We must keep our Bill of Rights!

[Phil C]

V.I. Lenin of the USSR

"One man with a gun can control 100 without one. Make mass searches and hold executions for found arms."

Joseph Stalin of the USSR

"If the oposition disamrs, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it oursevles."

Adolph Hitler of Nazi Germany

"The most foolish mistake we could possible make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."


IF GUNS ARE OUTLAWED ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS!!

:mad:

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by Phil C
V.I. Lenin of the USSR

"One man with a gun can control 100 without one. Make mass searches and hold executions for found arms."

Joseph Stalin of the USSR

"If the oposition disamrs, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it oursevles."

Adolph Hitler of Nazi Germany

"The most foolish mistake we could possible make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."


IF GUNS ARE OUTLAWED ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS!!

:mad:


It seems so simple doesn't it?

[waterboy]

Originally posted by Phil C
V.I. Lenin of the USSR

"One man with a gun can control 100 without one. Make mass searches and hold executions for found arms."

Joseph Stalin of the USSR

"If the oposition disamrs, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it oursevles."

Adolph Hitler of Nazi Germany

"The most foolish mistake we could possible make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."


IF GUNS ARE OUTLAWED ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS!!

:mad:
You're preaching to the choir here, brother! Like Charleton Heston once said, "......they'll have to pry my gun from my cold, dead hands!" ......or something like that.:thumbsup:

[sinfan75]

Tell ya what, lots of people startin to get a tad worried about what's goin on right now.

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by sinfan75
Tell ya what, lots of people startin to get a tad worried about what's goin on right now.
.
I'm past extremely nervous that whole incremental-ism thing has been working. I try to stay active with my friends in arguments that they are responsible for themselves... no one else is.:(

[Keith7]

Originally posted by sinfan75
Tell ya what, lots of people startin to get a tad worried about what's goin on right now.

why? help is on the way

[sinton66]

One thing that has kept this country as free as it is for as long as it has been is the private ownership of guns. It's not the ONLY thing, but one of the top three.

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Keith7
why? help is on the way
.
As long as folks don't "help themselves" to my guns.:rolleyes:

[SintonFan]

I had a thread removed a couple of weeks ago that made this thread more relevant.:mad: :(

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Ernest T Bass
And a great thread it was. I may have been the only one who saw it in its entirety.
.
Thanks. It was a tough read.:o

[lakers]

Loved it!!!!!

:clap:

[IHStangFan]

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government. -- G. Washington

How many "evil black rifle" owners do we have round these parts? :D

[pancho villa]

Seems to me we are creeping towards socializm in this country.

[SWMustang]

Originally posted by pancho villa
Seems to me we are creeping towards socializm in this country.

I don't know that creeping sums it up. Here's a recent Newsweek cover

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j200/pattonwb/000_090207_COVER_small-thumb4.jpg

[Old Dog]

I disagree that we are creeping toward socialism, we're on a damn rocket-sled !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[shankbear]

Evil black rifle toting bible thumper here, reporting for duty.

[Keith7]

you guys are the biggest group of over reacting people, I've ever seen.

Socialism? seriously why? what makes you think that we are creeping towards it?

Because of bailouts? Reagan did the same thing in the '80s, were you guys complaining then? Bush pushed for bailouts before he left, were you complaing then?

I don't understand why you guys act like the end of america is coming as you know it. If nothing else America is actually looking up for the first time in the past 8 years

[shankbear]

I complained bigtime when Bush did the bank bailout. Those banks should have failed. The market equalizes things and causes equilibrium. The bankruptcy laws are written for certain eventualities.

Any new laws regarding guns constitute a 2nd Amendment threat. There are thousands of gun laws on the books already. ENFORCE what is there.

[shankbear]

And American is not looking up. . . it is in a daze with the trillions that are being thrown around like Monopoly money.

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Ernest T Bass
Why? Ok, here goes.
First, the bailouts. Reagan bailed out the S&L's(which, acording to FDIC, he had to do) and then left them alone. Not what's happening now. Govt is bailing out industries and then sitting on them. Guess what that equals? Government control over those industries.(USSR, anyone?)
Govt is also bailing out banks(which they have to, FDIC), but instead of leaving them alone, they're taking control of them. This=nationalized banks(ask Andrew Jackson about that).
We also keep hearing slogans like "spread the wealth", "redistribution of wealth", etc...straight outta the Communist Manifesto
The current admin is not only demonizing the rich, but is attempting to force them to shoulder the ENTIRE tax burden. According to his plan, only the top 5% Americans would pay taxes. Karl Marx himself said that capitalism would only last until people could vote for a tax and also escape it(95% of people will escape all taxes).
With the "stimulus" package (no real stimulus in it, but even if there was, it wouldn't work. Didn't work for Bush, wouldn't work now either. It's called "lag economics"), money is going to states to start up government employment programs(more socialism there when government gets bigger and more people are employed by them). Many states are denying the money b/c they know they'll lose what little power states still have. The 10th amendment says that states can do this, but the current administration is ignoring that.
They're also attempting to backdoor the 2nd amendment(see first page of this thread). This would also violate the 9th amendment by taking all power away from the citizens(ask Stalin, Hitler, Jong Ill, and Mao about an unarmed society).
Another part of the constitution that is being ignored is article 1(section 2, and section 3 clause 1), and the 1st amendment by attempting to reinact the Fairness Doctrine through so-called "localism".
Basically, it boils down like this: govt. is attempting to seize private business and industry through bailouts, sovergnty of states through the stimulus bill, power over the people by backdooring the 2nd amendment, socialize healthcare, redistribute wealth through taxes, and eliminate all competition(only one political party allowed, kinda like the Communist party) by redrawing congressional lines(unconstitutional) and stacking congress(giving DC a spot, even though the constitution says they can't have one).
These are all things that Vladimir Lenin did in Russia in 1915, and Stalin continued to do. That's the bumper sticker version of what's going on. But, aside from the socialist fiscal policies, anytime you see a govt attempting to increase in size, seize power, take away rights of citizens, and attempt to eliminate competition, it's bad.
.
Awesome summary!! :clap: :clap: :clap:
Do you subscribe to Imprimus? I was just turned onto it and guess what? It is totally free! Sweet Mother of Capitalism. :clap: :D

[IHStangFan]

Originally posted by Old Dog
I disagree that we are creeping toward socialism, we're on a damn rocket-sled !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Here's someone who is paying attention! :D

[ASUFrisbeeStud]

Check the sig, I couldn't agree more.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson

Be afraid of the govornment that is afraid of your guns.

[ASUFrisbeeStud]

Originally posted by shankbear
Evil black rifle toting bible thumper here, reporting for duty.

Ditto, just got a RRA lower receiver for my new AR build.

[IHStangFan]

I'm gonna venture out on a limb here and say some of you EBR toters are members over at ARFCOM? :D

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Keith7
you guys are the biggest group of over reacting people, I've ever seen.

