the possibility of government using force against its own civilian population. Governmental agencies tends to respect the checks and balances that prevent any one office or faction from gaining too much power for too long. The people, meanwhile, tend to be apathetic, and when they're not they usually prefer relatively peaceful avenues for change. The fact that those avenues exist and are relatively stable in the US today makes the kind of scenario Bobblehead is envisioning quite unlikely, to put it mildly.

[HowardRoark]

As stated earlier, many of the military would side with the freedom fighters. Others would walk away. All it would take would be for the person in charge of the nukes to keep them safe.

And anyway, look at what went on in Iraq. That turned out to be a little more difficult than we thought once we could not use heavy artillery anymore.


The technological difference is one thing: in order to create a civilian militia that could pose a threat against a professional army or police force you would need to start distributing heavy artillery and depleted uranium munitions to every household in the country, and hope you don't see a sudden spike in armored car robberies. In all seriousness, how do you see arming civilians on that level working?

Wist, are you out there? You seem to cover this one pretty well.


The other thing is that US today has a long standing tradition of respect for rule of law that, at the present moment, far outweighs the possibility of government using force against its own civilian population.

[hoosier]

As stated earlier, many of the military would side with the freedom fighters. Others would walk away. All it would take would be for the person in charge of the nukes to keep them safe.

That would depend on what the "freedom fighters" were perceived as fighting for. Your scenario of an elected US president turning into a ruthless, brutal dictator is not plausible in the US today.

[HowardRoark]

Your scenario of an elected US president turning into a ruthless, brutal dictator is not plausible in the US today.

When considering the human race, this is ahistorical.

I would rather hedge our bet and let us keep guns.

[SkinBasket]

I don't care about any of this shit. Guns are pretty fucking cool. Hell, even bullets are cool. Guns shooting bullets = 2x cool. If you can't take pleasure in the act of firing a mechanism so simple, yet so refined, a perfect balance of our hunter/warrior past with our modern technologies, instinctual nature and cerebral science, you probably aren't to be considered cultured. Or even human for that matter.

[mraynrand]

post being rewritten

[MJZiggy]

tp

Now that takes talent!

[mraynrand]

I think you have it backwards. The presence of an armed populace is the ultimate deterrent against an oppressive government. Absent the guns, it's much easier to impose more and more restrictions and then quickly stifle any uprising. It's much easier to load you into railcars when you aren't firing your weapons.

I don't think I have it backwards at all. The problem with your armed civilians=deterrant against oppression argument is that it's ahistorical. You're treating every society as if it were late 18th century America.

The technological difference is one thing: in order to create a civilian militia that could pose a threat against a professional army or police force you would need to start distributing heavy artillery and depleted uranium munitions to every household in the country, and hope you don't see a sudden spike in armored car robberies. In all seriousness, how do you see arming civilians on that level working?

The other thing is that US today has a long standing tradition of respect for rule of law that, at the present moment, far outweighs the possibility of government using force against its own civilian population. Governmental agencies tends to respect the checks and balances that prevent any one office or faction from gaining too much power for too long. The people, meanwhile, tend to be apathetic, and when they're not they usually prefer relatively peaceful avenues for change. The fact that those avenues exist and are relatively stable in the US today makes the kind of scenario Bobblehead is envisioning quite unlikely, to put it mildly.

Those are all interesting points you raise, most of which I think are beside the point. The point is this: If at some point our government became more oppressive and the only method of countering it were through rebellion, I think we'd have a hell of a lot better chance armed with rifles, automatic weapons, various small arms, etc. than armed with kitchen knives and slingshots. The likelihood of an oppressive government trying to impose further restrictions would be less with a better armed populace.

As to how our society could get there, well just read up on the rise of the Nazis (William Shirer). Or read Hayek. The weapons and technology may change but people haven't evolved much, if at all - and if we have evolved, perhaps it's in the 'wrong' direction - relative to ultimate extinction.

[bobblehead]

As stated earlier, many of the military would side with the freedom fighters. Others would walk away. All it would take would be for the person in charge of the nukes to keep them safe.

That would depend on what the "freedom fighters" were perceived as fighting for. Your scenario of an elected US president turning into a ruthless, brutal dictator is not plausible in the US today.

this one dude, once upon a time..Hitler was his name. He was elected and seemed like a hell of a leader, building infrastructure, putting the country to prominence and all. No way that guy would turn into a ruthless brutal dictator.

BTW, Dick Cheney the root of all evil was a step away from being president as I recall.

[swede]

I think you have it backwards. The presence of an armed populace is the ultimate deterrent against an oppressive government. Absent the guns, it's much easier to impose more and more restrictions and then quickly stifle any uprising. It's much easier to load you into railcars when you aren't firing your weapons.

I don't think I have it backwards at all. The problem with your armed civilians=deterrant against oppression argument is that it's ahistorical. You're treating every society as if it were late 18th century America...

This statement, in a rather amusing way, demonstrates your own unwillingness to consider the lessons of history. America need not continue ever as she has been for the last mere three human lifetimes. Why might Obama not be the beloved Lenin that will lead to the inevitable Stalin?


The other thing is that US today has a long standing tradition of respect for rule of law that, at the present moment, far outweighs the possibility of government using force against its own civilian population. Governmental agencies tends to respect the checks and balances that prevent any one office or faction from gaining too much power for too long. The people, meanwhile, tend to be apathetic, and when they're not they usually prefer relatively peaceful avenues for change. The fact that those avenues exist and are relatively stable in the US today makes the kind of scenario Bobblehead is envisioning quite unlikely, to put it mildly.

