On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 10:09:56 -0500, Pete C. wrote:

> George Leppla wrote:
>>
>> On 7/18/2011 7:59 AM, George wrote:
>>> I am all for it. As far as ge you would need to ask Obama since jeff
>>> immelt is his good buddy (Obama even made him head of his "jobs council"
>>> even though ge is directly responsible for taking numerous good jobs off
>>> shore).
>>
>> C'mon, George... you know better than that. GE and the other big
>> companies who pay no tax are doing so based on tax cuts and loopholes
>> that were put in place almost 10 years ago. Obama had nothing to do
>> with the current tax code that makes this possible.
>>
>> George L
>
> The claim that these corporation pay no taxes is simply false. Those
> claims are based only on corporate income taxes, and ignore the millions
> in other taxes that those corporations pay.

....just like the wingers who whine about the 47% of household who 'pay no
tax.':

<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html>

i submit, however, that most corporations are better able to afford paying
taxes than households that don't make enough money to be required to.

blake

On 18/07/2011 2:15 PM, blake murphy wrote:

>
> what are you, some kind of commie? i suppose you support a ban on private
> ownership of bazookas, too!
>
Sign me up. I must be one of them too. When I read about some of those
weird militias and their need for weapons to rise up against the
government and its assault on constitutional rights, I have to say that
they aren't the type of people I want fighting on my behalf and ending
up in charge.

On 18/07/2011 2:33 PM, blake murphy wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 21:16:11 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
>
>> Nad R wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Crime is getting so high in this country
>>
>> Crime increases in areas with "gun control" and decreases in areas that
>> support gun rights. Look it up on the FBI's site yourself.
>
> if it's so cut and dried, provide the cite. prove us wrong.
>
>

But don't even think of comparing it to Canada where you now need a
licence to get a gun (which involves safety training and a police record
search) and where you can not shoot people. Guns and ammunition have to
be be safely stored. You can use deadly force if you life is truly
threatened, but if you have time to go an unlock the gun and load it,
your life is not in that much danger. Yet, our homicide rate is much
much lower than in the US. Sure sure.... US murder rates are highest
in ghettos. Ours are either committed by youth gangs in the major cities
or by natives in the north

The only Canadian crime stat that is higher is rape, but that it
difficult to equate because the law does not differentiate here. It is
sexual assault and that can include anything from inappropriate touching
to a violent rape.

"Pete C." > wrote:
> Nad R wrote:
>>
>> Regress... I will take a dirt road over a paved road any day. I complain
>> when the township runs a grater through. The rougher the road the slower
>> they have to drive. One however cannot own a fuel loving vehicle when
>> living in the boondocks. A truck is a must have with over sized tires, but
>> not too over sized to be gaudy.
>
> Absolutely, dirt roads help a lot in discouraging PYVs from infesting an
> area. They can be a bit dusty though.
>
>> But then I only leave the compound once a week for a little shopping.
>
> Once I get situated with my little subsistence farm, I'm hoping to leave
> it perhaps a couple times a year at most. There isn't much I'd need that
> can't be readily purchased in a six month supply at Costco or wherever,
> and these days you can readily order damned near anything online and
> have it delivered in short order.

Now Pete, are you actually trying to make me like you?

In the country I know there is one thing you can have that you cannot
possibly have in the city. Some neighbors have these huge artificial berms
where they can can fire their fully automatic machine guns without harming
anyone. If your neighbors land on each side of is rated AG for agriculture,
you can fire anytime of the day. If the land is rated for residential... No
way! My land and neighbors are AG.

My township has no police department or fire department. House catches on
fire it burns to the ground. I do have a thirty ought six for coyotes that
have a liking for beef.

--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

George Leppla wrote:
>
> Translation: Under the Obama administration, I now have more freedom to
> own a gun than I did before.

Correct.

> Dury says people are buying guns as well as ammunition, creating a
> shortage of both. He says people are buying the guns to protect
> themselves because they perceive Obama's policies as socialist and
> rewarding those "people who are not working hard." They are also afraid,
> he says, of more restrictive gun laws.

He came out of Illinois so people did expect him to pass Illinois style
restrictive gun laws. Illinois gun laws keep getting overturned by the
Supreme Court. Chicago based Illinois state, county and city
politicians don't like that so they keep passing variations that stay in
effect while the battle reuns up the the Supreme Court.

What people don't seem to get is the President doesn't have all that
much ability to push laws through nor does he have all that much
influence on the Supreme Court. Whether he wanted to or not Obama could
not push such laws through. He hasn't tried.

On 7/18/2011 9:54 AM, Pete C. wrote:

> Translation: My second amendment rights are still being infringed.

Once again, you still don't answer the question. HOW have YOUR rights
to own guns been infringed upon by the Obama administration?


> Translation: My second amendment rights are still being infringed in
> places that I have a presence. That infringement directly affect me, not
> just someone else.

Once again, you still don't answer the question. HOW have YOUR rights
to own guns been infringed upon by the Obama administration?


> Translation: Just like people who "run around like chicken little"
> preparing for an approaching hurricane only to have it change course at
> the last minute, they rationally assessed the threat and prepared.

Rational? You really thing buying a lifetime supply of guns and ammo
are the acts of rational people? Were these rational people?