.
For someone who preaches against folks' judging one another(hence if it feels good just do it), you seem to have "judged" this thread.:tisk:

[SintonFan]

Can I at least post the link from a couple of weeks ago????:(
Let others make up their own mind???:(

[IHStangFan]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
For someone who preaches against folks' judging one another(hence if it feels good just do it), you seem to have "judged" this thread.:tisk: obviously not in tune w/ that is happening...i.e. economy, both ours and the rest of the world, the decisions being made in DC right now, etc. Be educated, prepared or be caught w/ your pants down in my opinion. I'd rather "over-react" and be prepared than pretend nothing is happening. :doh:

SF....I was not aiming that at you.....:)

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by IHStangFan
obviously not in tune w/ that is happening...i.e. economy, both ours and the rest of the world, the decisions being made in DC right now, etc. Be educated, prepared or be caught w/ your pants down in my opinion. I'd rather "over-react" and be prepared than pretend nothing is happening. :doh:

SF....I was not aiming that at you.....:)
.
I quoted Keith7 so how can that apply to you?
.
To clarify:
When no one can "judge" anyone(because they haven't lived their life no matter the choices), then we can't even make opinionated decisions based upon their actions... it IS a true slippery slope and one that is prevalent now.
Moral relevantism has come into play today and all it's consequeces are dominating "ethics' issues"...

[IHStangFan]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
I quoted Keith7 so how can that apply to you?
.
To clarify:
When no one can "judge" anyone(because they haven't lived their life no matter the choices), then we can't even make opinionated decisions based upon their actions... it IS a true slippery slope and one that is prevalent now.
Moral relevantism has come into play today and all it's consequeces are dominating "ethics' issues"... I meant to quote Keith, but after reading your response agreed w/ you and quoted you...but really was responding to Keith.

[Farmersfan]

The greatest threat to a foreign army invading these shores would be the militia.


I was in Wally World yesterday and the guy at the sporting goods counter told me they can't keep enough ammo on the shelves. He said they have a long line waiting everytime a truck comes in. Apparently a lot of people are "overreacting"!

[Keith7]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
The greatest threat to a foreign army invading these shores would be the militia.


I was in Wally World yesterday and the guy at the sporting goods counter told me they can't keep enough ammo on the shelves. He said they have a long line waiting everytime a truck comes in. Apparently a lot of people are "overreacting"!

So our own military wouldn't be a bigger threat than a bunch of rednecks with shotguns and pistols?

[IHStangFan]

Originally posted by Keith7
So our own military wouldn't be a bigger threat than a bunch of rednecks with shotguns and pistols? In a nutshell....yes. The US Military is aprox. what....3 Million troops?

US population is aprox 306 Million....of which...let's say 25% are gun owners.....that's 76,500,000 gun owners....and lets say each of them owns 3 guns....that's 229,500,000 firearms to be distributed to a resisting force. A good percentage of these gun owners are ex-military, know their regional terrain better than any invading force, etc. etc. etc.

Then you throw in that the armed citizens do not fall under certain goverment "expectations" during time of war/invasion...Geneva Conventions, etc.

Perfect example....with all of our government/military technology and weaponry, we have yet to capture Bin Laden and/or disable his "militia" forces in Afghanistan when...we have the technological advantage? Why is that?

So again...the answer to your question is.....yes...we "rednecks" would be a formidable opponent to an invading/occupation force.

Any more questions?

[Keith7]

So the fact that our military has tanks, jets, better weapons, better training, more intelligence, rockets, nukes, and so on means nothing?

[Bullaholic]

Originally posted by Keith7
So the fact that our military has tanks, jets, better weapons, better training, more intelligence, rockets, nukes, and so on means nothing?

Through history, technologically surperior forces have had some tough times subduing committed enemies such as the Viet Cong, Mujhadeen, and even Al Queda. The gun owning public of the U.S. would mount a much more substansial guerilla resistance against any invader than any of these other factions ever have.

[Reds fan]

Originally posted by Keith7
So the fact that our military has tanks, jets, better weapons, better training, more intelligence, rockets, nukes, and so on means nothing?

No our military means something but a foreign force facing 76,000,000 plus or minus armed folks defending their land plus the U.S. military means a lot! Besides our U.S. military would have a tough time using nukes in their own land.

Reminds me to go watch Red Dawn again...our 2nd Amendment rights are under assault again!

[sinfan75]

Another question would be just how many of our military would wanna go up against their people.:thinking:

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by Bullaholic
Through history, technologically surperior forces have had some tough times subduing committed enemies such as the Viet Cong, Mujhadeen, and even Al Queda. The gun owning public of the U.S. would mount a much more substansial guerilla resistance against any invader than any of these other factions ever have. you are absolutely dreaming if you think Americans are more saavy than the Viet-Cong or Mujahadeen. American's as a people have different morals, culture. Those people fought off superpowers and would have kept fighting forever, with a much smaller population. Make no mistake, they are harder than Americans. Much harder! Only our troops, the SEASONED ones would match them. Anyone who has ever fought either would agree and may not like, but have a DEEP respect for them. Playing around with your gun shooting deer and birds is one thing. Those people sacrificed more than any American shall ever hope to aside from our combat troops.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by sinfan75
Another question would be just how many of our military would wanna go up against their people.:thinking: ask the fanatics. lol, it's their defense for needin a .50 cal rifle lmao.

personally I think outlawing guns is stupid, we are inundated with them already, it would be unenforceable in the face of other things more important to enforce.

[Reds fan]

Originally posted by DDBooger
ask the fanatics. lol, it's their defense for needin a .50 cal rifle lmao.

personally I think outlawing guns is stupid, we are inundated with them already, it would be unenforceable in the face of other things more important to enforce.

Go ahead and call me one of those "fanatics" when it comes to defending Constitutional Rights, all of them! Forget unenforceable, how about Unconstitutional?

[Reds fan]

Originally posted by DDBooger
you are absolutely dreaming if you think Americans are more saavy than the Viet-Cong or Mujahadeen. American's as a people have different morals, culture. Those people fought off superpowers and would have kept fighting forever, with a much smaller population. Make no mistake, they are harder than Americans. Much harder! Only our troops, the SEASONED ones would match them. Anyone who has ever fought either would agree and may not like, but have a DEEP respect for them. Playing around with your gun shooting deer and birds is one thing. Those people sacrificed more than any American shall ever hope to aside from our combat troops.

On our own soil, I'd take my chances with American civilians.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by Reds fan
On our own soil, I'd take my chances with American civilians. it isn't necessarily "our own soil" as much as it is, Terrain. We don't inhabit inhospitable terrain like the Mujahadeen do, even rural is generally nothing out of the ordinary. Viet-Cong lived in jungle, where it rained 3/4ths of the year and malaria was as rampant as Aids in Africa. U.S. civies would have to adopt the very same thing that the Palestinians, Iraqi insurgents and other resistance forces do, immerse into the cities and draw them in where technology could be neutralized. That would be the BEST way to fight a Domestic force (FED). Invading force, no chance, at least in this century. NO Navy could muster that force, defend it and mobilize under a U.S. assured aerial superiority. I know people like to conjure up all these wonderful stories about defending from the govt BS. You guys have no idea how bad that would be if did happen. Americans haven't tasted domestic warfare in almost 150 years. Vietnamese fought off the Chinese, Japanese, French and Americans. Mujahadeen fought off just about every imperial army in the 1800s and 1900s. Their terrain was/is perfectly suited and they are perfectly suited.

[carter08]

I support stricter control over the sale of guns. I support the registering of firearms.

The government is not going to pass a law banning the ownership of firearms. It is not going to happen. There would be enough opposition from both parties that the bill would fail miserably.




