On 17/07/2011 11:42 AM, Pete C. wrote:

>
> This is another significant failing of left wingers, trying to claim
> that somehow the only people who want to protect their constitutional
> rights are on the other wing. The fact is that there is little if any
> political bias in the distribution of gun owners, millions of
> center-left people own guns. I'm very much in the center and I will
> certainly do everything I can to protect my constitutional rights,
> whether first, second or any other amendment. The attempts to falsely
> equate legal gun owners with crime are pathetic and disgusting.


My personal view is that those on the right talk a lot about their
constitutional rights while those on the left tend to be concerned about
the constitutional rights of others.




>
> As for taxes, low taxes are indeed good for me and for the country as a
> whole. High taxes invariably lead to substantial corruption and waste.

No. Politics and the government trough lead to corruption. Politicians
need support to win an election and they need money to run a campaign to
win that support. The big donors want something in return for their
donations.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> On 17/07/2011 11:42 AM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> >
> > This is another significant failing of left wingers, trying to claim
> > that somehow the only people who want to protect their constitutional
> > rights are on the other wing. The fact is that there is little if any
> > political bias in the distribution of gun owners, millions of
> > center-left people own guns. I'm very much in the center and I will
> > certainly do everything I can to protect my constitutional rights,
> > whether first, second or any other amendment. The attempts to falsely
> > equate legal gun owners with crime are pathetic and disgusting.
>
> My personal view is that those on the right talk a lot about their
> constitutional rights while those on the left tend to be concerned about
> the constitutional rights of others.

Then why do those on the left constantly try to attack the
constitutional rights of others?

>
> >
> > As for taxes, low taxes are indeed good for me and for the country as a
> > whole. High taxes invariably lead to substantial corruption and waste.
>
> No. Politics and the government trough lead to corruption. Politicians
> need support to win an election and they need money to run a campaign to
> win that support. The big donors want something in return for their
> donations.

Taxes are the tool of the left to steal from the productive in order to
buy the votes of the poor and ignorant for their party.

On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 12:10:22 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

> Then why do those on the left constantly try to attack the
> constitutional rights of others?

I suppose you're talking about gun nuts "rights".

--

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

On 17/07/2011 1:10 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>> On 17/07/2011 11:42 AM, Pete C. wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> This is another significant failing of left wingers, trying to claim
>>> that somehow the only people who want to protect their constitutional
>>> rights are on the other wing. The fact is that there is little if any
>>> political bias in the distribution of gun owners, millions of
>>> center-left people own guns. I'm very much in the center and I will
>>> certainly do everything I can to protect my constitutional rights,
>>> whether first, second or any other amendment. The attempts to falsely
>>> equate legal gun owners with crime are pathetic and disgusting.
>>
>> My personal view is that those on the right talk a lot about their
>> constitutional rights while those on the left tend to be concerned about
>> the constitutional rights of others.
>
> Then why do those on the left constantly try to attack the
> constitutional rights of others?
>
>>
>>>
>>> As for taxes, low taxes are indeed good for me and for the country as a
>>> whole. High taxes invariably lead to substantial corruption and waste.
>>
>> No. Politics and the government trough lead to corruption. Politicians
>> need support to win an election and they need money to run a campaign to
>> win that support. The big donors want something in return for their
>> donations.
>
> Taxes are the tool of the left to steal from the productive in order to
> buy the votes of the poor and ignorant for their party.


The rich tend to vote. The poor don't bother. The rich tend to donate to
campaigns. The poor cannot afford to.

On 2011-07-17, Dave Smith > wrote:

> My personal view is that those on the right talk a lot about their
> constitutional rights while those on the left tend to be concerned about
> the constitutional rights of others.

I kinda agree, but word it a tad bit differently:

"Democrats take your money and give it to those who haven't earned it.
Republicans take your money and keep it for themselves." --nb

nb

sf wrote:
>
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 12:10:22 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> > Then why do those on the left constantly try to attack the
> > constitutional rights of others?
>
> I suppose you're talking about gun nuts "rights".

No, I'm talking about gun owners constitutional rights as well as the
inaliable human right of self defense. The only nuts are in the
paranoid, irrational and unethical anti-gun camp.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> On 17/07/2011 1:10 PM, Pete C. wrote:
> >
> > Dave Smith wrote:
> >>
> >> On 17/07/2011 11:42 AM, Pete C. wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> This is another significant failing of left wingers, trying to claim
> >>> that somehow the only people who want to protect their constitutional
> >>> rights are on the other wing. The fact is that there is little if any
> >>> political bias in the distribution of gun owners, millions of
> >>> center-left people own guns. I'm very much in the center and I will
> >>> certainly do everything I can to protect my constitutional rights,
> >>> whether first, second or any other amendment. The attempts to falsely
> >>> equate legal gun owners with crime are pathetic and disgusting.
> >>
> >> My personal view is that those on the right talk a lot about their
> >> constitutional rights while those on the left tend to be concerned about
> >> the constitutional rights of others.
> >
> > Then why do those on the left constantly try to attack the
> > constitutional rights of others?
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>> As for taxes, low taxes are indeed good for me and for the country as a
> >>> whole. High taxes invariably lead to substantial corruption and waste.
> >>
> >> No. Politics and the government trough lead to corruption. Politicians
> >> need support to win an election and they need money to run a campaign to
> >> win that support. The big donors want something in return for their
> >> donations.
> >
> > Taxes are the tool of the left to steal from the productive in order to
> > buy the votes of the poor and ignorant for their party.
>
> The rich tend to vote. The poor don't bother. The rich tend to donate to
> campaigns. The poor cannot afford to.