>> "Everybody was scared he was going to take the ammo away or he was going
>> to tax it out of sight on the prices," Dury says. "So people started
>> stocking up, buying half a lifetime to a lifetime supply of ammo all at
>> one time."



>> Translation: "Yes, there were lots of threats but I'm not at liberty to
>> talk about them in public."
>
> Yes, that's pretty much the correct translation. Sorry if you are so
> blinded that you want to believe there can't be any truth to it.

If it is true... please enlighten us. You have the floor... use your
rights of free speach to tell us about the dangers that were averted.
Provide some first hand info... or maybe a cite. We'll wait.


> Translation: I noted that my insurance already changed, and I'm not
> going to dig out and transcribe the exact details from my insurance
> paperwork. >

In other words, you can't prove a single instance where your medical
insurance was changed due to Obama's health care legislation. What you
can do is keep repeating over and over that "things are going to Hell"
and hope that by saying it often enough, someone will believe you. Long
on rhetoric, short on facts

> Yes, I did provide several specific examples of both previous (federal
> ugly gun ban) and ongoing infringement (state ugly gun ban in states
> where I have a presence).

I must have missed that... let me go back and look.... Talk among
yourself while I am gone.... looking.... looking.... looking... nope.
Can't find a single cite that you posted.

Again, just because you repeat things over and over again doesn't make
it true. Provide some facts or citations.

>> Your whole idea of what is happening in the world is based on paranoia.
>> Not based on anything that actually happens, but based on fear of what
>> MIGHT happen.
>
> My whole idea is based on documented facts, and ones that can be
> validated at credible .gov site, not kooky .org sites.

Again... citations, please... or shall we just sit here watching you run
in circles yelling "The sky is falling"?

George L.

Nad R wrote:
>
> "Pete C." > wrote:
> > Nad R wrote:
> >>
> >> Regress... I will take a dirt road over a paved road any day. I complain
> >> when the township runs a grater through. The rougher the road the slower
> >> they have to drive. One however cannot own a fuel loving vehicle when
> >> living in the boondocks. A truck is a must have with over sized tires, but
> >> not too over sized to be gaudy.
> >
> > Absolutely, dirt roads help a lot in discouraging PYVs from infesting an
> > area. They can be a bit dusty though.
> >
> >> But then I only leave the compound once a week for a little shopping.
> >
> > Once I get situated with my little subsistence farm, I'm hoping to leave
> > it perhaps a couple times a year at most. There isn't much I'd need that
> > can't be readily purchased in a six month supply at Costco or wherever,
> > and these days you can readily order damned near anything online and
> > have it delivered in short order.
>
> Now Pete, are you actually trying to make me like you?
>
> In the country I know there is one thing you can have that you cannot
> possibly have in the city. Some neighbors have these huge artificial berms
> where they can can fire their fully automatic machine guns without harming
> anyone. If your neighbors land on each side of is rated AG for agriculture,
> you can fire anytime of the day. If the land is rated for residential... No
> way! My land and neighbors are AG.
>
> My township has no police department or fire department. House catches on
> fire it burns to the ground. I do have a thirty ought six for coyotes that
> have a liking for beef.

When I build my little subsistence farm, the small cabin and the large
shop will be of non flammable construction. The large pond will provide
a water source for fighting any grass fires using the normal irrigation
pumps. I have no interest in full auto anything, but coyotes and feral
hogs will indeed be target practice. Hopefully I'll be getting things
going by early next year.

blake murphy wrote:
>
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 13:10:24 +0000 (UTC), Nad R wrote:
>
> > sf > wrote:
> >
> >> You reap what you sow. It sounds like your friend is living in an
> >> area where services are being cut back and that's what happens when
> >> there are no taxes to pay for them. Soon no one will be filling
> >> potholes in the streets either and then you can slowly regress back to
> >> the dirt roads of old, while the rest of us have to listen to how bad
> >> it is in your poverty stricken part of the country.
> >
> > Regress... I will take a dirt road over a paved road any day. I complain
> > when the township runs a grater through. The rougher the road the slower
> > they have to drive. One however cannot own a fuel loving vehicle when
> > living in the boondocks. A truck is a must have with over sized tires, but
> > not too over sized to be gaudy.
> > But then I only leave the compound once a week for a little shopping.
>
> 'the compound'? what are you, militia or something?

"farm" or "ranch" would probably be more appropriate terms.

On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 19:44:12 +0000 (UTC), Nad R
> wrote:

> My township has no police department or fire department. House catches on
> fire it burns to the ground.

What happened to the volunteers? My dad was a volunteer fireman and a
volunteer deputy sheriff. You house caught on fire, somebody came and
tried to put it out. Bad guys needed arresting, somebody did it.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

blake murphy wrote:
>
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 17:53:28 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
>
> > Armed law
> > abiding citizens have however successfully defended themselves against
> > criminals many millions of times.
>
> bullshit. i would like to see a cite for 'many millions of times.'
>
> oh, right - you don't provide cites for your bullshit claims.
>
> blake

The FBI stats have it, some have even been reported in "mainstream"
media.