I'd prefer a Democratic Socialist style government like France to our current form of government.

The health care and banking industries are both essential to our lives. Government control of the health care industry would lower health care costs. Government control of the banking industry couldn't be any worse than the current system. Banks are failing at an alarming rate. If there had been more control over them in the first place, we might not be in this situation.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by carter08
I support stricter control over the sale of guns. I support the registering of firearms.

The government is not going to pass a law banning the ownership of firearms. It is not going to happen. There would be enough opposition from both parties that the bill would fail miserably.




I'd prefer a Democratic Socialist style government like France to our current form of government.

The health care and banking industries are both essential to our lives. Government control of the health care industry would lower health care costs. Government control of the banking industry couldn't be any worse than the current system. Banks are failing at an alarming rate. If there had been more control over them in the first place, we might not be in this situation. dude, don't kill a cool conversation by going there. You just called down the mini-Limbaughs and it is going to go political. Discussing warfare, urban, guerrilla, conventional etc is much more interesting.

[carter08]

Originally posted by DDBooger
dude, don't kill a cool conversation by going there. You just called down the mini-Limbaughs and it is going to go political. Discussing warfare, urban, guerrilla, conventional etc is much more interesting.

I kinda just read the first few posts and skipped to the end.

Lol.


I like to play GTA. Because I get to kill people.

Killing people is fun.
Guerilla War!

Anarchy!
Love!
Happiness!

[Pick6]

Originally posted by carter08


Government control of the health care industry would lower health care costs.

It would also lower the type of care you can get. Look at Canada, they only use their health care when they have a cold.
When it's something important they come to the U.S.

[IHStangFan]

Originally posted by Keith7
So the fact that our military has tanks, jets, better weapons, better training, more intelligence, rockets, nukes, and so on means nothing? Again...I'll ask you then.....if that's all it takes to quell an uprising/resistance....why is it that the Russians, and now the US...are having the problems in Afghanistan? How come we didn't roll in there and crush Al Queda in a matter of days? I mean...it's our cruise missles, tanks, etc. against their RPGs and AKs and technology always wins right?........

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by carter08
I support stricter control over the sale of guns. I support the registering of firearms.

The government is not going to pass a law banning the ownership of firearms. It is not going to happen. There would be enough opposition from both parties that the bill would fail miserably.




I'd prefer a Democratic Socialist style government like France to our current form of government.

The health care and banking industries are both essential to our lives. Government control of the health care industry would lower health care costs. Government control of the banking industry couldn't be any worse than the current system. Banks are failing at an alarming rate. If there had been more control over them in the first place, we might not be in this situation.
.
How many countries that started the "registering of firearms" ends that "registration" with the banning of firearms? Do you know? Maybe maybe not... so how can you guarantee our freedom to own guns. By saying that "It is not going to happen" is your educated opinion and assurance that it won't happen? How do you draw that conclusion? I would like to know...
please enlighten us.

[shankbear]

Carter08. . . France isn't exactly the Utopia you may think it is. I lived there and it is a gaggle flog at best. Particularly health care. The pharmacists do most of the doctoring. the doctors are too few as nobody wants to fight the system and get paid a nothing salary. And you cannot get the care. Baby care is their high spot.

There are strikes continuously. Rail, air, police, truckers and many others. They strike at the drop of a hat. Another cluster flog.

As bad as you think it is here. . . they want to be here more than anywhere in the world.

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by carter08
I kinda just read the first few posts and skipped to the end.

Lol.


I like to play GTA. Because I get to kill people.

Killing people is fun.
Guerilla War!

Anarchy!
Love!
Happiness!
.
This post is alarming in many ways(not just "skipping to the end").
I hope you can appreciate that you live in a country that allows games like these.
"Killing people is fun"?
My goodness!!!:eek:
You wrote those words, and while you believe the context of them are wrapped in a video game, do you not believe they have meaning? Words DO have meaning...:eek: :eek:

[carter08]

I was just going by information from the W.H.O.

Of course, I did not realize that the ratings I was looking at were 9 years old. Although, France was rated first.

I believe that socialism, in theory at least, is better than capitalism. The problem is, people are greedy.

If run correctly, I believe a Democratic Socialist nation would be the best way to run a nation. All men are created equal. Yes, I believe that men and women who are more educated and do harder jobs deserve to be paid more, but the disparity between rich and poor does not need to be as wide as it is now. There is no way a Pro Athlete should be paid 300 million dollars while a construction worker struggles to feed their family. Lawyers don't deserve the huge paychecks they get while someone works harder at Phillips for a fraction of the money they receive. About the only major profession that deserves the amount they are paid are doctors. The government could lower their own paychecks, take charge of the the health care system, and still afford to pay good sized salaries to doctors. Of course, no one is willing to take a pay cut to help other people. Hooray greed!

I am rambling and I make no sense.

That last post was an epic joke.

[shankbear]

Carter08. . .so making everbody equal in every way is your solution.?? Take from those who have been successful and give to those who have not? Equalized earnings should be based only on merit. That hasn't happened here but great strides have been made.

Most lawyers DO NOT make massive salaries. The Texas Bar Association estimate based on attorney surveys showed that the median salary for all lawyers in Texas was $65K per year.

Sports figures are not paid on what they do but on how many butts they can put in the seats. If an owner wants to pay his guy(employee) an obscene salary, it is that owner's choice. Why take from him and give to anybody else.

Doctors make much less than what most people believe. Google it and find out.

Socialist governments have always faced more problems structurally than capitalist forms.

Fight to make your place here and depend on yourself more. Don't depend on any government because they have one overarching job and that is to get re-elected.

[carter08]

Originally posted by shankbear
Carter08. . .so making everbody equal in every way is your solution.?? Take from those who have been successful and give to those who have not? Equalized earnings should be based only on merit. That hasn't happened here but great strides have been made.

Most lawyers DO NOT make massive salaries. The Texas Bar Association estimate based on attorney surveys showed that the median salary for all lawyers in Texas was $65K per year.

Sports figures are not paid on what they do but on how many butts they can put in the seats. If an owner wants to pay his guy(employee) an obscene salary, it is that owner's choice. Why take from him and give to anybody else.

Doctors make much less than what most people believe. Google it and find out.

Socialist governments have always faced more problems structurally than capitalist forms.

Fight to make your place here and depend on yourself more. Don't depend on any government because they have one overarching job and that is to get re-elected.

I did not say make salaries equal. I said make the gap between the highest and lowest salaries narrower. If you place a 300,000 dollar a year cap on salaries, the people making the most money can still afford to be happy. More money would be available to pay the other workers then. A person doesn't need 20 million dollars a year. There is absolutely no point in it.


I have read Animal Farm. I guess I just have this belief deep in my soul that people are good. People aren't good though.

[carter08]

Originally posted by Ernest T Bass
Yes, socialism is great economicly, but horrible if you factor in human behavior. I believe George Orwell accurately predicted what would be the outcome and downfall of communism when he wrote Animal Farm.
Yes, people are greedy, that's why the US prospered so well under capitalism. Advancement is what drives human beings. That's what led to the technology and and medical advances we know enjoy. In a socialist nation, this site wouldn't exist b/c computers and the internet wouldn't exist.

and of course, I am speaking of a very moderate form of socialism. More government regulation in health care and economics. More equal salaries, though nowhere near Soviet extremes.