The left uses taxes and criminal level "non tax" taxes to take money
from the middle class and use it to buy the votes of the poor and
ignorant. The left busses the poor and ignorant to polling places while
reminding them that if they vote for their party they will get more
handouts.

On 7/17/2011 2:42 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>> I suppose you're talking about gun nuts "rights".
> No, I'm talking about gun owners constitutional rights as well as the
> inaliable human right of self defense.



So who is denying you your rights to own a gun? Since Obama came into
office, gun ownership hasn't had any significant changes. In fact, the
Prez signed a law making it permissible to carry a weapon in many
federal parks.

I remember the before the election the hue and cry was that Obama was
going to "take away our guns".. and then there was the big "no ammo"
scare. Neither happened.

The single most heinous government act that denies people their
constitutional rights is the Patriot Act... initiated by Bush... and
extended by Obama.

So exactly which of your "constitutional rights" have been taken away
since the last election?

(BTW - I am in favor of people being allowed to own guns, but I want
them registered)

George L

On 17/07/2011 3:42 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> sf wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 12:10:22 -0500, "Pete >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Then why do those on the left constantly try to attack the
>>> constitutional rights of others?
>>
>> I suppose you're talking about gun nuts "rights".
>
> No, I'm talking about gun owners constitutional rights as well as the
> inaliable human right of self defense. The only nuts are in the
> paranoid, irrational and unethical anti-gun camp.

But what about the other people's rights. How about the rights for
minorities or *** rights? It seems that when people are concerned
about their rights, for some reason the first thing they come up with is
gun rights.

On 17/07/2011 3:44 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>

>> The rich tend to vote. The poor don't bother. The rich tend to donate to
>> campaigns. The poor cannot afford to.
>
> The left uses taxes and criminal level "non tax" taxes to take money
> from the middle class and use it to buy the votes of the poor and
> ignorant. The left busses the poor and ignorant to polling places while
> reminding them that if they vote for their party they will get more
> handouts.

Whose fault is it that the middle class ends up paying the taxes? There
seems to be lots of loopholes for the rich.

"Pete C." > wrote:
> sf wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 12:10:22 -0500, "Pete C." >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Then why do those on the left constantly try to attack the
>>> constitutional rights of others?
>>
>> I suppose you're talking about gun nuts "rights".
>
> No, I'm talking about gun owners constitutional rights as well as the
> inaliable human right of self defense. The only nuts are in the
> paranoid, irrational and unethical anti-gun camp.

I have no problem with those that have a gun for self defense. Do they need
to carry one in the open? No. Do they need semi automatic weapons with
those extra large clips? No.

People should not be able to own an full automatic or a semi automatic
weapon. I am also for gun registration and to pass an exam on the use of
the guns. Took keep the guns out of those that have committed a crime and
to those that have mentally problems.

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

George Leppla wrote:
>
> On 7/17/2011 2:42 PM, Pete C. wrote:
> >> I suppose you're talking about gun nuts "rights".
> > No, I'm talking about gun owners constitutional rights as well as the
> > inaliable human right of self defense.
>
> So who is denying you your rights to own a gun?

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.

> Since Obama came into
> office, gun ownership hasn't had any significant changes.

Due only to the fact that Obama isn't out at the left wing like the rest
of his party, and due to the fact that gun owners have representation to
fend off the constant attacks from the left wing.

> In fact, the
> Prez signed a law making it permissible to carry a weapon in many
> federal parks.

As I've noted Obama isn't out on the left wing like most of his party
is.

>
> I remember the before the election the hue and cry was that Obama was
> going to "take away our guns"..

There certainly was well warranted concern until it became apparent that
Obama wasn't as left as his party wanted him to be.

> and then there was the big "no ammo"
> scare. Neither happened.

Sorry, this once certainly did happen. I clearly remember having to
search around to find ammunition for my normal range outing and hunting,
and I don't do either all that frequency. I recall months of zero
availability of certain calibers of ammunition. Fortunately the supply
has caught up with demand and metals prices have come down a bit as well
bringing ammunition prices down a bit as well.

>
> The single most heinous government act that denies people their
> constitutional rights is the Patriot Act... initiated by Bush... and
> extended by Obama.