On 18/07/2011 3:03 PM, blake murphy wrote:

>> The claim that these corporation pay no taxes is simply false. Those
>> claims are based only on corporate income taxes, and ignore the millions
>> in other taxes that those corporations pay.
>
> ...just like the wingers who whine about the 47% of household who 'pay no
> tax.':
>
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html>
>
> i submit, however, that most corporations are better able to afford paying
> taxes than households that don't make enough money to be required to.
>


There are all sorts of good excuses about why corporations should not
have to pay tax, but the thing of it is that a a corporation is a legal
entity, just like a person. It is a legal entity that is created to be
separate for the people who own it. While not a person, it has the
rights and responsibilities like a person. It's not like they need
money to pay for groceries, a choice between eating or paying taxes,
like some people.

blake murphy wrote:
>
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 20:48:17 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
>
> > sf wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 17:25:00 -0500, "Pete C." >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Ask the folks in CA, IL, NY, CT, NJ and a few other states where peoples
> >>> constitutional rights are indeed being trampled. Ask folks who's rights
> >>> were trampled by the now expired ugly gun ban. When the second amendment
> >>> was written it wasn't about "sporting" guns, or antique guns, it was
> >>> about guns that were the then state of the art and defensive use was
> >>> very much what was being considered.
> >>
> >> The gun laws in California are the way voters want them, and we're
> >> working on making them even more restrictive.
> >
> > The courts may have something to say about your attempts to infringe on
> > peoples constitutional rights. Indeed, I recently read that there have
> > been significant increases in issuing CHLs in parts of CA this year.
>
> ooh, sounds like their rights are being trampled, all right. or would you
> prefer 'must carry' laws?

"Must issue" (with clean background check) is just fine thank you.

On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 20:50:25 +0000 (UTC), Nad R
> wrote:

> I have a hobby farm, my home, barns, animals, hens houses my own gardens,
> well system and septic field on twenty acres. I find it hard to call it
> just a home, a single structure. It is a place where I could stay for
> months without leaving for anything.

You have a farm, Dan. A compound has several buildings/homes that
people live in. I used to live on a family compound. We had 3 houses
and various other buildings, including three garages (one for 4 cars,
one for 3 cars and one for 1 car and the John Deer tractor, plus a
boat), the caretaker's cottage, two kennels - one that housed up to 30
dogs, the other up to 10) and a large workshop with an office/guest
house over it.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On 18/07/2011 4:43 PM, Pete C. wrote:

>> Sign me up. I must be one of them too. When I read about some of those
>> weird militias and their need for weapons to rise up against the
>> government and its assault on constitutional rights, I have to say that
>> they aren't the type of people I want fighting on my behalf and ending
>> up in charge.
>
> You hear about those "weird militias" because that is what the media
> chooses to hype up. It is the fact those those "weird militias"
> throughout the country add up to about 100 mostly geriatric people that
> the media chooses to ignore.




No no. The fact is that your factoid is bullshit. It is hard to accept
that they consist of 100 mostly geriatric people when there are more
than 800 militias. They may be a bunch of fat stupid fundamentalist
radicals, but they sure are hell aren't just a few dozen geriatrics.

sf > wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 20:50:25 +0000 (UTC), Nad R
> > wrote:
>
>> I have a hobby farm, my home, barns, animals, hens houses my own gardens,
>> well system and septic field on twenty acres. I find it hard to call it
>> just a home, a single structure. It is a place where I could stay for
>> months without leaving for anything.
>
> You have a farm, Dan. A compound has several buildings/homes that
> people live in. I used to live on a family compound. We had 3 houses
> and various other buildings, including three garages (one for 4 cars,
> one for 3 cars and one for 1 car and the John Deer tractor, plus a
> boat), the caretaker's cottage, two kennels - one that housed up to 30
> dogs, the other up to 10) and a large workshop with an office/guest
> house over it.

A hobby farm, non profit.


--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

sf > wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 19:44:12 +0000 (UTC), Nad R
> > wrote:
>
>> My township has no police department or fire department. House catches on
>> fire it burns to the ground.
>
> What happened to the volunteers? My dad was a volunteer fireman and a
> volunteer deputy sheriff. You house caught on fire, somebody came and
> tried to put it out. Bad guys needed arresting, somebody did it.

The nearest fire department is ten miles away and they will need to bring a
tanker truck as well. By the time they get her it will all be gone. I do
have insurance.

The odd thing is that there is a small emergency hospital that is only one
story high and is very nice just five miles away. Also they have an
excellent cafeteria at reasonable prices, better than most of the
restaurants in the area.

--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

"Pete C." > wrote:
> blake murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 13:10:24 +0000 (UTC), Nad R wrote:
>>
>>> sf > wrote:
>>>
>>>> You reap what you sow. It sounds like your friend is living in an
>>>> area where services are being cut back and that's what happens when
>>>> there are no taxes to pay for them. Soon no one will be filling
>>>> potholes in the streets either and then you can slowly regress back to
>>>> the dirt roads of old, while the rest of us have to listen to how bad
>>>> it is in your poverty stricken part of the country.
>>>
>>> Regress... I will take a dirt road over a paved road any day. I complain
>>> when the township runs a grater through. The rougher the road the slower
>>> they have to drive. One however cannot own a fuel loving vehicle when
>>> living in the boondocks. A truck is a must have with over sized tires, but
>>> not too over sized to be gaudy.
>>> But then I only leave the compound once a week for a little shopping.
>>
>> 'the compound'? what are you, militia or something?
>
> "farm" or "ranch" would probably be more appropriate terms.