I do not believe the government should control our lives. I just believe that, if we have to have a government, they should do all that is possible to help the common man.

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by carter08
I was just going by information from the W.H.O.

Of course, I did not realize that the ratings I was looking at were 9 years old. Although, France was rated first.

I believe that socialism, in theory at least, is better than capitalism. The problem is, people are greedy.

If run correctly, I believe a Democratic Socialist nation would be the best way to run a nation. All men are created equal. Yes, I believe that men and women who are more educated and do harder jobs deserve to be paid more, but the disparity between rich and poor does not need to be as wide as it is now. There is no way a Pro Athlete should be paid 300 million dollars while a construction worker struggles to feed their family. Lawyers don't deserve the huge paychecks they get while someone works harder at Phillips for a fraction of the money they receive. About the only major profession that deserves the amount they are paid are doctors. The government could lower their own paychecks, take charge of the the health care system, and still afford to pay good sized salaries to doctors. Of course, no one is willing to take a pay cut to help other people. Hooray greed!

I am rambling and I make no sense.

That last post was an epic joke.
.
Yes your post makes no sense...
First, how do you know those "who are more educated and do more work" will do "more work" than those not educated?
Second, how many American(or otherwise, name those if you can) construction workers do you know that struggle to feed their families?
Third, if 535 members of congress took a $100,000 a year pay cut, how much would that give to 1 million doctors a year under your socialist's system of medical care? A couple of pieces of gum?
.
Are you greedy, Carter08? No?
I'd say yes knowing you spend alot of time playing GTA4... that is pretty greedy in itself.:nerd:
.
In what ways are socialism better than capitalism?:confused:

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by carter08
the people making the most money can still afford to be happy.
.
There in lies your intellectual problem carter08...
you equate money=happiness.
How can you be so shallow and so so very wrong.
You have to be young and ignorant on life's joys to make that leap.
If I am wrong tell me where I am.:)

[carter08]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
Yes your post makes no sense...
First, how do you know those "who are more educated and do more work" will do "more work" than those not educated?
Second, how many American(or otherwise, name those if you can) construction workers do you know that struggle to feed their families?
Third, if 535 members of congress took a $100,000 a year pay cut, how much would that give to 1 million doctors a year under your socialist's system of medical care? A couple of pieces of gum?
.
Are you greedy, Carter08? No?
I'd say yes knowing you spend alot of time playing GTA4... that is pretty greedy in itself.:nerd:
.
In what ways are socialism better than capitalism?:confused:

First, I don't spend much time playing GTA4. My roommate does and I occasionally watch.

By government, I mean more than just Congress. If a person is employed by a government, they should not make exorbitant salaries. The same goes for Corporations. The CEO of a major corporation does not deserve the amount of money he or she makes.

By "do more work", I am not talking physical labor. In that sense I mean jobs in health care, education, engineering, etc. I do believe people in those fields deserves more money than someone who drops out of school and works construction, although I do think the income gap should be smaller.

My father works at Phillips. He makes a decent salary there, but when the bills come in, the money is not always there. I have met people who have worked there for much shorter periods of time and make much lower salaries. Money does not go far these days.

[carter08]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
There in lies your intellectual problem carter08...
you equate money=happiness.
How can you be so shallow and so so very wrong.
You have to be young and ignorant on life's joys to make that leap.
If I am wrong tell me where I am.:)

People BELIEVE that money leads to happiness. When you don't have any, you don't have that misguided notion

I'm living on $1000 dollars a semester right now for food and bills. I can't afford to buy extravagant things. I'm still happy.

But when you take a person making millions of dollars a year who gets whatever they want, they are going to think that the money is the cause of their happiness.

I do not think that money brings happiness, but some people do. Those people would learn that they could still be happy with a decreased income.

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by carter08
First, I don't spend much time playing GTA4. My roommate does and I occasionally watch.

.
So should I just ignore that whole post about "killing people"?
"Killing people is fun!"?
:eek:

[carter08]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
So should I just ignore that whole post about "killing people"?
"Killing people is fun!"?
:eek:

Yes, because that was in response to Booger's post that discussing warfare and guerrilla warfare were more interesting. It was intended as a joke, and I am sorry you did not take it the way I intended it to be taken.

<3

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by carter08
People BELIEVE that money leads to happiness. When you don't have any, you don't have that misguided notion

I'm living on $1000 dollars a semester right now for food and bills. I can't afford to buy extravagant things. I'm still happy.

But when you take a person making millions of dollars a year who gets whatever they want, they are going to think that the money is the cause of their happiness.

I do not think that money brings happiness, but some people do. Those people would learn that they could still be happy with a decreased income.
.
So your whole point on "money=happiness" is false is what you are saying?

[carter08]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
So your whole point on "money=happiness" is false is what you are saying?

I never made "money = happiness" a point.

I should have clarified how I meant "afford".

It was not meant as in "BUY HAPPINESS!!!"

It was meant as in, they have less money and buy less stuff, but it doesn't affect their happiness.

[carter08]

Originally posted by Ernest T Bass
At the risk of being condecending....you have ALOT to learn. But it's ok, you're expected to be stupid at this point in your life. In time, with experience, you'll know better. I too lived on the edge of poverty in college, and was perfectly happy with it, so I can relate. Just believe me when I say, it changes.

I do know that I'm just a kid still. I'm perfectly happy having no money and going to school.

I haven't had time to grow bitter and resentful yet. I still have faith in human nature because I still have faith in myself.

I guess I'm too much of a pragmatist. I believe that human beings are essentially good, so to me, it is true and nothing you say can make me think otherwise. That is why I still believe equality is possible if people would just come together and put differences aside.

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by carter08
I never made "money = happiness" a point.

I should have clarified how I meant "afford".

It was not meant as in "BUY HAPPINESS!!!"

It was meant as in, they have less money and buy less stuff, but it doesn't affect their happiness.
.
Then please change your statement to reflect what you mean.
I'll re-quote you:

I did not say make salaries equal. I said make the gap between the highest and lowest salaries narrower. If you place a 300,000 dollar a year cap on salaries, the people making the most money can still afford to be happy. More money would be available to pay the other workers then. A person doesn't need 20 million dollars a year. There is absolutely no point in it.

.
Do you know just how arrogant you come off making judgments on how much folks should or should not make? I thought we can't "judge" others...:confused:
.
Do you not see such logic as flawed?
.
And how flawed is you asking for firearms' registrations?
.
.
You profess, basically to say, we are TOO FREE, whether in the money we make or the firearms we choose to keep. Right?

[TheDOCTORdre]

Originally posted by carter08
I believe that human beings are essentially good,

there is your problem

[carter08]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
Then please change your statement to reflect what you mean.
I'll re-quote you:

.
Do you know just how arrogant you come off making judgments on how much folks should or should not make? I thought we can't "judge" others...:confused:
.
Do you not see such logic as flawed?
.
And how flawed is you asking for firearms' registrations?
.
.
You profess, basically to say, we are TOO FREE, whether in the money we make or the firearms we choose to keep. Right?

Maybe it is slightly arrogant, but I cannot find any reason to justify a person sitting in an office making millions of dollars, while people actually got in the fields doing work make 40,000.

The firearms are a separate issue. An artificial object with the ability to take another humans life needs to be regulated. I do not and have never endorsed a ban on firearms, but I think we do need stricter regulations on who obtains them and it would be great to know who owns the ones already sold.

