The question is, what is this "and so forth"?
Printable View
The question is, what is this "and so forth"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burton13
Yes like Taxing the crap out of the rest of us
But he won't be raising taxs on most of us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burton13
I hope you are right but I think you are wrong while am not economist I am not igunert of the budget process and there is no way we will come close to balenceing the budget in the next 10 years under his plan and the Elaphant in the room is SS trust fund that is nothing but an off the books money source for the Congress is getting ready to become a drain on the system insted of the money tree that it has been at that point even with 0 new spending taxes will have to go up there is no way around it and it will not matter who is running the show at that time and all this new spending will make things worse...........
There are many more gun and gun related bans he supports. Just a few are complete ban on handguns, opposes right to carry, supported increasing the excise tax on firearms and ammunition by 500%, voted to ban most rifle ammunition commonly used in hunting, voted to allow the prosecution of people who use a firearm for self-defense in their homes, and the list goes on and on. Their is a good quiz on (www.gunbanobama.com) , try it to see if you are a match with him or not. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Burton13
You're going to have to come with something a little more credible then an anti-obama website funded by the NRA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burton13
Stop going after the low hanging frute and tell me where the money is going to come from since the tax hike on the 250K+ crowd?
after hearing the President ask for the creation of a health fund for "future use" it is plain to me that this will be nothing more than a new money tree for the Congress to borrow money from since it is all just numbers on paper anyway (I seem to remember Enron doing something simular to this how did that turn out for them?)
little gun fact:
you are 300% more likely to be shot and killed by a gun if you own a gun.
If you would look up some of those things that I listed you'll find out he has already voted on the majority of those while in Illinois as a senator. And I would like to know where you got your statistics from Biggin, your survey was probably taken near a high crime or large gang activity area. I'm sorry but I find that hard to believe on what you said.:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Burton13
its in the feb. issue of playboy, mentioned in the 20Q with some actor.
is it true? i really have no idea, is it as credible as a pro-nra website? probably
i have no problems with gun ownership or people having guns, as long as its done legally.
I agree, it does need to be done legally. As to whether playboy is more credible, well I won't get into that but look at whom they were interviewing? :rolleyes: Well, we'll agree to disagree, OK. The NRA does try to stand for citizens rights on owning a gun and they try to help each person learn how to handle the gun safely and correctly so that no one will be harmed in any way. Its good for some people because they may not have anyone to guide and teach them about guns and how to be safe when firing a weapon. What it all comes down to it we all need to take it upon ourselves to teach and guide people about firearms and hope they are listening , this may prevent some type of unneeded accident. It takes a responsible citizen to own a firearm and there are responsibilities involved with it, but it should be worth it, for that right is given to us by our founding fathers through the 2nd Amendment. And by the way I wish President Obama all the luck and hope he can fix some of this messed up country. He has got his hands full and I wouldn't want to be in his shoes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggin
Good on you for saying that. I wish more right-leaning people would step up and say this & practice it, instead of trying to pick apart every little thing that Obama may/may not be doing only a month & a half into being POTUS.Quote:
And by the way I wish President Obama all the luck and hope he can fix some of this messed up country. He has got his hands full and I wouldn't want to be in his shoes.
It'd save everybody a lot more spikes in blood pressure and heartache if that were the case.
As for the gun issue--the moment people in this country need to start worrying about guns being 100% banned across the board is when the Supreme Court starts hearing cases to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Until then, the laws that are pa$$ed are simply legislation setting limits on that core 2nd Amendment right--just like there are laws that the FCC enforces regarding the 1st Amendment. Do we truly have 100% "freedom of speech", as is the core 1st Amendment right? No, we don't. There are certain things we can't say on TV or broadcast on radio airwaves. By the same token--these laws tell us that there are certain guns that are too dangerous to be in the hands of American citizens, and legislation limits the ability to obtain those weapons. I know dirty words and dangerous guns are different things--but it's the same exact premise & logic structure.
Seems to me a conundrum for a lot of the right--the logic that they use to make legislation to prevent cuss words and keep other "morally objectionable" things off the airwaves is the same logic that is also used to create legislation limit what kinds of dangerous guns they can own. I know a lot of people that own guns, and they don't like to censor themselves in most anything they say--isn't it funny that they're more outraged about losing their guns than their ability to say anything they want? Guess some people favor the freedom of the bullet over the freedom of the thought. Interesting stuff.