While there are some concerns with the Patriot Act, have you ever
stopped to consider that both Bush and Obama have supported it based on
the classified information that they receive on the threats to the US
that you never hear about? I had hoped that when Obama extended it, the
left wing might have picked up on that hint and realized that there was
a good reason for it. Of course it seems that they just cling to their
ideology without any reflection on such realities.

>
> So exactly which of your "constitutional rights" have been taken away
> since the last election?

The right to choose who I do or don't do business with (Obummercare
mandate)? As for the second amendment, or just as easily the first
amendment, if you ignore the attacks on it until the right is taken
away, it's too late.

>
> (BTW - I am in favor of people being allowed to own guns, but I want
> them registered)

And exactly what to you believe registration would accomplish? Certainly
it has nothing whatsoever to do with crime, since criminals are not
allowed to own guns.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> On 17/07/2011 3:42 PM, Pete C. wrote:
> >
> > sf wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 12:10:22 -0500, "Pete >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Then why do those on the left constantly try to attack the
> >>> constitutional rights of others?
> >>
> >> I suppose you're talking about gun nuts "rights".
> >
> > No, I'm talking about gun owners constitutional rights as well as the
> > inaliable human right of self defense. The only nuts are in the
> > paranoid, irrational and unethical anti-gun camp.
>
> But what about the other people's rights. How about the rights for
> minorities or *** rights?

How about them? I'm a gun owner, and I'm straight, but if you recall I
had some strong words for the anti *** crowd back in the thread about
Kat Cora and her partner and their children.

> It seems that when people are concerned
> about their rights, for some reason the first thing they come up with is
> gun rights.

Perhaps because I'm not a minority and I'm not ***? When anti *** or
anti minority (not to be confused by anti illegal immigrant) laws are up
for votes I actually get off my but and go vote against them. BTW, gays
and minorities also own guns.

On 7/17/2011 4:25 PM, Pete C. wrote:

>
> 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.
>



No, it was about being able to arm a MILITIA after the Revolution, but
you gun folk always leave that part out. It was never about a citizen
being able to walk down the street and blow someone's head off because
he felt vulnerable (or being given a bad deal by his drug dealer.)

gloria p

"gloria.p" wrote:
>
> On 7/17/2011 4:25 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> No, it was about being able to arm a MILITIA after the Revolution, but
> you gun folk always leave that part out. It was never about a citizen
> being able to walk down the street and blow someone's head off because
> he felt vulnerable (or being given a bad deal by his drug dealer.)
>

Sorry, the Supreme Court doesn't agree with your interpretation of the
second amendment. As for your wild west fantasy, that has never been
reality. Concealed carry has been law in a great many states, including
ones you probably don't expect, for literally decades and your fantasy
of law abiding citizens having gunfights on the street have never
materialized anywhere. Criminals and gangs have been known to have
gunfights, but guess what, they can't legally have guns. Armed law
abiding citizens have however successfully defended themselves against
criminals many millions of times.

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. We need better
background checks and we shouldn't be selling automatic and
semi-automatic weapons. They are not necessary to shoot game, but
they are very good for shooting people which is what thugs, criminals
and lunatics do.

--

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

Nad R wrote:
>
> "Pete C." > wrote:
> > sf wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 12:10:22 -0500, "Pete C." >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Then why do those on the left constantly try to attack the
> >>> constitutional rights of others?
> >>
> >> I suppose you're talking about gun nuts "rights".
> >
> > No, I'm talking about gun owners constitutional rights as well as the
> > inaliable human right of self defense. The only nuts are in the
> > paranoid, irrational and unethical anti-gun camp.
>
> I have no problem with those that have a gun for self defense. Do they need
> to carry one in the open? No.

Not many of us do carry guns in the open, other than during hunting
seasons. We have *concealed handgun licenses* and that is how we carry.

> Do they need semi automatic weapons with
> those extra large clips? No.

Absolutely we do. The second amendment was written in reference to arms
that were then state of the art, and it is our constitutional right to
state of the art arms.

>
> People should not be able to own an full automatic

Yes, they should, and the few people who do own them are well qualified
and background checked.

> or a semi automatic
> weapon.

Absolutely they should. The second amendment in now way put any limits
on the type of arms that a citizen had a right to.

> I am also for gun registration

Which would accomplish what exactly, other than harass those exercising
their constitutional rights? Criminals aren't allowed to have guns. How
about we make you register your speech with authorities before you are
allowed to express it? All public speeches have to be pre registered
with authorities, if you want to change your speech you have to register
it or you get arrested.

> and to pass an exam on the use of
> the guns.

Pretty much everyone with a CHL has passed a background check and a
proficiency exam at a range. In some states you have to re-test and
requalify periodically just like a LEO.