There's a flaw in the entire system. Capitalism is flawed. I will admit that Socialism is flawed as well. Every political and economic system is flawed, but they are a necessary evil.

[carter08]

Originally posted by TheDOCTORdre
there is your problem

I know.


But it's also my personal belief. Underneath all the bad that society has thrown on, there is a good person straining to get out.

[carter08]

I love all of you, by the way.

I do not hold your personal beliefs against you, just as I hope you do not hold mine against me.


I have seen the negative effects of people in dire need of money. I have had friends who lived in unsuitable environments, in houses that were literally falling down, while their parents worked their hardest to be able to put food on the table every night.

I despise the pursuit of money. That is why I believe in salary caps, so more money can be distributed to the working class so they can get out of the horrible conditions that some of them live in. Yes, it is an ideal that will never happen, but to me it is how I wish our society functioned.

Then again, I plan on being a writer and living in a commune with my friends and teaching college students to write poetry, so maybe I'm just a little biased against big business.

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by carter08
I love all of you, by the way.

I do not hold your personal beliefs against you, just as I hope you do not hold mine against me.


I have seen the negative effects of people in dire need of money. I have had friends who lived in unsuitable environments, in houses that were literally falling down, while their parents worked their hardest to be able to put food on the table every night.

I despise the pursuit of money. That is why I believe in salary caps, so more money can be distributed to the working class so they can get out of the horrible conditions that some of them live in. Yes, it is an ideal that will never happen, but to me it is how I wish our society functioned.

Then again, I plan on being a writer and living in a commune with my friends and teaching college students to write poetry, so maybe I'm just a little biased against big business.
.
How many starving kids have you ever met? I bet your friends' parents worked hard. But did any of them starve?
Your view is extremely arrogant.
You come here, never struggling on your own, but profess to tell others that they make too much money/own too many or the wrong guns... flawed logic. That is the socialist system. You can judge others but don't let anyone do the same to you. I seek to turn your petty flawed belief on it's own head. Folks who believe as you do must be pretty miserable, but say they are happy. I doubt they truly are.
You must despise yourself every payday if you despise the pursuit of money. More flawed logic...
only socialism can make someone happy then.
Most flawed point of all.

[carter08]

Originally posted by Ernest T Bass
Haven't cracked open that Rousseau book yet, huh? Might also wanna check out Hobbs' Leviathan. Basically, the idea is that humans are not naturally good, but are naturally wired to insure their own survival and the survival of their bloodline. This is why communism and socialism never work, b/c of our natural instinct to protect our own bloodline, even at the expense of others.
If you're going to live in a commune, you're wasting alot of time and money on college.

I plan on teaching Creative Writing in college.

And doing a lot of volunteer work.

[carter08]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
How many starving kids have you ever met? I bet your friends' parents worked hard. But did any of them starve?
Your view is extremely arrogant.
You come here, never struggling on your own, but profess to tell others that they make too much money/own too many or the wrong guns... flawed logic. That is the socialist system. You can judge others but don't let anyone do the same to you. I seek to turn your petty flawed belief on it's own head. Folks who believe as you do must be pretty miserable, but say they are happy. I doubt they truly are.
You must despise yourself every payday if you despise the pursuit of money. More flawed logic...
only socialism can make someone happy then.
Most flawed point of all.

There actually were times when my parents had to lend them some money so they could afford to eat, actually. So, if not for the kindness of others, yes, my friends could have very likely starved.

I'm sorry for trying to explain why I believe what I believe.

Thanks for telling me I'm not happy. I love how you tell me not to judge others, yet proceed to judge me. Thanks.

My answers will be the same as before. You will then ask the same question, worded differently. You will then hurl more insults at me. I don't feel like starting that again.

I understand your position, even if I don't agree with it, and I understand how you can believe in it. People have different belief systems. Ours are not the same.

<3

[OldBison75]

OKAY!
My first response to this issue concerns the above discussion of salary caps. The idea of limiting the earning capability of another is typical of the democaratic party mantra. "Take from the rich and give to the poor." Yet, I have never met a Republican or Democrat in my 52 years on this earth that was not trying to find a better paying job. I also have never seen a person turn down an offer to make a big salary as a supervisor or executive "because they though it was not fair for them to make big bucks while the workers in the field were struggling". Human nature is to want to not just be one of the guys, but to be a leader among the guys. And, the leader is always supposed to make more than the follower.

As for the gun issues, there are hundreds of laws already on the books to control guns and gun purchases. Many are not enforced and many have hundreds of loopholes to allow guns to be bought. If the great gun registration movement actually took place, all it would accomplish would be to make criminals out of the everyday law abiding citizen. An example would be that if I bought a gun and registered it in my name and had it in my truck on the farm, and my son took the truck to church and got stopped by police who saw the gun and found it was not registered to my son, could arrest him for possession of a firearm not registered to him and confiscate the gun. I could never teach him to use a weapon because he is under legal purchasing age and therefore has no gun registered to him , which means that he cannot have a gun in his possession without violating the gun control laws. I know this sounds crazy, but there was actually a proposed gun control law introduced to Congress a couple of years ago that not only sought to outlaw some guns, but made it a requirement that any gun found in possession of a person must be registered to that person or they were guilty of a crime.

What I will say is that this country has never needed it's citizens to arm itself in modern history to defend themselves. But, I will also say that with the modern society progressing as it is, that day is coming soon. How many times have we recently read about someone breaking into a home or trying to rob a business when they were shot by the homeowner or store clerk. The concept of protecting oneself from the criminal activities of another is again part of human nature and this country has given us that right by a constitutional decree in the Bill of Rights. I will guarantee you that if you choose to come into my home uninvited in the middle of the night, you WILL earn a free trip to the morgue. I am not gonna try to discuss how wrong you are and slap your wrist, I'm only gonna be talking to you after the bullets are flying. I don't need to hear your sad stories of being poor, needing drug money, or how you were raised in a abusive family. You are a criminal that is threatening the dafety of me and my family and should be stopped, no matter what.

[DDBooger]

me and my brother were visiting my parents and two men broke into our house while we were in the living room. I would be a killer right now if I had a weapon. I'm liberal as many of you know, but gun elimination would be idiotic in a country that has so many and is the leading proliferator around the world lmao. After proceeding to nearly killing one of them and my brother holding the other down while I flicked his teeth at his face. The cops put us against the car and searched us for weapons! haha they thought we had used weapons because these guys were so messed up! Well, had we not been there they'd likely been dead. My father was standing in the drive way with his old govt issued .45 lol Turns out they were driving a Benz, had over 5k on them and were flying high on cocaine. As Rick James said, Cocaine is a hell of a drug. Oh, and they had a handgun in their trunk. Thank god they didn't bring it in with them. This really shook up the neighborhood, my parents lived in a gated community in Laredo. Well, thanks to the compadre system, similar to the good ol boy system for my gringo friends:D , my dad got all their information, where they lived, even what assets they had. Can't wait for them to retire and move to Port A.

[shankbear]

Protection FROM the federal government was the reason for the entire Bill of Rights. Many states are re-examining the 10th Amendment right now.

[TheDOCTORdre]

Originally posted by carter08
I know.