Government takeovers of private businesses are also unlikely, thank goodness.

[packinpatland]

BTW, Dick Cheney the root of all evil was a step away from being president as I recall.

Stuff that nightmares are whereby caused.

[bobblehead]

BTW, Dick Cheney the root of all evil was a step away from being president as I recall.

Stuff that nightmares are whereby caused.

And when old dick is the guy calling the shots...are you more comfortable having an armed population, or a disarmed one??

[mraynrand]

The problem with your armed civilians=deterrant against oppression argument is that it's ahistorical. You're treating every society as if it were late 18th century America.

Another interesting aspect to your comment is that you could easily argue that the oppression of the colonies by England, particularly in the tax code, is far less relative to the current oppression of the American people by it's government.

[Little Whiskey]

The problem with your armed civilians=deterrant against oppression argument is that it's ahistorical. You're treating every society as if it were late 18th century America.

Another interesting aspect to your comment is that you could easily argue that the oppression of the colonies by England, particularly in the tax code, is far less relative to the current oppression of the American people by it's government.

The diff. between colonial times and today is that they were willing to pay the tax. they just wanted to be represented in parlament. We have representation (however, some may argue that tax payers are not represented in our gov't) however, are being overtaxed!

To say that citizens overthrowing a gov't is ahistorical is completley false. how many revolutions would you like me to state to show how armed civilians overthrow an oppressive gov't. Starting before our revolution to present day.

[mraynrand]

41% of Americans have representation without taxation, at the Federal level.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

41% of Americans have representation without taxation, at the Federal level.

Really? They don't pay any taxes?

Think hard about that.

[Little Whiskey]

41% of Americans have representation without taxation, at the Federal level.

Really? They don't pay any taxes?

Think hard about that.

any taxes or Federal taxes?

[hoosier]

41% of Americans have representation without taxation, at the Federal level.

Really? They don't pay any taxes?

Think hard about that.

any taxes or Federal taxes?

Yes.

[mraynrand]

41% of Americans have representation without taxation, at the Federal level.

Really? They don't pay any taxes?

Think hard about that.

hi dummy

[retailguy]

41% of Americans have representation without taxation, at the Federal level.

Really? They don't pay any taxes?

Think hard about that.

Tyrone, he's right, you're wrong, again.

You are implying that these people pay social security. What you're forgetting about is that most of the social security taxes these low income workers pay is rebated through other credits on the tax form, examples are child tax credit, additional child tax credit, earned income credit, and various other entitlements.

While the 41% deals with specifically federal INCOME tax, there is a large percentage of that 41% number that is paying no effective federal taxes of ANY kind.

Maybe you should stop googling for a little while and start thinking. If you've got it in you...

Here's something to get you started.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1410.html

[hoosier]

41% of Americans have representation without taxation, at the Federal level.

Really? They don't pay any taxes?

Think hard about that.

Tyrone, he's right, you're wrong, again.

You are implying that these people pay social security. What you're forgetting about is that most of the social security taxes these low income workers pay is rebated through other credits on the tax form, examples are child tax credit, additional child tax credit, earned income credit, and various other entitlements.

While the 41% deals with specifically federal INCOME tax, there is a large percentage of that 41% number that is paying no effective federal taxes of ANY kind.

Maybe you should stop googling for a little while and start thinking. If you've got it in you...

Here's something to get you started.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1410.html

Sorry, but FICA and income taxes aren't the only Federal taxes we pay.....

[bobblehead]

41% of Americans have representation without taxation, at the Federal level.

Really? They don't pay any taxes?

Think hard about that.

Tyrone, he's right, you're wrong, again.

You are implying that these people pay social security. What you're forgetting about is that most of the social security taxes these low income workers pay is rebated through other credits on the tax form, examples are child tax credit, additional child tax credit, earned income credit, and various other entitlements.

While the 41% deals with specifically federal INCOME tax, there is a large percentage of that 41% number that is paying no effective federal taxes of ANY kind.

Maybe you should stop googling for a little while and start thinking. If you've got it in you...

Here's something to get you started.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1410.html

Sorry, but FICA and income taxes aren't the only Federal taxes we pay.....

Now you want to talk semantics. Ok, how about the guy who "pays" $10 of taxes by your definition but gets $20 of benefit/services back. Does he pay taxes or not?

Classic liberalism, can't argue the point straight up so play number/word games to shift the attention away from the fact that 41% of the people's vote have been bought by giving them get out of taxes free cards.

[falco]

taxes suck

[hoosier]

41% of Americans have representation without taxation, at the Federal level.

Really? They don't pay any taxes?

Think hard about that.

Tyrone, he's right, you're wrong, again.

You are implying that these people pay social security. What you're forgetting about is that most of the social security taxes these low income workers pay is rebated through other credits on the tax form, examples are child tax credit, additional child tax credit, earned income credit, and various other entitlements.

While the 41% deals with specifically federal INCOME tax, there is a large percentage of that 41% number that is paying no effective federal taxes of ANY kind.

Maybe you should stop googling for a little while and start thinking. If you've got it in you...

Here's something to get you started.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1410.html

Sorry, but FICA and income taxes aren't the only Federal taxes we pay.....

Now you want to talk semantics. Ok, how about the guy who "pays" $10 of taxes by your definition but gets $20 of benefit/services back. Does he pay taxes or not?

Classic liberalism, can't argue the point straight up so play number/word games to shift the attention away from the fact that 41% of the people's vote have been bought by giving them get out of taxes free cards.