> Took keep the guns out of those that have committed a crime and

Laws have long existed for this, nothing new is required. Check the
stats with most any state, plenty of criminals are rejected from gun
purchases. Perhaps we should be arresting the criminals in the ATF who
have been running guns into Mexico.

> to those that have mentally problems.

Laws currently exist for that, but your beloved ACLU and the like think
they somehow infringe on the rights of the mentally ill and routinely
attack such laws. Lax reporting by mental health facilities and those
who come in contact with the mentally ill (like Jared Longher) are the
problem, not guns. If mr Longher couldn't get a gun you can be pretty
certain he would have used a different weapon, perhaps just stealing a
larger truck and plowing it into the crowd.

On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 17:34:46 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
> There are a lot of loopholes, because the rich are already over taxed.

You bought into the right wing ideology hook, line and sinker.

--

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

On 7/17/2011 6:02 PM, Nad R wrote:
> "Pete > wrote:
>> sf wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 12:10:22 -0500, "Pete >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Then why do those on the left constantly try to attack the
>>>> constitutional rights of others?
>>>
>>> I suppose you're talking about gun nuts "rights".
>>
>> No, I'm talking about gun owners constitutional rights as well as the
>> inaliable human right of self defense. The only nuts are in the
>> paranoid, irrational and unethical anti-gun camp.
>
> I have no problem with those that have a gun for self defense. Do they need
> to carry one in the open? No. Do they need semi automatic weapons with
> those extra large clips? No.
>
> People should not be able to own an full automatic or a semi automatic
> weapon. I am also for gun registration and to pass an exam on the use of
> the guns. Took keep the guns out of those that have committed a crime and
> to those that have mentally problems.
>

So you want something a little stronger than being able to just walk in
and purchase a gun as easy as say buying a sandwich and a beverage as we
can do now? (actually we can't)

Here is the current required form:

http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

There is also an online version. All of the information you enter on the
form is verified.

On Jul 17, 2:00*pm, Dave Smith > wrote:


> The rich tend to vote. The poor don't bother. The rich tend to donate to
> campaigns. The poor cannot afford to.



I drive a cab. Around election time I see a lot of placards for
this or that politician on the lawns of nice homes. Sometimes I see
them on vacant lots. It's a form of littering. Begging actually.
Begging in abstensia. Begging to get elected. Then, if they get
elected, their first order of business is outlawing panhandling. That
the poor don't contribute to campaigns as much as the rich is probably
true, but not because they can't afford it. Maybe also because they
got a real education in life early on and know that the whole process
is a waste of time no matter who they vote for.

TJ

On 7/17/2011 5:25 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> George Leppla wrote:
>>
>> On 7/17/2011 2:42 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>>>> I suppose you're talking about gun nuts "rights".
>>> No, I'm talking about gun owners constitutional rights as well as the
>>> inaliable human right of self defense.
>>
>> So who is denying you your rights to own a gun?
>
> Ask the folks in CA, IL, NY, CT, NJ and a few other states where peoples
> constitutional rights are indeed being trampled.

Specifically, who is denying YOU your right to own a gun? What specific
federal law has been enacted that prevents YOU from owning a gun?


>
>> Since Obama came into
>> office, gun ownership hasn't had any significant changes.
>
> Due only to the fact that Obama isn't out at the left wing like the rest
> of his party, and due to the fact that gun owners have representation to
> fend off the constant attacks from the left wing.

So you agree that your right to own a gun has NOT been impeded, is that
correct?



>> I remember the before the election the hue and cry was that Obama was
>> going to "take away our guns"..
>
> There certainly was well warranted concern until it became apparent that
> Obama wasn't as left as his party wanted him to be.

So you agree that the rank and file gun owners we acting out of fear,
not out of any rational, direct knowledge>

>
>> and then there was the big "no ammo"
>> scare. Neither happened.
>
> Sorry, this once certainly did happen. I clearly remember having to
> search around to find ammunition for my normal range outing and hunting,

It happened because the rank and file gun owners were so SURE that
"OBAMA IS GOING TO TAKE AWAY OUR GUNS AND AMMO" that they created a huge
spike in sales, stockpiling guns and ammo so they would be ready to
"exercise our Second Amendment Rights and "take our country back".

They created a shortage then then blamed it on Obama... and that is a
fact. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=102851807
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-05-04/u...-ammo?_s=PM:US


>
> While there are some concerns with the Patriot Act, have you ever
> stopped to consider that both Bush and Obama have supported it based on
> the classified information that they receive on the threats to the US
> that you never hear about?

Yeah, right. I've heard all about the threaths that we were protected
from... and so sorry that we can't disclose what those threats were, but
trust us, we are protecting you. You really believe that?


>> So exactly which of your "constitutional rights" have been taken away
>> since the last election?
>
> The right to choose who I do or don't do business with (Obummercare
> mandate)? As for the second amendment, or just as easily the first
> amendment, if you ignore the attacks on it until the right is taken
> away, it's too late.