That would be correct, I will use hobby farm for now on... Thanks.
But it does loose that ominous tone

--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

blake murphy wrote:
> Pete C. wrote:
>
>> Armed law
>> abiding citizens have however successfully defended themselves against
>> criminals many millions of times.
>
> bullshit. i would like to see a cite for 'many millions of times.'

There are reporting services that search for such reports, such as the
magazines from the NRA. Of course their editorials and other articles
are biased and sometimes not verifiable but their incident reports are
carefully verifed. They need to be because plenty of people would be
quick to condemn them for false reporting.

They report multiple incidents per month. The vast majority of reported
incidents are preventive. The law abiding citizen shows the weapon and
the criminal flees.

Millions of times is an exaggeration. Per year country wide in the US
would be in the hundreds using reported events, with a reasonable guess
of thousands of unreported events.

Use of a gun by a law abiding citizen is very rare. Most who own them
never use them except in practice. Most who carry them never even show
them. Never in their entire lives. Which is of course what gun
ownership is supposed to be like. Preventive and rare. But if you ever
do need it there's a high chance of dying without it.

On 2011-07-18, Doug Freyburger > wrote:

> incidents are preventive. The law abiding citizen shows the weapon and
> the criminal flees.

My two favorite stories includes an eighty year old widow who drove
off a garage burglar with an ancient single-action Colt. She needed
two hands to even hold the gun up, but the burglar thought better of
testing her resolve and skee-daddled. When the news asked this crusty
old granny what she would have done if the burglar hadn't run off, she
replied, "Ida shot the sonofabitch!"

The other involves two armed men robbing a family owned liquor store
in a small mid-western town. The perps had the husband and son at
gunpoint in the front of the store. The wife, who'd recently finished
a gun handling course, came out of the back room with pistols
a-blazing, a semi-auto in one hand and a .357 in the other. She shot
both dirtbags dead. The local sheriff had nothing but praise for her
actions.

Protection is not always against threatening humans. My recent pistol
purchase was for protection against bears. We've had bears on our
deck every year for the last 3 yrs, one bear returning twice within 12
hrs. The CO DOW trapped one rogue bear in my drive-way and another
attacked a young boy less than 5 miles from here, only last week.

nb

On 7/18/2011 5:27 PM, Janet wrote:
> In >, lid says...
> My friend
>> very sensibly realized that they have food and water on hand because
>> there is no invisible government helicopter hovering over their house
>> waiting for say a heavy snow storm.
>
> Though if he lives where there is no risk of snow, he won't be needing
> any emergency snow storm preparations.

Of course not but he he lived in a area that is prone to other weather
phenomena it would be prudent to prepare accordingly right?

>
>> So the same goes for personal protection.
>
> Exactly.

For sure, so where is this place where there is zero probability of home
invasion?

>
> Janet
>
>

On 7/18/2011 6:12 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
> blake murphy wrote:
>> Pete C. wrote:
>>
>>> Armed law
>>> abiding citizens have however successfully defended themselves against
>>> criminals many millions of times.
>>
>> bullshit. i would like to see a cite for 'many millions of times.'
>
> There are reporting services that search for such reports, such as the
> magazines from the NRA. Of course their editorials and other articles
> are biased and sometimes not verifiable but their incident reports are
> carefully verifed. They need to be because plenty of people would be
> quick to condemn them for false reporting.
>
> They report multiple incidents per month. The vast majority of reported
> incidents are preventive. The law abiding citizen shows the weapon and
> the criminal flees.
>
> Millions of times is an exaggeration. Per year country wide in the US
> would be in the hundreds using reported events, with a reasonable guess
> of thousands of unreported events.
>
> Use of a gun by a law abiding citizen is very rare. Most who own them
> never use them except in practice. Most who carry them never even show
> them. Never in their entire lives. Which is of course what gun
> ownership is supposed to be like. Preventive and rare. But if you ever
> do need it there's a high chance of dying without it.

Exactly, you would never know I carry. I believe I can say that for
everyone else I know who carries. It is a quite different picture that
the usual anti gun hysterical view that everyone is waving their guns
around just looking for an excuse to use them.

On 7/18/2011 2:40 PM, blake murphy wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 13:10:24 +0000 (UTC), Nad R wrote:
>
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> You reap what you sow. It sounds like your friend is living in an
>>> area where services are being cut back and that's what happens when
>>> there are no taxes to pay for them. Soon no one will be filling
>>> potholes in the streets either and then you can slowly regress back to
>>> the dirt roads of old, while the rest of us have to listen to how bad
>>> it is in your poverty stricken part of the country.
>>
>> Regress... I will take a dirt road over a paved road any day. I complain
>> when the township runs a grater through. The rougher the road the slower
>> they have to drive. One however cannot own a fuel loving vehicle when
>> living in the boondocks. A truck is a must have with over sized tires, but
>> not too over sized to be gaudy.
>> But then I only leave the compound once a week for a little shopping.
>
> 'the compound'? what are you, militia or something?
>
> your pal,
> blake

Maybe he imagines he is part of the liberal elite?