But it's also my personal belief. Underneath all the bad that society has thrown on, there is a good person straining to get out.

there is none who do good...i wont quote the source...just my personal belief

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by TheDOCTORdre
there is none who do good...i wont quote the source...just my personal belief

If I am correctly reading what you are saying, there is no one who does good? I realize you were quoting someone else, but that is a poor outlook when we all should know it is incorrect. I can certainly say I know many people who do good. My wife, who works part-time, volunteered 250 hours last year in a local charity store. All she go in return was a letter of thanks. Think she did it for that letter? Very cynical, and I think the quote must have been taken out of conquest or otherwise just plain wrong.

[TheDOCTORdre]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
If I am correctly reading what you are saying, there is no one who does good? I realize you were quoting someone else, but that is a poor outlook when we all should know it is incorrect. I can certainly say I know many people who do good. My wife, who works part-time, volunteered 250 hours last year in a local charity store. All she go in return was a letter of thanks. Think she did it for that letter? Very cynical, and I think the quote must have been taken out of conquest or otherwise just plain wrong.

it all depends on your standard of good...its not taken out of context at all..from the book of Romans Chapter 3

[Pick6]

Originally posted by TheDOCTORdre
it all depends on your standard of good...its not taken out of context at all..from the book of Romans Chapter 3

Also Mark 10:18

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by TheDOCTORdre
it all depends on your standard of good...its not taken out of context at all..from the book of Romans Chapter 3

Paul, however, was writing about man never being as good as Jesus and not that everyone is no good. If our own good works are the measure, we can never do enough good to earn a spot in heaven! That was what Paul was writing about.

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by Pick6
Also Mark 10:18

And here Jesus was being sarcastic, stating that only God is "totally" good. Man can never be "good enough" to get to heaven. Not speaking of general goodness but perfect goodness.

[Txbroadcaster]

I have always loved the Left saying Rich should not be richer and the poor need more help...YET

It is the RIGHT that year in and year out give more to charities and donate more money to causes.

[Pick6]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
And here Jesus was being sarcastic, stating that only God is "totally" good. Man can never be "good enough" to get to heaven. Not speaking of general goodness but perfect goodness.


God being sarcastic? I don't think so. I think he meant what he said and said what he meant.

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by carter08
There actually were times when my parents had to lend them some money so they could afford to eat, actually. So, if not for the kindness of others, yes, my friends could have very likely starved.

I'm sorry for trying to explain why I believe what I believe.

Thanks for telling me I'm not happy. I love how you tell me not to judge others, yet proceed to judge me. Thanks.

My answers will be the same as before. You will then ask the same question, worded differently. You will then hurl more insults at me. I don't feel like starting that again.

I understand your position, even if I don't agree with it, and I understand how you can believe in it. People have different belief systems. Ours are not the same.

<3
.
Sorry Carter about the harshness, I was just trying to get you to think. :nerd:
I know your a good kid.:)

[carter08]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
Sorry Carter about the harshness, I was just trying to get you to think. :nerd:
I know your a good kid.:)

Trust me, I think.

I just don't think about the same things as you in the same ways.

:)

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by carter08
Trust me, I think.

I just don't think about the same things as you in the same ways.

:)
.
I used to think like you did. Success will change your view as will failure.
Just don't despair as that is what drives those who learned you your current opinions. I have said I have to de-program my kids from the drivel "heart-first" thinking they learn in public education.
I can agree to disagree. And will.:)

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
I used to think like you did. Success will change your view as will failure.
Just don't despair as that is what drives those who learned you your current opinions. I have said I have to de-program my kids from the drivel "heart-first" thinking they learn in public education.
I can agree to disagree. And will.:)


I have NO problem if someone wants tobe "heart-First" I have no problem if someone wants to be ME-first..I DONT want the government dictating to me who I should be and how I should spend my money

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
I have NO problem if someone wants tobe "heart-First" I have no problem if someone wants to be ME-first..I DONT want the government dictating to me who I should be and how I should spend my money
.
Cool cool.
Emotions aren't bad they really aren't, but I have noticed that those who use emotions to make judgements tend to fall under the category of those who you don't want dictating government to you.

[TheDOCTORdre]

Originally posted by Pick6
God being sarcastic? I don't think so. I think he meant what he said and said what he meant.

God has a sarcastic side to him

[DDBooger]

It's hilarious listening to people ponder what god was thinking in a book written by men.

Ronw5x, your wife is leading a holier life than those who go to church 4 times a week or sit around pondering what god wants, or who to hate for their alternative lifestyle or beliefs.

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by DDBooger
It's hilarious listening to people ponder what god was thinking in a book written by men.

Ronw5x, your wife is leading a holier life than those who go to church 4 times a week or sit around pondering what god wants, or who to hate for their alternative lifestyle or beliefs.

I think her putting up with me makes her almost a saint! Or at least non-judgmental. Just shows I have excellent taste.

[TheDOCTORdre]

Originally posted by DDBooger
It's hilarious listening to people ponder what god was thinking in a book written by men.

Ronw5x, your wife is leading a holier life than those who go to church 4 times a week or sit around pondering what god wants, or who to hate for their alternative lifestyle or beliefs.

a book written by man which was totally inspired by God...

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by Pick6
God being sarcastic? I don't think so. I think he meant what he said and said what he meant.

If you think God has no sarcastic side to Him, read Job.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by TheDOCTORdre
a book written by man which was totally inspired by God...


So says the "Book Written by Man"!!!!!!

[Pick6]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
If you think God has no sarcastic side to Him, read Job.

Let me rephrase, in the Book and Chapter that I mentioned, no he wasn't being sarcastic.

[TheDOCTORdre]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
So says the "Book Written by Man"!!!!!!

which was inspired by God!!!... exclamation points do help:D

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by Ernest T Bass
Is it the same one who inspired the Torah, Koran, Book of Mormon, and Vedas? :clap: thats right ETB.

[TheDOCTORdre]

Originally posted by Ernest T Bass
Is it the same one who inspired the Torah, Koran, Book of Mormon, and Vedas?

well my God didnt inspire those books, but to those individuals who choose to believe those books listed, their god inspired those books...well i'm not sure about the Book of mormon, i think that came from an angel Mormoni or something like that, and technically the Torah is actually the first five books of the Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deutoronomy)

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by TheDOCTORdre
well my God didnt inspire those books, but to those individuals who choose to believe those books listed, their god inspired those books...well i'm not sure about the Book of mormon, i think that came from an angel Mormoni or something like that, and technically the Torah is actually the first five books of the Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deutoronomy)
"not my god"
words that have cost so many lives in our history.

[TheDOCTORdre]

Originally posted by DDBooger
"not my god"
words that have cost so many lives in our history.

i didnt mean that in a term of disrespect or anything of that nature, but the truth of my belief system remains, that my God, the One I choose to believe in did not inspire those books...just answering the question i was asked

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by TheDOCTORdre
i didnt mean that in a term of disrespect or anything of that nature, but the truth of my belief system remains, that my God, the One I choose to believe in did not inspire those books...just answering the question i was asked nor was I blaming you for the thousands of years of lunacy! hahaha ;)

belief systems is religion, sometimes religion is absent of god imo. the system becomes more important than the message and what the inspiration really was in the first place. I think Kevin Smith
had some great ideas about religion in DOGMA (a dark comedy)

[TheDOCTORdre]

Originally posted by DDBooger
nor was I blaming you for the thousands of years of lunacy! hahaha ;)

belief systems is religion, sometimes religion is absent of god imo. the system becomes more important than the message and what the inspiration really was in the first place.(a dark comedy)

now i think we can both agree on that

[Reds fan]

Way off topic here now and going to get thread closed with the religious talk.