You can't possibly quantify the ways in which each of us benefit from the federal system, so I don't really see what your point is. Somebody receives more $ value in "services" than they pay in taxes, and others pay a higher $ value than they receive in direct services. And this is news???? Look around you, Bobblehead, most of your conservative breathren are relatively at peace with the idea of a progressive tax structure. It's a system that has been in place for more than 75 years--hardly a matter of "semantics."

[Little Whiskey]

tax talk belongs in another thread. bring back the guns!


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/107/253802122_b833250ed7.jpg?v=0

hell, I cant get the damn pictures to load. what am i doing wrong. are they going to take away my right to post pictures of guns too. a double wammy. get two ammendments with one stone! :D

[Tyrone Bigguns]

41% of Americans have representation without taxation, at the Federal level.

Really? They don't pay any taxes?

Think hard about that.

Tyrone, he's right, you're wrong, again.

You are implying that these people pay social security. What you're forgetting about is that most of the social security taxes these low income workers pay is rebated through other credits on the tax form, examples are child tax credit, additional child tax credit, earned income credit, and various other entitlements.

While the 41% deals with specifically federal INCOME tax, there is a large percentage of that 41% number that is paying no effective federal taxes of ANY kind.

Maybe you should stop googling for a little while and start thinking. If you've got it in you...

Here's something to get you started.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1410.html

Nice hedge. The # stated was 41%.

I am right. YOu are wrong.

And making statements about "large percentage" is just...well, nothing.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

41% of Americans have representation without taxation, at the Federal level.

Really? They don't pay any taxes?

Think hard about that.

Tyrone, he's right, you're wrong, again.

You are implying that these people pay social security. What you're forgetting about is that most of the social security taxes these low income workers pay is rebated through other credits on the tax form, examples are child tax credit, additional child tax credit, earned income credit, and various other entitlements.

While the 41% deals with specifically federal INCOME tax, there is a large percentage of that 41% number that is paying no effective federal taxes of ANY kind.

Maybe you should stop googling for a little while and start thinking. If you've got it in you...

Here's something to get you started.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1410.html

Sorry, but FICA and income taxes aren't the only Federal taxes we pay.....

Now you want to talk semantics. Ok, how about the guy who "pays" $10 of taxes by your definition but gets $20 of benefit/services back. Does he pay taxes or not?

Classic liberalism, can't argue the point straight up so play number/word games to shift the attention away from the fact that 41% of the people's vote have been bought by giving them get out of taxes free cards.

We are arguing the point, straightup. The 41% stated is factually incorrect.

As for the payin vs. bennie. Stupid. Of course he pays taxes.

You don't hear me complaining about taxes and how i'm subsiding conservative families with kids...after all, i pay taxes that are used for education..yet, i have no children.

[mraynrand]

We are arguing the point, straightup. The 41% stated is factually incorrect.


41% do not pay federal income taxes. You are incorrect.

[bobblehead]

41% of Americans have representation without taxation, at the Federal level.

Really? They don't pay any taxes?

Think hard about that.

Tyrone, he's right, you're wrong, again.

You are implying that these people pay social security. What you're forgetting about is that most of the social security taxes these low income workers pay is rebated through other credits on the tax form, examples are child tax credit, additional child tax credit, earned income credit, and various other entitlements.

While the 41% deals with specifically federal INCOME tax, there is a large percentage of that 41% number that is paying no effective federal taxes of ANY kind.

Maybe you should stop googling for a little while and start thinking. If you've got it in you...

Here's something to get you started.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1410.html

Sorry, but FICA and income taxes aren't the only Federal taxes we pay.....

Now you want to talk semantics. Ok, how about the guy who "pays" $10 of taxes by your definition but gets $20 of benefit/services back. Does he pay taxes or not?

Classic liberalism, can't argue the point straight up so play number/word games to shift the attention away from the fact that 41% of the people's vote have been bought by giving them get out of taxes free cards.

We are arguing the point, straightup. The 41% stated is factually incorrect.

As for the payin vs. bennie. Stupid. Of course he pays taxes.

You don't hear me complaining about taxes and how i'm subsiding conservative families with kids...after all, i pay taxes that are used for education..yet, i have no children.

First off I don't believe in the child tax credit, or any other crap like that. I don't even mind a slightly progressive tax, but it should be straight up, this is what you made, this is what you pay. As far as the education thing...you might not have kids, but you used the education system yourself (although some may argue you didn't get your moneys worth).

[bobblehead]

41% of Americans have representation without taxation, at the Federal level.

Really? They don't pay any taxes?

Think hard about that.

Tyrone, he's right, you're wrong, again.

You are implying that these people pay social security. What you're forgetting about is that most of the social security taxes these low income workers pay is rebated through other credits on the tax form, examples are child tax credit, additional child tax credit, earned income credit, and various other entitlements.

While the 41% deals with specifically federal INCOME tax, there is a large percentage of that 41% number that is paying no effective federal taxes of ANY kind.

Maybe you should stop googling for a little while and start thinking. If you've got it in you...

Here's something to get you started.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1410.html

Sorry, but FICA and income taxes aren't the only Federal taxes we pay.....

Now you want to talk semantics. Ok, how about the guy who "pays" $10 of taxes by your definition but gets $20 of benefit/services back. Does he pay taxes or not?

Classic liberalism, can't argue the point straight up so play number/word games to shift the attention away from the fact that 41% of the people's vote have been bought by giving them get out of taxes free cards.