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

George > wrote:
> On 7/18/2011 2:40 PM, blake murphy wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 13:10:24 +0000 (UTC), Nad R wrote:
>>
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> You reap what you sow. It sounds like your friend is living in an
>>>> area where services are being cut back and that's what happens when
>>>> there are no taxes to pay for them. Soon no one will be filling
>>>> potholes in the streets either and then you can slowly regress back to
>>>> the dirt roads of old, while the rest of us have to listen to how bad
>>>> it is in your poverty stricken part of the country.
>>>
>>> Regress... I will take a dirt road over a paved road any day. I complain
>>> when the township runs a grater through. The rougher the road the slower
>>> they have to drive. One however cannot own a fuel loving vehicle when
>>> living in the boondocks. A truck is a must have with over sized tires, but
>>> not too over sized to be gaudy.
>>> But then I only leave the compound once a week for a little shopping.
>>
>> 'the compound'? what are you, militia or something?
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
> Maybe he imagines he is part of the liberal elite?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_Compound

Yes!!! Back to the compound!!!
All conservative types are inferior to my great intellect!!!
I love boating on the Great Lakes

Now if only I can afford a professional chef as a servant

--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

Nad R wrote:
>
> sf > wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 19:44:12 +0000 (UTC), Nad R
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> My township has no police department or fire department. House catches on
> >> fire it burns to the ground.
> >
> > What happened to the volunteers? My dad was a volunteer fireman and a
> > volunteer deputy sheriff. You house caught on fire, somebody came and
> > tried to put it out. Bad guys needed arresting, somebody did it.
>
> The nearest fire department is ten miles away and they will need to bring a
> tanker truck as well. By the time they get her it will all be gone. I do
> have insurance.
>
> The odd thing is that there is a small emergency hospital that is only one
> story high and is very nice just five miles away. Also they have an
> excellent cafeteria at reasonable prices, better than most of the
> restaurants in the area.

You should consider building a fire pond and getting a decent pump, it's
not that expensive.

George Leppla wrote:
>
> On 7/18/2011 3:27 PM, Pete C. wrote:
> >> 'the compound'? what are you, militia or something?
> > "farm" or "ranch" would probably be more appropriate terms.
>
> And yet, you choose to call it a "compound".
>
> If nothing else, it indicates a certain mindset. I bet you researched
> things like "survivalist" and "living off the grid", etc. Ways to
> keep "them" out because when the shit hits the fan, "they" are all going
> to be coming for "your" stuff. But you'll have some nasty surprises for
> "them", won't you!
>
> Chicken Little.
>
> George L

Hey bone head, it was leftist Nad R who referred to his place as a
"compound". I refer to my forthcoming location as the "hermit cabin"
and/or "subsistence farm".

George Leppla wrote:
>
> On 7/18/2011 9:54 AM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> > Translation: My second amendment rights are still being infringed.
>
> Once again, you still don't answer the question. HOW have YOUR rights
> to own guns been infringed upon by the Obama administration?

I have never made any claim that Obama's administration has infringed my
rights, only that the left had. The previous leftist Clinton
administration infringed my second amendment rights. The administrations
in at least one state have also infringed my second amendment rights.

>
> > Translation: My second amendment rights are still being infringed in
> > places that I have a presence. That infringement directly affect me, not
> > just someone else.
>
> Once again, you still don't answer the question. HOW have YOUR rights
> to own guns been infringed upon by the Obama administration?

I have never made any claim that Obama's administration has infringed my
rights, only that the left had. The previous leftist Clinton
administration infringed my second amendment rights. The administrations
in at least one state have also infringed my second amendment rights.

>
> > Translation: Just like people who "run around like chicken little"
> > preparing for an approaching hurricane only to have it change course at
> > the last minute, they rationally assessed the threat and prepared.
>
> Rational? You really thing buying a lifetime supply of guns and ammo
> are the acts of rational people? Were these rational people?

Certainly they are. People who enjoy shooting sports always need guns
and ammo for those sports just as surely as golfers need clubs and
balls. Buying in a big lot or buying smaller amounts every few months
don't make much difference.

The other thing that the media ignores is that a very large percentage
of the people buying guns and ammo had never owned a gun before and
indeed many had previously been somewhat anti-gun. Someone I know is one
of those people who never thought they would own a gun and now owns a
couple.

>
> >> "Everybody was scared he was going to take the ammo away or he was going
> >> to tax it out of sight on the prices," Dury says. "So people started
> >> stocking up, buying half a lifetime to a lifetime supply of ammo all at
> >> one time."
>
> >> Translation: "Yes, there were lots of threats but I'm not at liberty to
> >> talk about them in public."
> >
> > Yes, that's pretty much the correct translation. Sorry if you are so
> > blinded that you want to believe there can't be any truth to it.
>
> If it is true... please enlighten us. You have the floor... use your
> rights of free speach to tell us about the dangers that were averted.
> Provide some first hand info... or maybe a cite. We'll wait.

Don't bother waiting, I won't be revealing anything I shouldn't. You'll
just have to consider the fact that your Obamesiah chose to continue the
PA and ask yourself if you think the president might possible have
access to information that you don't.

>
> > Translation: I noted that my insurance already changed, and I'm not
> > going to dig out and transcribe the exact details from my insurance
> > paperwork. >
>
> In other words, you can't prove a single instance where your medical
> insurance was changed due to Obama's health care legislation.

I most certainly can, however I don't have to prove it to a clueless
liar like you. I've quite sure you can go on the Aetna, BCBS or other
insurer sites and find plenty of references to changes made due to
Obummercare.