Sorry, but Obama care hasn't changed the way you buy medical insurance.
Please cite exactly how YOU have been affected.

Oh, I see.... you haven't had any of YOUR constitutional rights taken
away... you are just afraid that they are GOING to be taken way someday,
somewhere, somehow. Congratulations for buying into the politics of fear.

>> (BTW - I am in favor of people being allowed to own guns, but I want
>> them registered)
>
> And exactly what to you believe registration would accomplish? Certainly
> it has nothing whatsoever to do with crime, since criminals are not
> allowed to own guns.

So you agree that criminals should not be allowed to own guns. How
about flame throwers? Grenades? Atomic bombs. You did say that the
Founding Fathers wanted people to have state of the art weapons for self
defense, no?

George L

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> But what about the other people's rights. How about the rights for
> minorities or *** rights? It seems that when people are concerned
> about their rights, for some reason the first thing they come up with is
> gun rights.

And now lightbulbs. Michelle Bachman won't let the
commies take away our lightbulbs.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2008447

"Pete C." > wrote:
> "gloria.p" wrote:
>>
>> On 7/17/2011 4:25 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>>
>> >
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> No, it was about being able to arm a MILITIA after the Revolution, but
>> you gun folk always leave that part out. It was never about a citizen
>> being able to walk down the street and blow someone's head off because
>> he felt vulnerable (or being given a bad deal by his drug dealer.)
>>
>
> Sorry, the Supreme Court doesn't agree with your interpretation of the
> second amendment. As for your wild west fantasy, that has never been
> reality. Concealed carry has been law in a great many states, including
> ones you probably don't expect, for literally decades and your fantasy
> of law abiding citizens having gunfights on the street have never
> materialized anywhere. Criminals and gangs have been known to have
> gunfights, but guess what, they can't legally have guns. Armed law
> abiding citizens have however successfully defended themselves against
> criminals many millions of times.

In a democratic society do believe the majority should rule?

If the two thirds majority of the people votes to put limits on the second
amendment. Would you still be a law abiding citizen?

Crime is getting so high in this country, it would not surprise me to such
limits put in place. I will also be voting for the politicians that put in
those gun law restrictions.

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

sf wrote:
>
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 17:34:46 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> >
> > There are a lot of loopholes, because the rich are already over taxed.
>
> You bought into the right wing ideology hook, line and sinker.

So what is your reasoned argument that give justification to taxing one
person 15% of their income and another 35% of their income, in direct
violation of equal protection.

George wrote:
>
> On 7/17/2011 6:02 PM, Nad R wrote:
> > "Pete > wrote:
> >> sf wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 12:10:22 -0500, "Pete >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Then why do those on the left constantly try to attack the
> >>>> constitutional rights of others?
> >>>
> >>> I suppose you're talking about gun nuts "rights".
> >>
> >> No, I'm talking about gun owners constitutional rights as well as the
> >> inaliable human right of self defense. The only nuts are in the
> >> paranoid, irrational and unethical anti-gun camp.
> >
> > I have no problem with those that have a gun for self defense. Do they need
> > to carry one in the open? No. Do they need semi automatic weapons with
> > those extra large clips? No.
> >
> > People should not be able to own an full automatic or a semi automatic
> > weapon. I am also for gun registration and to pass an exam on the use of
> > the guns. Took keep the guns out of those that have committed a crime and
> > to those that have mentally problems.
> >
>
> So you want something a little stronger than being able to just walk in
> and purchase a gun as easy as say buying a sandwich and a beverage as we
> can do now? (actually we can't)
>
> Here is the current required form:
>
> http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf
>
> There is also an online version. All of the information you enter on the
> form is verified.

Yep, and there is plenty more paperwork and checks for a CHL.

Mark Thorson wrote:
>
> Dave Smith wrote:
> >
> > But what about the other people's rights. How about the rights for
> > minorities or *** rights? It seems that when people are concerned
> > about their rights, for some reason the first thing they come up with is
> > gun rights.
>
> And now lightbulbs. Michelle Bachman won't let the
> commies take away our lightbulbs.
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2008447

I like CFLs, they save me money so I can buy more guns...

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.

> We need better
> background checks

Can you cite a single case where the existing background checks failed?
What do you think needs to be better about them?

> and we shouldn't be selling automatic and

You aren't selling automatic weapons, and neither is anyone else
essentially, but you are too ignorant of guns to actually know that/

> semi-automatic weapons. They are not necessary to shoot game, but
> they are very good for shooting people which is what thugs, criminals
> and lunatics do.

They are good for shooting criminals, something which many law abiding
citizens do defending themselves. They are also good for many other
activities, but with your ignorance of guns you can't comprehend that.

On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 20:38:27 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
> sf wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 17:34:46 -0500, "Pete C." >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > There are a lot of loopholes, because the rich are already over taxed.
> >
> > You bought into the right wing ideology hook, line and sinker.
>
> So what is your reasoned argument that give justification to taxing one
> person 15% of their income and another 35% of their income, in direct
> violation of equal protection.