If you wait till the SC starts hearing the cases before you start worrying then you are SOL.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoeburnCane
I have been a middle of the road person my whole life but I am very much ANTI erosion of rights and I don't think you can make the argument that BOTH sides will clamp off any of our freedoms that will suit them at that paticular time and it sucks that neather side is outraged by these things till the other party in in power
Your rights were eroded more in the last 8 years than at any other time since desegregation. And unless you are black you have to go back further than that to find a time when Americans were stripped of more rights than they were under W. 8 more years of a policy like that and we'll actually need a$$ault rifles...
(can't believe you can't even write ***ault...lol)
It depends on what is defined as an ***ault rifle (Some law maker may deside that a scope on your gun makes it an ***ault rifle or any rifle larger than 22 calaber)Quote:
Originally Posted by sup-rbeast
Like I said BOTH sides have and will continue to take away our rights and just becouse one side does something you may not agree with does not give the other side the right to up the stakes when they get into power (sigh......but that seems to be the way it goes :( )
An a$$ault rifle is an M-16, AK-47, SKS, M-14, SG-550/551...etc They are designed for combat (hence the name "a$$ault rifle") and the manner of fire can be selected. And IMO, there is not a need for them outside of war...sure, you can hunt with them, but you can hunt with a conventional rifle as well. Here's my take on it....we have 1st amendment rights but we cant run naked down the street, even if it is our way of expressing ourselves. That is a limitation on that right. We are allowed to bear arms...but that doesn't necessarily mean we have a right to own a$$ault rifles...that is a limitation on that right. With folks so willing to give up their privacy to Bush, I don't see why they are the first to whine when someone mentions banning a$$ault rifles. BTW the US a$$ault weapons ban that was in place from 94-04 defined an a$$ault rifle as: a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to use a detachable magazine, and two or more of the following features:
1-obvious pistol grip, 2-folding or telescoping stock, 3-grenade launcher, 4-barrel shroud, 5-flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accept one, or 6- a bayonet mount. And really, why shouldn't that be banned?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sup-rbeast
Becouse it is the 1st step after this you have to think the next step is to make it more and more restrictive.........
Honistly nothing in the bill will affect me directly but neather did the wireless wiretaps from the last adminastration. IMHO both can have a good argument made for them but both are equaly as wrong
In the mean time the (R)s who did not mind the wire taps will bitch and moan about this while the (D)s who were on the other end of this not so long ago are NOW doing exactly the things that got the (R)s in trouble.........
Neather side is right and we as a country will continue to lose our rights so long as the 2 sides keep tring to 1-up the other it is a bit sad
I get what you're saying Counts, but Obama will be implementing the same ban of 94-04. The only changes I could see, would be newer a$sault weapons made in the past 5 years.
IMO, our founding fathers wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to suit the world they lived in..and the burdens they had to bear under England's rule. I do think they tried to write a far-sighted document that would endure the test of time...but at the same time I don't think they wanted to protect something in the Bill of Rights that was more harmful to the country than good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burton13
You are right The ban as is currenty stands is NOT a bad thing but I THINK it could get harry quick the 94 ban was never expanded on so there is reason to belive that this one will not exceed that scope eaither HOWEVER the Dems lost power in congress in 96 so it IS possable that they just had not had the opertunity to do so. That being said while I can not like the situation I don't think It in itself is the end of the world
Quote:
Originally Posted by sup-rbeast
You know this EXACT SAME argument could be made for Bush's warentless wire-taps.
That's true...so wonder why the exact constituants who were ok with the wire taps are the first to whine and cry over guns?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sup-rbeast
I Was/Am anti both........I wonder why you are OK with one and not the other?
It's common sense...unregulated guns kill..wire taps don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sup-rbeast
I give up on you........ there is no small freedom and it is my opinion that the one you want to see infringed is the very one that ensures the others. And you said yourself that you can't see how the (R)s could be OK with wiretaps and not with infringing on arms where the the oppisit is equily true for the (D)s
What is you stance on carrying knifes?