> What you
> can do is keep repeating over and over that "things are going to Hell"
> and hope that by saying it often enough, someone will believe you. Long
> on rhetoric, short on facts

Ask you own doctor what they think and have seen. In addition to the
allergist I see regularly, I know a some other medical professionals
personally and *all* of them are very concerned about Obummer care and a
couple tell me they are seriously considering retiring if things go the
way they thing they will.

>
> > Yes, I did provide several specific examples of both previous (federal
> > ugly gun ban) and ongoing infringement (state ugly gun ban in states
> > where I have a presence).
>
> I must have missed that... let me go back and look.... Talk among
> yourself while I am gone.... looking.... looking.... looking... nope.
> Can't find a single cite that you posted.
>
> Again, just because you repeat things over and over again doesn't make
> it true. Provide some facts or citations.

I provided facts. If you don't believe them look them up yourself.

>
> >> Your whole idea of what is happening in the world is based on paranoia.
> >> Not based on anything that actually happens, but based on fear of what
> >> MIGHT happen.
> >
> > My whole idea is based on documented facts, and ones that can be
> > validated at credible .gov site, not kooky .org sites.
>
> Again... citations, please... or shall we just sit here watching you run
> in circles yelling "The sky is falling"?
>
> George L.

Find citations yourself, they are all readily available should you care
to remove your leftist blinders.

George Leppla wrote:
>
> On 7/18/2011 3:41 PM, Pete C. wrote:
> > "Illegal to possess, import, or purchase assault weapons and .50 BMG
> > rifles, unless such weapons were acquired by the owner prior to June 1,
> > 1989. Legally defined assault weapons and .50 BMG rifles listed by make
> > and model by the DOJ must be registered. Their sale and transfer is
> > prohibited. Military look-alike rifles that are not chambered for .50
> > BMG and are not on the DOJ roster are legal to purchase or possess, with
> > some restrictions in configuration€”known as "banned features." "
>
> This is what got your panties in a twist? You are miffed that you can't
> by a 50 caliber MACHINE GUN?

Where exactly do you come up with "machine gun", there is no such
reference in the cite. Again you show your ignorance.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> On 18/07/2011 4:43 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> >> Sign me up. I must be one of them too. When I read about some of those
> >> weird militias and their need for weapons to rise up against the
> >> government and its assault on constitutional rights, I have to say that
> >> they aren't the type of people I want fighting on my behalf and ending
> >> up in charge.
> >
> > You hear about those "weird militias" because that is what the media
> > chooses to hype up. It is the fact those those "weird militias"
> > throughout the country add up to about 100 mostly geriatric people that
> > the media chooses to ignore.
>
> No no. The fact is that your factoid is bullshit. It is hard to accept
> that they consist of 100 mostly geriatric people when there are more
> than 800 militias. They may be a bunch of fat stupid fundamentalist
> radicals, but they sure are hell aren't just a few dozen geriatrics.

You referred to "weird militias", and as I note there are very few of
them. If you are trying to claim that every sort of group that someone
labels a "militia" is a bunch of kooks you are quite incorrect, and
indeed many of those groups don't even call themselves that.

"Pete C." > wrote:
> George Leppla wrote:
>>
>> On 7/18/2011 3:27 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>>>> 'the compound'? what are you, militia or something?
>>> "farm" or "ranch" would probably be more appropriate terms.
>>
>> And yet, you choose to call it a "compound".
>>
>> If nothing else, it indicates a certain mindset. I bet you researched
>> things like "survivalist" and "living off the grid", etc. Ways to
>> keep "them" out because when the shit hits the fan, "they" are all going
>> to be coming for "your" stuff. But you'll have some nasty surprises for
>> "them", won't you!
>>
>> Chicken Little.
>>
>> George L
>
> Hey bone head, it was leftist Nad R who referred to his place as a
> "compound". I refer to my forthcoming location as the "hermit cabin"
> and/or "subsistence farm".

I think I can say that Pete and I have the same game plan of action. Except
I blame the right and He blames the left for the countries coming
downfall... I find it humorous. I also think of myself as a hermit that
want his creature comforts.

--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

"Pete C." > wrote:
> Nad R wrote:
>>
>> sf > wrote:
>>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 19:44:12 +0000 (UTC), Nad R
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> My township has no police department or fire department. House catches on
>>>> fire it burns to the ground.
>>>
>>> What happened to the volunteers? My dad was a volunteer fireman and a
>>> volunteer deputy sheriff. You house caught on fire, somebody came and
>>> tried to put it out. Bad guys needed arresting, somebody did it.
>>
>> The nearest fire department is ten miles away and they will need to bring a
>> tanker truck as well. By the time they get her it will all be gone. I do
>> have insurance.
>>
>> The odd thing is that there is a small emergency hospital that is only one
>> story high and is very nice just five miles away. Also they have an
>> excellent cafeteria at reasonable prices, better than most of the
>> restaurants in the area.
>
> You should consider building a fire pond and getting a decent pump, it's
> not that expensive.

I have a half acre pond and pumps also water hoses. What I should have and
do not is a home sprinkler system like for business... Expensive. Winter
time pond is frozen solid and water lines are turned off because of
freezing.