You can't possibly quantify the ways in which each of us benefit from the federal system, so I don't really see what your point is. Somebody receives more $ value in "services" than they pay in taxes, and others pay a higher $ value than they receive in direct services. And this is news???? Look around you, Bobblehead, most of your conservative breathren are relatively at peace with the idea of a progressive tax structure. It's a system that has been in place for more than 75 years--hardly a matter of "semantics."

that is my point. You are getting into side arguements and other silly unquantifiable arguments. 41% don't pay federal income taxes was the full intent of the statement, not payroll taxes or sales taxes or gas taxes or anything else. I was simply saying if you want to get into silly side arguments I could start saying things like 90% of the people effectively get a net gain from the gov't therefore only 10% are actually paying taxes.

[texaspackerbacker]

How did this ever end up in Romper Room instead of FYI?

You know, you guys are violating the civil rights of the 41% who own guns--90% + of whom also pay taxes--by talking about taxes in their gun thread.

[Little Whiskey]

How did this ever end up in Romper Room instead of FYI?

You know, you guys are violating the civil rights of the 41% who own guns--90% + of whom also pay taxes--by talking about taxes in their gun thread.


AMEN!! oh wait, was that supposed to go in Tarlam's thread?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

We are arguing the point, straightup. The 41% stated is factually incorrect.


41% do not pay federal income taxes. You are incorrect.

Unfortunately for you, that isn't what you stated originally.

Is it common for you to switch your argument midstream? :lol:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

41% of Americans have representation without taxation, at the Federal level.

Really? They don't pay any taxes?

Think hard about that.

Tyrone, he's right, you're wrong, again.

You are implying that these people pay social security. What you're forgetting about is that most of the social security taxes these low income workers pay is rebated through other credits on the tax form, examples are child tax credit, additional child tax credit, earned income credit, and various other entitlements.

While the 41% deals with specifically federal INCOME tax, there is a large percentage of that 41% number that is paying no effective federal taxes of ANY kind.

Maybe you should stop googling for a little while and start thinking. If you've got it in you...

Here's something to get you started.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1410.html

Sorry, but FICA and income taxes aren't the only Federal taxes we pay.....

Now you want to talk semantics. Ok, how about the guy who "pays" $10 of taxes by your definition but gets $20 of benefit/services back. Does he pay taxes or not?

Classic liberalism, can't argue the point straight up so play number/word games to shift the attention away from the fact that 41% of the people's vote have been bought by giving them get out of taxes free cards.

We are arguing the point, straightup. The 41% stated is factually incorrect.

As for the payin vs. bennie. Stupid. Of course he pays taxes.

You don't hear me complaining about taxes and how i'm subsiding conservative families with kids...after all, i pay taxes that are used for education..yet, i have no children.

First off I don't believe in the child tax credit, or any other crap like that. I don't even mind a slightly progressive tax, but it should be straight up, this is what you made, this is what you pay. As far as the education thing...you might not have kids, but you used the education system yourself (although some may argue you didn't get your moneys worth).

You don't believe? How convenient for you. :oops:

Education: Sure, i used it. But, didn't my parents pay taxes? So, am i being double billed? Or, since i used it for 22 years...shouldn't i only be expected to pay in for what i used. :roll:

[mraynrand]

We are arguing the point, straightup. The 41% stated is factually incorrect.


41% do not pay federal income taxes. You are incorrect.

Unfortunately for you, that isn't what you stated originally.

Is it common for you to switch your argument midstream? :lol:

No, but it's common for you to obfuscate and pretend ignorance of the salient points in an attempt to 'win' arguments. Or paste in little faces in place of argument.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

We are arguing the point, straightup. The 41% stated is factually incorrect.


41% do not pay federal income taxes. You are incorrect.

Unfortunately for you, that isn't what you stated originally.

Is it common for you to switch your argument midstream? :lol:

No, but it's common for you to obfuscate and pretend ignorance of the salient points in an attempt to 'win' arguments. Or paste in little faces in place of argument.

Really?

I guess the "income" is just a belief...like in jesus, etc. :roll:


41% of Americans have representation without taxation, at the Federal level.

:oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops:

[bobblehead]

41% of Americans have representation without taxation, at the Federal level.

Really? They don't pay any taxes?

Think hard about that.

Tyrone, he's right, you're wrong, again.

You are implying that these people pay social security. What you're forgetting about is that most of the social security taxes these low income workers pay is rebated through other credits on the tax form, examples are child tax credit, additional child tax credit, earned income credit, and various other entitlements.

While the 41% deals with specifically federal INCOME tax, there is a large percentage of that 41% number that is paying no effective federal taxes of ANY kind.

Maybe you should stop googling for a little while and start thinking. If you've got it in you...

Here's something to get you started.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1410.html

Sorry, but FICA and income taxes aren't the only Federal taxes we pay.....

Now you want to talk semantics. Ok, how about the guy who "pays" $10 of taxes by your definition but gets $20 of benefit/services back. Does he pay taxes or not?

Classic liberalism, can't argue the point straight up so play number/word games to shift the attention away from the fact that 41% of the people's vote have been bought by giving them get out of taxes free cards.

We are arguing the point, straightup. The 41% stated is factually incorrect.

As for the payin vs. bennie. Stupid. Of course he pays taxes.

You don't hear me complaining about taxes and how i'm subsiding conservative families with kids...after all, i pay taxes that are used for education..yet, i have no children.

First off I don't believe in the child tax credit, or any other crap like that. I don't even mind a slightly progressive tax, but it should be straight up, this is what you made, this is what you pay. As far as the education thing...you might not have kids, but you used the education system yourself (although some may argue you didn't get your moneys worth).