The rich are NOT over taxed, so get it right. Why do the rich pay
only 15% on their income, which is mainly capital gains, while the
ordinary working stiff pays 35% of their base income????

--

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

On Jul 17, 6:38*pm, "Pete C." > wrote:
> sf wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 17:34:46 -0500, "Pete C." >
> > wrote:
>
> > > There are a lot of loopholes, because the rich are already over taxed..
>
> > You bought into the right wing ideology hook, line and sinker.
>
> So what is your reasoned argument that give justification to taxing one
> person 15% of their income and another 35% of their income, in direct
> violation of equal protection.

The original income tax affected only the well-off. If we went back to
a deductible that covered 3/4 of household income I would be fine with
that. Let's say the first $80,000 would be free of tax, and that
everything above that would be taxed at 35%.

Including capital gains, dividends, etc. We do not want to create
disincentives to working.

On Jul 17, 6:54*pm, sf > wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 20:38:27 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > sf wrote:
>
> > > On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 17:34:46 -0500, "Pete C." >
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > There are a lot of loopholes, because the rich are already over taxed.
>
> > > You bought into the right wing ideology hook, line and sinker.
>
> > So what is your reasoned argument that give justification to taxing one
> > person 15% of their income and another 35% of their income, in direct
> > violation of equal protection.
>
> The rich are NOT over taxed, so get it right. *Why do the rich pay
> only 15% on their income, which is mainly capital gains, while the
> ordinary working stiff pays 35% of their base income????
>

Shh, sf. The hundred dollar bill that the rich man uses to light his
Havana is worth just as much to him as the hundred dollars that will
buy her children's shoes means to a working class mother.

George Leppla wrote:
>
> On 7/17/2011 5:25 PM, Pete C. wrote:
> >
> > George Leppla wrote:
> >>
> >> On 7/17/2011 2:42 PM, Pete C. wrote:
> >>>> I suppose you're talking about gun nuts "rights".
> >>> No, I'm talking about gun owners constitutional rights as well as the
> >>> inaliable human right of self defense.
> >>
> >> So who is denying you your rights to own a gun?
> >
> > Ask the folks in CA, IL, NY, CT, NJ and a few other states where peoples
> > constitutional rights are indeed being trampled.
>
> Specifically, who is denying YOU your right to own a gun? What specific
> federal law has been enacted that prevents YOU from owning a gun?

The now expired ugly gun ban was one. The existing ugly gun bans in some
of the noted states also affect me as I have property in some of them.

>
> >
> >> Since Obama came into
> >> office, gun ownership hasn't had any significant changes.
> >
> > Due only to the fact that Obama isn't out at the left wing like the rest
> > of his party, and due to the fact that gun owners have representation to
> > fend off the constant attacks from the left wing.
>
> So you agree that your right to own a gun has NOT been impeded, is that
> correct?

No, that is not correct, and I have cited how my rights were both
previously infringed and are currently infringed in some locations.

>
> >> I remember the before the election the hue and cry was that Obama was
> >> going to "take away our guns"..
> >
> > There certainly was well warranted concern until it became apparent that
> > Obama wasn't as left as his party wanted him to be.
>
> So you agree that the rank and file gun owners we acting out of fear,
> not out of any rational, direct knowledge>

No, they were acting on the stated intentions of his party members, and
those party members were just as surprised as the rest of us when Obama
did not go along with their plans once he was elected.

>
> >
> >> and then there was the big "no ammo"
> >> scare. Neither happened.
> >
> > Sorry, this once certainly did happen. I clearly remember having to
> > search around to find ammunition for my normal range outing and hunting,
>
> It happened because the rank and file gun owners were so SURE that
> "OBAMA IS GOING TO TAKE AWAY OUR GUNS AND AMMO" that they created a huge
> spike in sales, stockpiling guns and ammo so they would be ready to
> "exercise our Second Amendment Rights and "take our country back".
>
> They created a shortage then then blamed it on Obama... and that is a
> fact. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=102851807
> http://articles.cnn.com/2009-05-04/u...-ammo?_s=PM:US

As noted in your links:

"Ammunition suppliers say the shortage is due to several factors,
including the sheer volume of ammunition heading overseas to fight wars
in Iraq and Afghanistan."

>
> >
> > While there are some concerns with the Patriot Act, have you ever
> > stopped to consider that both Bush and Obama have supported it based on
> > the classified information that they receive on the threats to the US
> > that you never hear about?
>
> Yeah, right. I've heard all about the threaths that we were protected
> from... and so sorry that we can't disclose what those threats were, but
> trust us, we are protecting you. You really believe that?

Based on some of the information that I have, yes.