New homes are almost fireproof with the new insulation and drywall. I used
a welding torch for some plumbing projects and the studs never caught on
fire with flame scorching the wood. I also put fire resistant sound
insulation in every wall and heavy doors. I can have the stereo at decent
sound levels and barely hear it in the next room. I do have an alarm system
that can notify police and fire, but I doubt they can get here time for
anything. Still I would not live anywhere else.

--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

Nad R wrote:
>
> "Pete C." > wrote:
> > Nad R wrote:
> >>
> >> sf > wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 19:44:12 +0000 (UTC), Nad R
> >>> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> My township has no police department or fire department. House catches on
> >>>> fire it burns to the ground.
> >>>
> >>> What happened to the volunteers? My dad was a volunteer fireman and a
> >>> volunteer deputy sheriff. You house caught on fire, somebody came and
> >>> tried to put it out. Bad guys needed arresting, somebody did it.
> >>
> >> The nearest fire department is ten miles away and they will need to bring a
> >> tanker truck as well. By the time they get her it will all be gone. I do
> >> have insurance.
> >>
> >> The odd thing is that there is a small emergency hospital that is only one
> >> story high and is very nice just five miles away. Also they have an
> >> excellent cafeteria at reasonable prices, better than most of the
> >> restaurants in the area.
> >
> > You should consider building a fire pond and getting a decent pump, it's
> > not that expensive.
>
> I have a half acre pond and pumps also water hoses. What I should have and
> do not is a home sprinkler system like for business... Expensive. Winter
> time pond is frozen solid and water lines are turned off because of
> freezing.
>
> New homes are almost fireproof with the new insulation and drywall. I used
> a welding torch for some plumbing projects and the studs never caught on
> fire with flame scorching the wood. I also put fire resistant sound
> insulation in every wall and heavy doors. I can have the stereo at decent
> sound levels and barely hear it in the next room. I do have an alarm system
> that can notify police and fire, but I doubt they can get here time for
> anything. Still I would not live anywhere else.
>
> --
> Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

I'm going with non flammable construction - metal barn/shop building and
masonry hermit cabin. The big threat around here is grass fires so
having some pumps and a fire pond available is a good thing.

Nad R wrote:
>
> "Pete C." > wrote:
> > George Leppla wrote:
> >>
> >> On 7/18/2011 3:27 PM, Pete C. wrote:
> >>>> 'the compound'? what are you, militia or something?
> >>> "farm" or "ranch" would probably be more appropriate terms.
> >>
> >> And yet, you choose to call it a "compound".
> >>
> >> If nothing else, it indicates a certain mindset. I bet you researched
> >> things like "survivalist" and "living off the grid", etc. Ways to
> >> keep "them" out because when the shit hits the fan, "they" are all going
> >> to be coming for "your" stuff. But you'll have some nasty surprises for
> >> "them", won't you!
> >>
> >> Chicken Little.
> >>
> >> George L
> >
> > Hey bone head, it was leftist Nad R who referred to his place as a
> > "compound". I refer to my forthcoming location as the "hermit cabin"
> > and/or "subsistence farm".
>
> I think I can say that Pete and I have the same game plan of action. Except
> I blame the right and He blames the left for the countries coming
> downfall... I find it humorous. I also think of myself as a hermit that
> want his creature comforts.

Nope, from my position in the center I blame the wings for the countries
downfall, both wings. Creature comforts is the barn/shop that is 3x the
size of the hermit cabin. The cabin is small, but pretty nice as well.

On Jul 18, 12:17*pm, Dave Smith > wrote:
> On 18/07/2011 2:33 PM, blake murphy wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 21:16:11 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
>
> >> Nad R wrote:
>
> >>> Crime is getting so high in this country
>
> >> Crime increases in areas with "gun control" and decreases in areas that
> >> support gun rights. Look it up on the FBI's site yourself.
>
> > if it's so cut and dried, provide the cite. *prove us wrong.
>
> But don't even think of comparing it to Canada where you now need a
> licence to get a gun (which involves safety training and a police record
> search) and where you can not shoot people. Guns and ammunition *have to
> be be safely stored.

You also need your wife's permission.


> You can use deadly force if you life is truly
> threatened, but if you have time to go an unlock the gun and load it,
> your life is not in that much danger. Yet, our homicide rate is much
> much lower than in the US. * Sure sure.... US murder rates are highest
> in ghettos. Ours are either committed by youth gangs in the major cities
> or by natives in the north

When I looked it up a decade ago, a young Mexican man was far more
likely to be killed in gunfree Mexico than in California.

On Jul 18, 1:30*pm, Dave Smith > wrote:
> On 18/07/2011 3:03 PM, blake murphy wrote:
>
> >> The claim that these corporation pay no taxes is simply false. Those
> >> claims are based only on corporate income taxes, and ignore the millions
> >> in other taxes that those corporations pay.
>
> > ...just like the wingers who whine about the 47% of household who 'pay no
> > tax.':
>
> > <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html>
>
> > i submit, however, that most corporations are better able to afford paying
> > taxes than households that don't make enough money to be required to.
>
> There are all sorts of good excuses about why corporations should not
> have to pay tax, but the thing of it is that a a corporation is a legal
> entity, just like a person. It is a legal entity that is created to be
> separate for the people who own it. While not a person, it has the
> rights and responsibilities like a person. *It's not like they need
> money to pay for groceries, a choice between eating or paying taxes,
> like some people.