[TheDOCTORdre]

Originally posted by Reds fan
Way off topic here now and going to get thread closed with the religious talk.
as long as people can keep from getting offensive and bad mouthing each other i think this type of thread is a good example of how to have a semi decnt/formal/respectful debate/discussion without getting ugly

[Farmersfan]

Sorry if I started a fire storm with my comments. It was only meant to show the irony of using a book that is known to have been written by MAN as a foundation for a belief that God inspired the writing of the book just because the book said so....
What of the 900 texts found in Qumran in the 40's that the church has decided to completely exclude. If this controlling entity would choose to exclude Biblical text as recently as 60 years ago then logic says they have chosen to exclude a significant amount more over the past dozen centuries or so................................
No I tend to believe the Bible is inspired by something other than God..... The Catholic church has built in dogma that is designed for their own survival...........

[Phil C]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
Sorry if I started a fire storm with my comments. It was only meant to show the irony of using a book that is known to have been written by MAN as a foundation for a belief that God inspired the writing of the book just because the book said so....
What of the 900 texts found in Qumran in the 40's that the church has decided to completely exclude. If this controlling entity would choose to exclude Biblical text as recently as 60 years ago then logic says they have chosen to exclude a significant amount more over the past dozen centuries or so................................
No I tend to believe the Bible is inspired by something other than God..... The Catholic church has built in dogma that is designed for their own survival...........


Farmersfan I admire the Catholic Church.

[Phil C]

Hey some of you are missing the main point that was my reason for this thread.

"IF GUNS ARE OUTLAWED THEN ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS!!"


:mad:

[carter08]

There's one God.

If Muslims and Jews find him through different methods, so be it. As long as they do find God through peaceful, healthy means, I do not see a problem.

As for Mormons, I think they're pretty silly.

[SintonFan]

At least you hardly ever see Mormons blowing themselves up, carter08.:p
.
We're talking about GUNS FOLKS!!!
and fascist marxist socialist... :eek:

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by SintonFan
At least you hardly ever see Mormons blowing themselves up, carter08.:p
.
We're talking about GUNS FOLKS!!!
and fascist marxist socialist... :eek:

I don't like guns.

[carter08]

Originally posted by SintonFan
At least you hardly ever see Mormons blowing themselves up, carter08.:p
.
We're talking about GUNS FOLKS!!!
and fascist marxist socialist... :eek:

There are Radicals in every religion.

It may have been a long time ago, but the Crusades were a pretty low point in Christianity. The current suicide bombing situation is a low point in Islam.


Fascism does not = socialism.

While socialism (in principle) seeks equal wealth distribution, Fascism does not.

Fascism also has a much more violent history and an incredibly low success rate (0%?).

[sinfan75]

Socialism's a great idea but it don't work. Sooner or later the wealthy run out of money. :D

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by carter08
There are Radicals in every religion.

It may have been a long time ago, but the Crusades were a pretty low point in Christianity. The current suicide bombing situation is a low point in Islam.


Fascism does not = socialism.

While socialism (in principle) seeks equal wealth distribution, Fascism does not.

Fascism also has a much more violent history and an incredibly low success rate (0%?).
.
100's of years ago has no bearing on what is happening today unless you are a victim of moral relativism, or the "hey, if it feels good just do it" crowd. History is a lesson on not making mistakes from the past, if you truly understand history. If you can't judge this current "low point" clearly then folks must sympathize with them, I guess.
Words have meaning and I know what I wrote. Cryptic? Not even close...

[Farmersfan]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by carter08
It may have been a long time ago, but the Crusades were a pretty low point in Christianity. The current suicide bombing situation is a low point in Islam.


There's nothing "Current" about the suicide bombing situation in Islam. Fanatical self destructive behavior has been a staple for those people since before recorded history.....

And the problem I have with your definition of socialism is that it might seek equal wealth distribution but in the hands of modern Liberal thinkers (and obviously you) it will completely disregard equal responsibility and accountability.......

In the REAL world a person is not deserving of anything simply because they exist. Our constitution grants everyone the right to pursue as high a level of lifestyle that they are able to acheive. It does not make them entitled to anything.

[Phil C]

Carter I admire the Mormon Church.

[Phil C]

Carter I admire the Jewish and Moslim faiths.

[Phil C]

"IF GUNS ARE OUTLAWED ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS!!"

:mad:

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by Phil C
"IF GUNS ARE OUTLAWED ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS!!"

:mad:

That quote is misleading. If guns are outlawed both the police and military would still have guns. It is unlikely that guns will ever be outlawed in the US.

As a matter of reference, people keep quoting dictators as jutification for not regulating firearms but ignore the fact that UK, Germany, France, and Japan also have strict gun control and have murder rates far below those here.

I'm not advocating banning all guns, I'm just in favor of sensible control. If the government should not be regulating against assault rifles, this should be carried on to ALL weapons including fully auromatic, explosive, and nuclear. Don't think anyone is advocating allowing private ownership of weapons of mass destruction.

[Farmersfan]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ronwx5x
I'm not advocating banning all guns, I'm just in favor of sensible control.


And therein lies the problem! "sensible" is not a recogonized word in our Government.....

[Reds fan]

Originally posted by ronwx5x


I'm not advocating banning all guns, I'm just in favor of sensible control. If the government should not be regulating against assault rifles, this should be carried on to ALL weapons including fully auromatic, explosive, and nuclear. Don't think anyone is advocating allowing private ownership of weapons of mass destruction.

Please define assault rifles.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
That quote is misleading. If guns are outlawed both the police and military would still have guns. It is unlikely that guns will ever be outlawed in the US.

As a matter of reference, people keep quoting dictators as jutification for not regulating firearms but ignore the fact that UK, Germany, France, and Japan also have strict gun control and have murder rates far below those here.

I'm not advocating banning all guns, I'm just in favor of sensible control. If the government should not be regulating against assault rifles, this should be carried on to ALL weapons including fully auromatic, explosive, and nuclear. Don't think anyone is advocating allowing private ownership of weapons of mass destruction.


So like so many others, you also believe that if you take guns away from law abiding citizens then the crimmals will slow down??????? If you make gun ownership illigal then you create a completely new UNDERWORLD of gun smuggling and back alley sales. Ask yourself if Drugs are truely a problem in this country? No! It's the illegal activities in obtaining those drugs that is the problem. Guns would be no different. The only people who would NOT own guns if they are made illegal would be the law abiding citizens. It would only cause the crimminals to pay more for them and purchase them in a different place......

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
So like so many others, you also believe that if you take guns away from law abiding citizens then the crimmals will slow down??????? If you make gun ownership illigal then you create a completely new UNDERWORLD of gun smuggling and back alley sales. Ask yourself if Drugs are truely a problem in this country? No! It's the illegal activities in obtaining those drugs that is the problem. Guns would be no different. The only people who would NOT own guns if they are made illegal would be the law abiding citizens. It would only cause the crimminals to pay more for them and purchase them in a different place......