>
> >> So exactly which of your "constitutional rights" have been taken away
> >> since the last election?
> >
> > The right to choose who I do or don't do business with (Obummercare
> > mandate)? As for the second amendment, or just as easily the first
> > amendment, if you ignore the attacks on it until the right is taken
> > away, it's too late.
>
> Sorry, but Obama care hasn't changed the way you buy medical insurance.
> Please cite exactly how YOU have been affected.

There have already been changes to my medical insurance for the 2011
year that resulted from Obummercare. Obummer care isn't due to go into
full effect for a few more years, but there has been a notable shift in
the predictions from even the various liberal think tanks in stories on
left leaning NPR which are taking a more negative view of what will
happen. We won't know for sure until 2014 or at least the benefit
enrollment period for 2014 in the fall of 2013.

>
> Oh, I see.... you haven't had any of YOUR constitutional rights taken
> away... you are just afraid that they are GOING to be taken way someday,
> somewhere, somehow. Congratulations for buying into the politics of fear.

Sorry, that is your false claim. My constitutional rights have indeed
been infringed and I provided the examples. There is no "fear", there is
valid concern based on current and prior infringement.


>
> >> (BTW - I am in favor of people being allowed to own guns, but I want
> >> them registered)
> >
> > And exactly what to you believe registration would accomplish? Certainly
> > it has nothing whatsoever to do with crime, since criminals are not
> > allowed to own guns.
>
> So you agree that criminals should not be allowed to own guns.

You did not answer the question. Criminals own guns illegally, and
registration would have no effect whatsoever on them.

> How
> about flame throwers? Grenades? Atomic bombs. You did say that the
> Founding Fathers wanted people to have state of the art weapons for self
> defense, no?

Yes, I did indeed, and I have no problem whatsoever with non criminals
owning pretty much any type of weapon. I am not paranoid like the
anti-gun kooks.

Nad R wrote:
>
> "Pete C." > wrote:
> > "gloria.p" wrote:
> >>
> >> On 7/17/2011 4:25 PM, Pete C. wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >>> 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.
> >>>
> >>
> >> No, it was about being able to arm a MILITIA after the Revolution, but
> >> you gun folk always leave that part out. It was never about a citizen
> >> being able to walk down the street and blow someone's head off because
> >> he felt vulnerable (or being given a bad deal by his drug dealer.)
> >>
> >
> > Sorry, the Supreme Court doesn't agree with your interpretation of the
> > second amendment. As for your wild west fantasy, that has never been
> > reality. Concealed carry has been law in a great many states, including
> > ones you probably don't expect, for literally decades and your fantasy
> > of law abiding citizens having gunfights on the street have never
> > materialized anywhere. Criminals and gangs have been known to have
> > gunfights, but guess what, they can't legally have guns. Armed law
> > abiding citizens have however successfully defended themselves against
> > criminals many millions of times.
>
> In a democratic society do believe the majority should rule?

No, that is mob rules.

>
> If the two thirds majority of the people votes to put limits on the second
> amendment. Would you still be a law abiding citizen?

If a two thirds majority of people were to vote to require you to go to
church would you still be a law abiding citizen?

>
> 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.

>, it would not surprise me to such
> limits put in place. I will also be voting for the politicians that put in
> those gun law restrictions.

You will be contributing to the increase in crime. Do some research on
the FBIs site and learn the truth.

"Pete C." > wrote:
> Mark Thorson wrote:
>>
>> Dave Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> But what about the other people's rights. How about the rights for
>>> minorities or *** rights? It seems that when people are concerned
>>> about their rights, for some reason the first thing they come up with is
>>> gun rights.
>>
>> And now lightbulbs. Michelle Bachman won't let the
>> commies take away our lightbulbs.
>>
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2008447
>
> I like CFLs, they save me money so I can buy more guns...

I like CFLs, they save me money so I can buy more butter...

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

sf wrote:
>
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 20:38:27 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> >
> > sf wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 17:34:46 -0500, "Pete C." >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > There are a lot of loopholes, because the rich are already over taxed.
> > >
> > > You bought into the right wing ideology hook, line and sinker.
> >
> > So what is your reasoned argument that give justification to taxing one
> > person 15% of their income and another 35% of their income, in direct
> > violation of equal protection.
>
> The rich are NOT over taxed, so get it right. Why do the rich pay
> only 15% on their income, which is mainly capital gains,

From irs.gov, it appears that the capital gains tax rate is 28%, so your
claim of the rich paying 15% is way off.

> while the
> ordinary working stiff pays 35% of their base income????

Perhaps because the ordinary working stiff does not pay 35% of their
base income.

Again from http://www.irs.gov

Your "ordinary working stiff" is probably making less than $34,000
single or $68,000 married and thus is in the 15% tax bracket.

You have to make at least $100,000 in order to be in the 28% bracket.

You have to make over $373,650 in order to be in the 35% bracket.


So, please tell me your justification for why I am paying 28% of my
income, while your "ordinary working stiff" is only paying 15%.