This is what a lot of people don't understand about the Citizens
United decision. At the time the Bill of Rights came out, corporations
did not have a separate personality from their shareholders. That
doctrine was still a century away from being recognized, in Great
Britain no less. Thus the shareholders spoke for the corporation.

The corporation in Citizens United was small, such that the
corporation and shareholders could speak with one voice. But the Court
extended its ruling to cover today's giant corporations, run by and
for management, with only a token polling of the shareholders. Most
corporations don't even know who owns their shares, because they are
recorded as being held by giant brokerages, not their beneficial
owners. The worst was that the decision was written by the so-called
original meaning dude, as he gleefully bent the original meaning of
the first amendment into a pretzel by claiming that the founders
contemplated that one day corporations would have a personality
independent of their shareholders.

If IBM asked me what I thought on any political issue, then Citizens
United would not be a travesty.

On 7/18/2011 10:29 PM, Pete C. wrote:

I'm getting bored with this so I'll sum it up:

> I have never made any claim that Obama's administration has infringed my
> rights, only that the left had.

Finally, Thanks for admitting that your argument was bullshit.

>> Rational? You really thing buying a lifetime supply of guns and ammo
>> are the acts of rational people? Were these rational people?
>
> Certainly they are. People who enjoy shooting sports always need guns
> and ammo for those sports just as surely as golfers need clubs and
> balls. Buying in a big lot or buying smaller amounts every few months
> don't make much difference.

I'm sorry, but buying a life time supply of guns and ammo because of the
results of an election isn't rational in anyone's book.


> Don't bother waiting, I won't be revealing anything I shouldn't. You'll
> just have to consider the fact that your Obamesiah chose to continue the
> PA and ask yourself if you think the president might possible have
> access to information that you don't.

Yes... I know. YOU have the INSIDE INFORMATION but you aren't free to
disclose it. Only YOU are privy to what goes on in the highest levels
of national security and the rest of us will just have to trust you.

> I provided facts. If you don't believe them look them up yourself.

If you had provided facts, no one would have to go look them up. You
can't make an argument then expect other people to provide proof for the
crap that you spew.

> Find citations yourself, they are all readily available should you care
> to remove your leftist blinders.

So I should prove my side of the argument... then prove YOUR side?

You aren't real good at this, are you? What you are good at is
spouting the party line... no facts or citations needed.... just keep
repeating anything you hear on Fox News. It is much easier than thinking.

George L

On 7/18/2011 10:31 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> George Leppla wrote:
>>
>> On 7/18/2011 3:41 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>>> "Illegal to possess, import, or purchase assault weapons and .50 BMG
>>> rifles, unless such weapons were acquired by the owner prior to June 1,
>>> 1989. Legally defined assault weapons and .50 BMG rifles listed by make
>>> and model by the DOJ must be registered. Their sale and transfer is
>>> prohibited. Military look-alike rifles that are not chambered for .50
>>> BMG and are not on the DOJ roster are legal to purchase or possess, with
>>> some restrictions in configuration€”known as "banned features." "
>>
>> This is what got your panties in a twist? You are miffed that you can't
>> by a 50 caliber MACHINE GUN?
>
> Where exactly do you come up with "machine gun", there is no such
> reference in the cite. Again you show your ignorance.

The .50 caliber cartridge was developed for the BROWNING MACHINE GUN
(That's what the BMG stands for).

Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.50_BMG Since you don't
understand words real well, look at the picture and tell everyone why
you need a cartridge so powerful that it can kill a man a mile away.

I know... you need it to protect yourself. Some guy a mile down the
road MIGHT be going to attack you.

Living in fear must be terrible.

George L

George Leppla wrote:
>
> On 7/18/2011 10:31 PM, Pete C. wrote:
> >
> > George Leppla wrote:
> >>
> >> On 7/18/2011 3:41 PM, Pete C. wrote:
> >>> "Illegal to possess, import, or purchase assault weapons and .50 BMG
> >>> rifles, unless such weapons were acquired by the owner prior to June 1,
> >>> 1989. Legally defined assault weapons and .50 BMG rifles listed by make
> >>> and model by the DOJ must be registered. Their sale and transfer is
> >>> prohibited. Military look-alike rifles that are not chambered for .50
> >>> BMG and are not on the DOJ roster are legal to purchase or possess, with
> >>> some restrictions in configuration€”known as "banned features." "
> >>
> >> This is what got your panties in a twist? You are miffed that you can't
> >> by a 50 caliber MACHINE GUN?
> >
> > Where exactly do you come up with "machine gun", there is no such
> > reference in the cite. Again you show your ignorance.
>
> The .50 caliber cartridge was developed for the BROWNING MACHINE GUN
> (That's what the BMG stands for).

The .50 BMG cartridge is used in many other rifles these days, none of
the rifles referenced are "machine guns". You ignorance is showing
again.

On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 06:57:49 -0500, George Leppla
> wrote:

> Living in fear must be terrible.

Fear is the only excuse for ordinary people these days.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 21:45:05 +0000 (UTC), Nad R
> wrote:

> I will use hobby farm for now on

I think hobby farm is the perfect description for it.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On 7/19/2011 8:22 AM, Janet wrote:
> Isle of Arran


Hope it never happens to you but one of the things riff-raff have
learned is there are easy pickings in places where people think they are
safe.

We live in such an area and crimes tend to be done by "visitors" who
know most folks have their guard down.