You don't believe? How convenient for you. :oops:

Education: Sure, i used it. But, didn't my parents pay taxes? So, am i being double billed? Or, since i used it for 22 years...shouldn't i only be expected to pay in for what i used. :roll:
Huge quote chain...proud to be part. Ty, I don't believe in social engineering through the tax code so I don't believe in the child tax credit. The GOP does, but I don't have to agree with them.

As far as the education thingy, I could make several arguments about how you benefit from an educated society even without children. I have no children either, but I accept that schools are vital infrastructure. Your parents also likely used public school anyway, so we can keep taking this backwards. I highly doubt you believe your own rhetoric on this one, likely its more obfuscation.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

41% of Americans have representation without taxation, at the Federal level.

Really? They don't pay any taxes?

Think hard about that.

Tyrone, he's right, you're wrong, again.

You are implying that these people pay social security. What you're forgetting about is that most of the social security taxes these low income workers pay is rebated through other credits on the tax form, examples are child tax credit, additional child tax credit, earned income credit, and various other entitlements.

While the 41% deals with specifically federal INCOME tax, there is a large percentage of that 41% number that is paying no effective federal taxes of ANY kind.

Maybe you should stop googling for a little while and start thinking. If you've got it in you...

Here's something to get you started.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1410.html

Sorry, but FICA and income taxes aren't the only Federal taxes we pay.....

Now you want to talk semantics. Ok, how about the guy who "pays" $10 of taxes by your definition but gets $20 of benefit/services back. Does he pay taxes or not?

Classic liberalism, can't argue the point straight up so play number/word games to shift the attention away from the fact that 41% of the people's vote have been bought by giving them get out of taxes free cards.

We are arguing the point, straightup. The 41% stated is factually incorrect.

As for the payin vs. bennie. Stupid. Of course he pays taxes.

You don't hear me complaining about taxes and how i'm subsiding conservative families with kids...after all, i pay taxes that are used for education..yet, i have no children.

First off I don't believe in the child tax credit, or any other crap like that. I don't even mind a slightly progressive tax, but it should be straight up, this is what you made, this is what you pay. As far as the education thing...you might not have kids, but you used the education system yourself (although some may argue you didn't get your moneys worth).

You don't believe? How convenient for you. :oops:

Education: Sure, i used it. But, didn't my parents pay taxes? So, am i being double billed? Or, since i used it for 22 years...shouldn't i only be expected to pay in for what i used. :roll:
Huge quote chain...proud to be part. Ty, I don't believe in social engineering through the tax code so I don't believe in the child tax credit. The GOP does, but I don't have to agree with them.

As far as the education thingy, I could make several arguments about how you benefit from an educated society even without children. I have no children either, but I accept that schools are vital infrastructure. Your parents also likely used public school anyway, so we can keep taking this backwards. I highly doubt you believe your own rhetoric on this one, likely its more obfuscation.

The original point was the 41% don't pay federal taxes..that is completely untrue. If the statement had been income then we might have something to talk about.

Schools: The point was that many of us pay taxes and don't receive an equal benefit..something you brought up. I pay, and will pay far more in taxes then i ever receive..and since your example didn't include societal benefits...it is kinda disengenous for you to bring that up now.

I have no problem paying taxes....it is always the right/conservs that bitch about taxes.

But, if you want to do so....then, why are you complaining about those that dont' pay? Don't you receive a societal bennie from making sure those people are taken care of?

P.S. Since we are talking about taxes...and that group that doesn't pay taxes.....lower socio economic groups tend to smoke more. Guess who is paying a federal tax for their smokes?

We also pay fed excise tax on phones, gas, etc. To make a claim that 41% of people are getting federal representation without paying taxes..is well, absurd. Not to mention all the extremely wealthy individuals that figure out a way not to pay any taxes.

Our tax code is tremendously rigged to favor the wealthy, especially the very wealthy and the very large corporations.

Surely you aren't going to argue that a doc who earns 250K..prolly losing 170 in taxes (fed, ss, state, medicare) is getting the same amount of "representation" as a wealthy heir who earns a "meager" 3% on his 25 mill in stocks/bonds fund (assets, not income are the truth measure of wealth)..."earning" 750K and paying under Obama 20%...150K..leaving him/her with 600K.

[texaspackerbacker]

I tried, Little Whiskey. There just seems to be more interest in taxes than guns--and I have to admit, I feel that way too.

Tyrone, you don't mind paying taxes? I would say that narrows you down to being a hypocrite or a fool, but based on your history of posting, there's plenty of room for you to be both.

Damn straight, we conservatives bitch about taxes. Not only are they a personal anathema, they are the poison pill that kills an economy.

If you want to defend something liberal, Tyrone, consider spending. I found myself in the very uncomfortable position of actually agreeing with that bastard, Obama, today when he spoke of the necessity to spend, both on a personal level and on a government level in time of economic downturn. He was wrong in stating the unanimity of economists about this, but he was correct in the necessity for demand to be stimulated to bounce back. He also was wrong not to give greater emphasis to tax cutting in the stimulatory process.

You stated, Tyrone, that the tax system is bias in favor of the rich. The numbers, of course, all say otherwise. To that extent that your kind, however, sees unfairness or favoritism to the rich in across-the-board i.e. equal tax cutting, the justification is that they are the ones who own the businesses that provide the jobs--arguably the most effective economic stimulant.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I tried, Little Whiskey. There just seems to be more interest in taxes than guns--and I have to admit, I feel that way too.

Tyrone, you don't mind paying taxes? I would say that narrows you down to being a hypocrite or a fool, but based on your history of posting, there's plenty of room for you to be both.

Damn straight, we conservatives bitch about taxes. Not only are they a personal anathema, they are the poison pill that kills an economy.