Nad R wrote:
>
> "Pete C." > wrote:
> > Mark Thorson wrote:
> >>
> >> Dave Smith wrote:
> >>>
> >>> But what about the other people's rights. How about the rights for
> >>> minorities or *** rights? It seems that when people are concerned
> >>> about their rights, for some reason the first thing they come up with is
> >>> gun rights.
> >>
> >> And now lightbulbs. Michelle Bachman won't let the
> >> commies take away our lightbulbs.
> >>
> >> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2008447
> >
> > I like CFLs, they save me money so I can buy more guns...
>
> I like CFLs, they save me money so I can buy more butter...

I like butter, but it's not good for my cholesterol so I exercise butter
control.

"Pete C." > wrote:
> Nad R wrote:

>> If the two thirds majority of the people votes to put limits on the second
>> amendment. Would you still be a law abiding citizen?
>
> If a two thirds majority of people were to vote to require you to go to
> church would you still be a law abiding citizen?

As an atheist, yes I would go to church if the laws required it. I would
not want to go to jail.

And you still did not answer the question!

>> 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.
>
>> , it would not surprise me to such
>> limits put in place. I will also be voting for the politicians that put in
>> those gun law restrictions.
>
> You will be contributing to the increase in crime. Do some research on
> the FBIs site and learn the truth.

Like this one that states the higher the gun ownership in a country the
higher the murder rate.

http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm

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

On Jul 17, 7:29*pm, Nad R > wrote:
> "Pete C." > wrote:
> > Mark Thorson wrote:
>
> >> Dave Smith wrote:
>
> >>> But what about the other people's rights. *How about the rights for
> >>> minorities or *** rights? * It seems that when people are concerned
> >>> about their rights, for some reason the first thing they come up with is
> >>> gun rights.
>
> >> And now lightbulbs. *Michelle Bachman won't let the
> >> commies take away our lightbulbs.
>
> >>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2008447
>
> > I like CFLs, they save me money so I can buy more guns...
>
> I like CFLs, they save me money so I can buy more butter...
>

How do I hate thee, CFL -- let me count the ways.. CFLs last no longer
at my house than incandescents do. A three-way CFL, made by GE, burst
into flames in my floor lamp. I broke a twisty bulb moving a
torchiere, turning my living room into a HazMat scene. They
specifically are marked "Not for outdoor use."

On Jul 17, 7:46*pm, Nad R > wrote:
> "Pete C." > wrote:
> > Nad R wrote:
> >> If the two thirds majority of the people votes to put limits on the second
> >> amendment. Would you still be a law abiding citizen?
>
> > If a two thirds majority of people were to vote to require you to go to
> > church would you still be a law abiding citizen?
>
> As an atheist, yes I would go to church if the laws required it. I would
> not want to go to jail.
>
> And you still did not answer the question!
>
> >> 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.
>
> >> , it would not surprise me to such
> >> limits put in place. I will also be voting for the politicians that put in
> >> those gun law restrictions.
>
> > You will be contributing to the increase in crime. Do some research on
> > the FBIs site and learn the truth.
>
> Like this one that states the higher the gun ownership in a country the
> higher the murder rate.
>
> http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm
>

Americans kill each other more with fists and feet than do citizens of
most other countries. We are a violent nation.

spamtrap1888 > wrote:
> On Jul 17, 7:29 pm, Nad R > wrote:
>> "Pete C." > wrote:
>>> Mark Thorson wrote:
>>
>>>> Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>>>>> But what about the other people's rights. How about the rights for
>>>>> minorities or *** rights? It seems that when people are concerned
>>>>> about their rights, for some reason the first thing they come up with is
>>>>> gun rights.
>>
>>>> And now lightbulbs. Michelle Bachman won't let the
>>>> commies take away our lightbulbs.
>>
>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2008447
>>
>>> I like CFLs, they save me money so I can buy more guns...
>>
>> I like CFLs, they save me money so I can buy more butter...
>>
>
> How do I hate thee, CFL -- let me count the ways.. CFLs last no longer
> at my house than incandescents do. A three-way CFL, made by GE, burst
> into flames in my floor lamp. I broke a twisty bulb moving a
> torchiere, turning my living room into a HazMat scene. They
> specifically are marked "Not for outdoor use."

I have had them for years, my electric bill dropped ten percent the first
month.
I love those CFLs, they save me money and in two years and out of twenty
bulbs only one bulb burned out and replaced it with no problems.

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

Pete C. > wrote:

>You have to make at least $100,000 in order to be in the 28% bracket.

This is just the FIT. You're not counting FUTA, FICA and Medicare taxes.
They add up to 22% on the first $7000 in earnings, and then 15% on amounts
up to the current FICA limit (around $107,000).

So the total marginal tax rate when you enter the 28% bracket could be
around 43%, depending on your filing status.

And then there's state tax; even in states without state income
tax, there is about 1% in state disability tax.


Steve