Here is a story out of GB
Quote:
Originally Posted by Counts
Man guilty of killing 'Harry Potter' actor - CNN.com
It ain't the beast that needs giving up on. If you can't see the difference between a gun and a wire tap...who really has the blinders on. And ain't it grand that some had the good sense not to buy into the Bush plan to dump SS for 401ks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Counts
As long as there are republicans and democrats in our government there will never be any common ground between the two. Their too tied up with arguing with each other just because they belong to different partys. We don't need a political party, we need a government for the people not a government for the (R)s or (D)s. The thing about the wire taps is an infringement on our right of privacy. It was supposed to be for listening in on terrorist conversations I guess but I sure they would abuse it for other reasons. On the topic of gun bans IMO a person could use anything for a weapon(sticks, rocks, alcohol consumption, and so on). If the people that were doing the killing or a$$alting of others were punished properly, maybe it might help. But as long as they have more rights than law abiding citizens things will probably never change.
Also on the gun banning, it would take away from the law adiding citizens and boost up the ones doing the crimes. So how would this gun banning make me more secure in my home than I am now? I would be at the attackers mercy bercause I would not have a weapon to protect my family. At least now I do have a chance to protect my family but if more gun bans are continued to grow then who knows what a body would have to use to protect themselves. What it comes down to is if the government can disarm the american citizens then we would be easyer to handle for them do what they wish with us. Alot of this seems harsh and far fetched but we must beware of what can happen. It has happened before and it can happen again. Its better to be prepared for circumstances involving the breaking entering of a home or business than to be caught empty handed. Think about it , a man comes into your home and demands money and valuables and when you've given them to him he decides he wants your wife or daughter, what can you do but scream at him or beg him to not harm them. He's got a gun and you don't, so what will probably happen is your shot and he also takes his spoils. Its just alot to think about. Times has changed so much its doubtful it will ever be any better, we can hope and pray it gets better. The thing is we the citizens need to contact our government officials to tell them how we feel about the different things their voting on. Let them know that its us that they are in there for not for their political ego. Let your voices be heard through our freedom and liberty before we lose that right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by simple man
Some of you guys will happly walk into the gas chamber LOL A right is a right and if you are willing to give up one do not be suprised when they take 5 more away for good measure
IMHO SS is screwed no matter what and how is it related to the current issue anyway?
I have no problem with knives...and I have no problem with guns that aren't designed to kill as many people possible as quickly as possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sup-rbeast
So who will deside what type of gun does not fit that catagory?
So that we are on the same page while I can see a POSSABLE reason for a few of the banned items (i.e. Pistal grip for someone with a disability, the barols that will not burn you if you touch them) banning them IS no big deal .....What I DO NOT LIKE is the presadent that it will set that will allow them to put real teeth in a ban 5-10 years down the road...........It IMHO is EXACTLY like someone being OK with the Wire taps so long as they were only used to fight terrosem however we both know that the defanation of terisom could be changed at any time to fit whatever the Gov wanted it to be much the way an ***ault weapon will become whatever the Gov wants it to be
The ban was in place from 94-04....and it hasn't grown in scope.
The (D)s were only in power from 94-96 so we will see what happens if they stay in power longer this timeQuote:
Originally Posted by sup-rbeast
BTW How much is Obama useing/planning on useing the very wiretapping that Bush was ripped for?
Obama Administration: Wiretapping Legal Challenge Must Die | Threat Level from Wired.com
Obama’s wiretapping stand enrages many … The Backpack Chronicles
Senate easily passes wiretap bill / Obama's 'yes' vote draws charge of flip-flop from McCain camp
Once you give away a right you generaly do not get it back
One day the "Patriot Act" will die...
Now would be the time for it to happen if does not happen now it NEVER willQuote:
Originally Posted by sup-rbeast
I am afraid that the Gov (both Ds and Rs) have figured out that they like the extra power (Never a good thing for the rest of us)
If you follow the train of thought out, the Bush admin messed up again, released cl***ified docs, and got the US sued. It seems to just to try to stop that suit in the first link.Quote:
Originally Posted by Counts
Just a thought out of the blue- what do you all think of the ads. "I owed 100 grand in back taxes and my people got me off for 2000 dollars!" I can't understand how this could be legal. If it works for some, we all should quit paying federal taxes.
Progress...
That group looks like the crowd at a Twins Springs ball game.Quote:
Originally Posted by NotSoSilentBob