If you want to defend something liberal, Tyrone, consider spending. I found myself in the very uncomfortable position of actually agreeing with that bastard, Obama, today when he spoke of the necessity to spend, both on a personal level and on a government level in time of economic downturn. He was wrong in stating the unanimity of economists about this, but he was correct in the necessity for demand to be stimulated to bounce back. He also was wrong not to give greater emphasis to tax cutting in the stimulatory process.

You stated, Tyrone, that the tax system is bias in favor of the rich. The numbers, of course, all say otherwise. To that extent that your kind, however, sees unfairness or favoritism to the rich in across-the-board i.e. equal tax cutting, the justification is that they are the ones who own the businesses that provide the jobs--arguably the most effective economic stimulant.

You have a problem with reading comprehension.

No, i'm not in the minority..most people have no problem paying taxes. the issues is the amount paid, not the concept itself.

Taxes are bad? Really? Cool. Let's end them. I'd like to see how the gov't exists without them, i'd like to see how our military survives, etc.

Rich: Sorry, but your personal opinion isn't relevant. I made the argument about taxes based on income vs. wealth. There is no argument about it. The wealthy don't pay their share of taxes.

It is so obvious that you demagogue because who else could argue against my example. IT wasn't a 20k guy vs. a 250k or 25 million. It was 250K vs. 24 mill.

[bobblehead]

41% of Americans have representation without taxation, at the Federal level.

Really? They don't pay any taxes?

Think hard about that.

Tyrone, he's right, you're wrong, again.

You are implying that these people pay social security. What you're forgetting about is that most of the social security taxes these low income workers pay is rebated through other credits on the tax form, examples are child tax credit, additional child tax credit, earned income credit, and various other entitlements.

While the 41% deals with specifically federal INCOME tax, there is a large percentage of that 41% number that is paying no effective federal taxes of ANY kind.

Maybe you should stop googling for a little while and start thinking. If you've got it in you...

Here's something to get you started.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1410.html

Sorry, but FICA and income taxes aren't the only Federal taxes we pay.....

Now you want to talk semantics. Ok, how about the guy who "pays" $10 of taxes by your definition but gets $20 of benefit/services back. Does he pay taxes or not?

Classic liberalism, can't argue the point straight up so play number/word games to shift the attention away from the fact that 41% of the people's vote have been bought by giving them get out of taxes free cards.

We are arguing the point, straightup. The 41% stated is factually incorrect.

As for the payin vs. bennie. Stupid. Of course he pays taxes.

You don't hear me complaining about taxes and how i'm subsiding conservative families with kids...after all, i pay taxes that are used for education..yet, i have no children.

First off I don't believe in the child tax credit, or any other crap like that. I don't even mind a slightly progressive tax, but it should be straight up, this is what you made, this is what you pay. As far as the education thing...you might not have kids, but you used the education system yourself (although some may argue you didn't get your moneys worth).

You don't believe? How convenient for you. :oops:

Education: Sure, i used it. But, didn't my parents pay taxes? So, am i being double billed? Or, since i used it for 22 years...shouldn't i only be expected to pay in for what i used. :roll:
Huge quote chain...proud to be part. Ty, I don't believe in social engineering through the tax code so I don't believe in the child tax credit. The GOP does, but I don't have to agree with them.

As far as the education thingy, I could make several arguments about how you benefit from an educated society even without children. I have no children either, but I accept that schools are vital infrastructure. Your parents also likely used public school anyway, so we can keep taking this backwards. I highly doubt you believe your own rhetoric on this one, likely its more obfuscation.

The original point was the 41% don't pay federal taxes..that is completely untrue. If the statement had been income then we might have something to talk about.

Schools: The point was that many of us pay taxes and don't receive an equal benefit..something you brought up. I pay, and will pay far more in taxes then i ever receive..and since your example didn't include societal benefits...it is kinda disengenous for you to bring that up now.

I have no problem paying taxes....it is always the right/conservs that bitch about taxes.

But, if you want to do so....then, why are you complaining about those that dont' pay? Don't you receive a societal bennie from making sure those people are taken care of?

P.S. Since we are talking about taxes...and that group that doesn't pay taxes.....lower socio economic groups tend to smoke more. Guess who is paying a federal tax for their smokes?

We also pay fed excise tax on phones, gas, etc. To make a claim that 41% of people are getting federal representation without paying taxes..is well, absurd. Not to mention all the extremely wealthy individuals that figure out a way not to pay any taxes.

Our tax code is tremendously rigged to favor the wealthy, especially the very wealthy and the very large corporations.

Surely you aren't going to argue that a doc who earns 250K..prolly losing 170 in taxes (fed, ss, state, medicare) is getting the same amount of "representation" as a wealthy heir who earns a "meager" 3% on his 25 mill in stocks/bonds fund (assets, not income are the truth measure of wealth)..."earning" 750K and paying under Obama 20%...150K..leaving him/her with 600K.

You are good. I answer every ridiculous point you make so you turn to making 3 misstatements of fact and 2 obfuscations in the same post. I admit it, you wore me down with your tactics. I no longer care enough to counter your outright attempt to NOT debate the issues.

[texaspackerbacker]

I tried, Little Whiskey. There just seems to be more interest in taxes than guns--and I have to admit, I feel that way too.

Tyrone, you don't mind paying taxes? I would say that narrows you down to being a hypocrite or a fool, but based on your history of posting, there's plenty of room for you to be both.

Damn straight, we conservatives bitch about taxes. Not only are they a personal anathema, they are the poison pill that kills an economy.

If you want to defend something liberal, Tyrone, consider spending. I found myself in the very uncomfortable position of actually agreeing with that bastard, Obama, today when he spoke of the necessity to spend, both on a personal level and on a government level in time of economic downturn. He was wrong in stating the unanimity of economists about this, but he was correct in the necessity for demand to be stimulated to bounce back. He also was wrong not to give greater emphasis to tax cutting in the stimulatory process.

You stated, Tyrone, that the tax system is bias in favor of the rich. The numbers, of course, all say otherwise. To that extent that your kind, however, sees unfairness or favoritism to the rich in across-the-board i.e. equal tax cutting, the justification is that they are the ones who own the businesses that provide the jobs--arguably the most effective economic stimulant.

You have a problem with reading comprehension.

No, i'm not in the minority..most people have no problem paying taxes. the issues is the amount paid, not the concept itself.

Taxes are bad? Really? Cool. Let's end them. I'd like to see how the gov't exists without them, i'd like to see how our military survives, etc.

Rich: Sorry, but your personal opinion isn't relevant. I made the argument about taxes based on income vs. wealth. There is no argument about it. The wealthy don't pay their share of taxes.

It is so obvious that you demagogue because who else could argue against my example. IT wasn't a 20k guy vs. a 250k or 25 million. It was 250K vs. 24 mill.

Actually, Tyrone, I have written posts advocating exactly that--no taxes at all--just "print the money" i.e. borrow, and have the debt instruments back the currency--which we do now, but I'm saying go all the way and have no tax at all. There would, of course, be some inflation, but NOT runaway inflation--not even enough to cost what taxes cost now.

It is absolutely LAUGHABLE and LUDICROUS that you claim the "rich"--make the cut off for richness pretty much anywhere you want to--don't pay their "fair share". The ONLY rational way to define "fair share" is "equal percentage of income"--or do you somehow dispute even that?

And the figures are obvious--painfully obvious to anybody in the "rich" category that the "rich" pay an EXTREMELY much larger percentage of their income in taxes. Hell, wasn't it you who claimed 41% on the low end don't even pay taxes? Or were you on the other side of that? If it isn't 41%, it certainly is some large figure--31, 21, 11%, whatever--the point is it is absolutely factually indisputable that the rich pay a MUCH larger than equal share of taxes--the thing you liberals euphemize as "progressive" taxation.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

[quote:a25c009fef="mraynrand"]41% of Americans have representation without taxation, at the Federal level.

Really? They don't pay any taxes?

Think hard about that.

Tyrone, he's right, you're wrong, again.

You are implying that these people pay social security. What you're forgetting about is that most of the social security taxes these low income workers pay is rebated through other credits on the tax form, examples are child tax credit, additional child tax credit, earned income credit, and various other entitlements.

While the 41% deals with specifically federal INCOME tax, there is a large percentage of that 41% number that is paying no effective federal taxes of ANY kind.

Maybe you should stop googling for a little while and start thinking. If you've got it in you...

Here's something to get you started.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1410.html

Sorry, but FICA and income taxes aren't the only Federal taxes we pay.....

Now you want to talk semantics. Ok, how about the guy who "pays" $10 of taxes by your definition but gets $20 of benefit/services back. Does he pay taxes or not?

Classic liberalism, can't argue the point straight up so play number/word games to shift the attention away from the fact that 41% of the people's vote have been bought by giving them get out of taxes free cards.

We are arguing the point, straightup. The 41% stated is factually incorrect.

As for the payin vs. bennie. Stupid. Of course he pays taxes.

You don't hear me complaining about taxes and how i'm subsiding conservative families with kids...after all, i pay taxes that are used for education..yet, i have no children.

First off I don't believe in the child tax credit, or any other crap like that. I don't even mind a slightly progressive tax, but it should be straight up, this is what you made, this is what you pay. As far as the education thing...you might not have kids, but you used the education system yourself (although some may argue you didn't get your moneys worth).

You don't believe? How convenient for you. :oops:

Education: Sure, i used it. But, didn't my parents pay taxes? So, am i being double billed? Or, since i used it for 22 years...shouldn't i only be expected to pay in for what i used. :roll:
Huge quote chain...proud to be part. Ty, I don't believe in social engineering through the tax code so I don't believe in the child tax credit. The GOP does, but I don't have to agree with them.

As far as the education thingy, I could make several arguments about how you benefit from an educated society even without children. I have no children either, but I accept that schools are vital infrastructure. Your parents also likely used public school anyway, so we can keep taking this backwards. I highly doubt you believe your own rhetoric on this one, likely its more obfuscation.

The original point was the 41% don't pay federal taxes..that is completely untrue. If the statement had been income then we might have something to talk about.

Schools: The point was that many of us pay taxes and don't receive an equal benefit..something you brought up. I pay, and will pay far more in taxes then i ever receive..and since your example didn't include societal benefits...it is kinda disengenous for you to bring that up now.

I have no problem paying taxes....it is always the right/conservs that bitch about taxes.

But, if you want to do so....then, why are you complaining about those that dont' pay? Don't you receive a societal bennie from making sure those people are taken care of?

P.S. Since we are talking about taxes...and that group that doesn't pay taxes.....lower socio economic groups tend to smoke more. Guess who is paying a federal tax for their smokes?

We also pay fed excise tax on phones, gas, etc. To make a claim that 41% of people are getting federal representation without paying taxes..is well, absurd. Not to mention all the extremely wealthy individuals that figure out a way not to pay any taxes.

Our tax code is tremendously rigged to favor the wealthy, especially the very wealthy and the very large corporations.

Surely you aren't going to argue that a doc who earns 250K..prolly losing 170 in taxes (fed, ss, state, medicare) is getting the same amount of "representation" as a wealthy heir who earns a "meager" 3% on his 25 mill in stocks/bonds fund (assets, not income are the truth measure of wealth)..."earning" 750K and paying under Obama 20%...150K..leaving him/her with 600K.

You are good. I answer every ridiculous point you make so you turn to making 3 misstatements of fact and 2 obfuscations in the same post. I admit it, you wore me down with your tactics. I no longer care enough to counter your outright attempt to NOT debate the issues.[/quote:a25c009fef]

I see. My points are ridiculous...that shows how little you respect others.

3 misstatments..which 3. 2 obsfu..which 2.

The simple fact is that a statement was made that is factually incorrect. You nor anyone else can argue it.

As for Tex...you are just too damn dense to figure it out. I spelled out the difference tween income and assets and how they are taxed.

[texaspackerbacker]

You're talking about a Federal tax on assets? You're even a bigger idiot than I thought.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

You're talking about a Federal tax on assets? You're even a bigger idiot than I thought.

I gave you the doctor vs. the 25mill example.

Please show me how the wealthy are paying the same as someone making 250K.

[mraynrand]

The simple fact is that a statement was made that is factually incorrect. You nor anyone else can argue it.

Of course we can. It just gets tedious to argue with you when you are being deliberately misleading. So I forgot to write 'income.' You knew exactly what I meant - 41% of Americans don't pay federal income tax - and are therefore represented without taxation - at the federal level (which I did write) and only with respect to income taxes. If you want to continue to distract, feel free. Payroll taxes are for the retirement/ponzi scheme and are not the same. state sales and income taxes are not the same. Fees are not the same. No one would dispute the fact that the very poor all the way up to the top earners are ALL TAXED and taxed up their asses, one way or another. Some ultra rich find shelters and the very poor may get taxes and fees, but also have access to a vast majority of the entitlement programs.

And I disagree with you on the anger about the taxes - I believe (for me it is certainly true) that people are angry about what tax dollars are used for (or wasted on), moreso that the amount of the taxation. No one likes taxes, but to know they are being used to fund the likes of ACORN as well as a million other pet projects pisses me off.

[texaspackerbacker]

Tyrone, you're wrong on this from any angle you choose. It's simply ridiculous that the rich do NOT pay extremely much more tax.

Raw amount: not even in the same ball park.

Percentage: that's the definition of a PROGRESSIVE income tax

Asset tax: the prime example of that now is property tax. Rich people tend to have more valuable property, and thus, pay more property tax.

Sales tax: some say this is "regressive"; At worst, it is equal, percentage-wise, and in total amount, obviously the rich pay more because they spend more.

Any way you approach it, it's indisputable.

Why don't you follow up on what you stumbled into about no tax at all. I say it would work. Deficit spending is an excellent economic stimulant; Carry it out to its extreme--operate on nothing but borrowed money--turning over the debt/paying on it with more borrowed money. Growth will outstrip the increase in debt, or at least come close enough that the inflation is manageable. Most of our conservatives hate the idea; You, Tyrone, as a liberal, should love it.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The simple fact is that a statement was made that is factually incorrect. You nor anyone else can argue it.

Of course we can. It just gets tedious to argue with you when you are being deliberately misleading. So I forgot to write 'income.' You knew exactly what I meant - 41% of Americans don't pay federal income tax - and are therefore represented without taxation - at the federal level (which I did write) and only with respect to income taxes. If you want to continue to distract, feel free. Payroll taxes are for the retirement/ponzi scheme and are not the same. state sales and income taxes are not the same. Fees are not the same. No one would dispute the fact that the very poor all the way up to the top earners are ALL TAXED and taxed up their asses, one way or another. Some ultra rich find shelters and the very poor may get taxes and fees, but also have access to a vast majority of the entitlement programs.

And I disagree with you on the anger about the taxes - I believe (for me it is certainly true) that people are angry about what tax dollars are used for (or wasted on), moreso that the amount of the taxation. No one likes taxes, but to know they are being used to fund the likes of ACORN as well as a million other pet projects pisses me off.

NO, i didn't. I choose to believe that when you construct a sentence that is what you chose to write. Just as I know you specifically wrote federal.

I'm sorry, but you don't make any argument that suggests that because one pays more income tax that means the other is represented without taxation. Sorry, but income tax, sales tax, excise tax, gas tax, cig tax...it is all the same to me. The gov is taking my money.

Anger: Your position is a no win position. We are never going to agree which programs are worthy. things you feel are worthy i might not.

Lastly, I watched FNC..and i saw anger about the tax rate..not the programs. Very little about wasteful spending...it was far more about the gov't getting too much and the system being overly complicated.

But, you guys can keep bitching..it is great.

Like i said...Fox was going to get much more fun to watch with the Obama admin. Everyday is like Xmas.

[mraynrand]

Sorry, but income tax, sales tax, excise tax, gas tax, cig tax...it is all the same to me. The gov is taking my money.

Either you're lying or stupid then. Because all taxes aren't the same. Do you smoke? Do you walk, ride a bike bus or drive to work? Own a house or rent? Live in a state with low or high sales taxes, etc. How much of the government largess do you get due to your job/economic/racial/etc. status? No one is the same, and a lot of people, in balance get more from the government (certainly if you only count the FEDERAL government and FEDERAL taxes) than they pay in. If you don't smoke, but you have a few children and make say, 60K - hey SCHIP will cover you. Is the government taking your money? Nope, it's taking it from someone else and giving it to you.