Either I did not make myself clear or you might have misread what I wrote. I do not advocate toal gun control, only control over unneeded wepons that could only be used for excitement or killing people, i.e. assault weapons. Like you, I am entitled to an opinion and you defining my beliefs as some radical intent to outlaw all weapons is untrue and unfair. I don't want your wepons (or those of anyone else) outlawed unless they are misused or illegal.

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by Reds fan
Please define assault rifles.

From Encyclopedia Brittanica:

"Military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire. Light and portable, yet able to deliver a high volume of fire with reasonable accuracy at modern combat ranges of 1,000 – 1,600 ft (300 – 500 m), assault rifles have become the standard infantry weapon of modern armies. Their ease of handling makes them ideal for mobile assault troops crowded into personnel carriers or helicopters, as well as for guerrilla fighters engaged in jungle or urban warfare. Widely used assault rifles are the U.S. M16, the Soviet Kalashnikov (the AK-47 and modernized versions), the Belgian FAL and FNC, and the German G3."

Now what use does a hunter have for this type weapon?

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
From Encyclopedia Brittanica:

"Military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire. Light and portable, yet able to deliver a high volume of fire with reasonable accuracy at modern combat ranges of 1,000 – 1,600 ft (300 – 500 m), assault rifles have become the standard infantry weapon of modern armies. Their ease of handling makes them ideal for mobile assault troops crowded into personnel carriers or helicopters, as well as for guerrilla fighters engaged in jungle or urban warfare. Widely used assault rifles are the U.S. M16, the Soviet Kalashnikov (the AK-47 and modernized versions), the Belgian FAL and FNC, and the German G3."

Now what use does a hunter have for this type weapon?
.
Because we don't want to see this happen!:eek:
http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/3692/armeddeer.th.jpg (http://img17.imageshack.us/my.php?image=armeddeer.jpg)

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
Because we don't want to see this happen!:eek:
http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/3692/armeddeer.th.jpg (http://img17.imageshack.us/my.php?image=armeddeer.jpg)

Certainly doesn't answer the question I asked about what a hunter needs it for. To have reasonable laws people need to be reasonable. Are you a believer that whatever weapon Americans want they should be allowed to have it just because thay want to? Sounds like what the octomom said when asked why. Because I can.

Automatic weapons for the most part are illegal without a special permit. Should we just allow them for everybody too?

[Reds fan]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
From Encyclopedia Brittanica:

"Military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire. Light and portable, yet able to deliver a high volume of fire with reasonable accuracy at modern combat ranges of 1,000 – 1,600 ft (300 – 500 m), assault rifles have become the standard infantry weapon of modern armies. Their ease of handling makes them ideal for mobile assault troops crowded into personnel carriers or helicopters, as well as for guerrilla fighters engaged in jungle or urban warfare. Widely used assault rifles are the U.S. M16, the Soviet Kalashnikov (the AK-47 and modernized versions), the Belgian FAL and FNC, and the German G3."

Now what use does a hunter have for this type weapon?

Thank you, you just proved a point. People are ignorant of the already existing laws, the definition you just provided is of guns that are already illegal. How can you claim to want "sensible" gun laws when you are ignorant of current laws and the true definition of firearms? You fall for the "scary looking gun" propoganda put forth by the gun control.

[SintonFan]

Ok, I'll bite.
How about the 2nd Amendment?
.
Who says the ownership of weapons should be limited to just hunting. That's kinda narrowing the argument to suit the justification to ban as many weapons as possible.

[waterboy]

Originally posted by ronwx5x

Now what use does a hunter have for this type weapon?
I like to use my automatic weapon for hunting "Revenuers" and gang-bangers..........if the case ever arises where I need volume of fire. After all, I can't afford to miss when there are several of 'em.:D Volume of fire equals more protection. That's the way I look at it!:cool: In this day and age, you just never really know......:doh:

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
Either I did not make myself clear or you might have misread what I wrote. I do not advocate toal gun control, only control over unneeded wepons that could only be used for excitement or killing people, i.e. assault weapons. Like you, I am entitled to an opinion and you defining my beliefs as some radical intent to outlaw all weapons is untrue and unfair. I don't want your wepons (or those of anyone else) outlawed unless they are misused or illegal.



You have made yourself completely clear. You only advocate total control over those guns that YOU deem unneeded. Isn't that the very same thing as advocating total control over all guns? Someone somewhere will deem them unneeded. What if I said the Government should make it illegal for you to drive a 4X4 SUV because it is totally unneeded? Is that ok with you? And a hell of a lot more people are killed by SUV's each year than are killed by law abiding citizens with guns. Once again I ask if you believe controlling these weapons will cause crimminals to stop doing their crimminal activities??????? If you can make a connection between stopping crime and gun control then I might be onboard. Otherwise you have no valid arguement...

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
You have made yourself completely clear. You only advocate total control over those guns that YOU deem unneeded. Isn't that the very same thing as advocating total control over all guns? Someone somewhere will deem them unneeded. What if I said the Government should make it illegal for you to drive a 4X4 SUV because it is totally unneeded? Is that ok with you? And a hell of a lot more people are killed by SUV's each year than are killed by law abiding citizens with guns. Once again I ask if you believe controlling these weapons will cause crimminals to stop doing their crimminal activities??????? If you can make a connection between stopping crime and gun control then I might be onboard. Otherwise you have no valid arguement...

You forget that I am not alone in believing assault weapons serve no valid function in the hands of the general public, much less in the hands of criminals. The use of "YOU" to indicdate only me is an insult.

You are entitled to your opinion, me to mine. I made no mention as to whether banning certain weapons could be connected to stopping crime but now that you bring it up at least it would be more difficult for criminals (admittedly non-criminals also) to buy assault weapons. Stop it totally, no. Just as having speed limits on motor vehicles does not stop speeding by SUV's. By the way, I believe you are correct about SUV's killing more people than guns used by law-abiding citizens. The vast majority of deaths caused by motor vehicles (including SUV's) as well as firearms occur from some violation of some law or from just just plain carelessness as do gun related deaths. It's the bad guys who most often kill. Neither of us advocates banning motor vehicles, just controlling them as much as possible. Very few people are killed by law abiding citizens by the way, whether by vehicle or gun.

Do laws stop violators? Of course not. They simply control the majority of folks. Tha't called society and like it or not we are all members of this society and should have rights as well as curbs on our actions that damage others. Freedom of speech? Try yelling "FIRE" in a crowded stadium. Freedom of religion? Just try advocating jihad against the government. Freedom of the press? Try printing libelous articles. Prove a legitimate need for assault weapons and I might buy into your side. Just don't demand I prove banning assault rifles stops crime and stand there smugly waiting for me to buy the side of all wepons being legal.

I would refer you again to my previous post where I stated that there are already some weapons Americans can't legally own, such as most explosives, nukes, and fully automatic weapons. If you think all weapons should be legal to own you are even further from reality.

[waterboy]

Hey, with a little ingenuity, any semiautomatic weapon can be made into a fully automatic weapon.:evillol: If you ban ANY particular weapon, only criminals will have them. Like it or not, that's just the way it is........and that IS the truth, regardless of what any of us truly think. The gun is NOT the culprit, it's the people using them. I don't see how that's so hard for some people to understand.:confused:

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by waterboy
Hey, with a little ingenuity, any semiautomatic weapon can be made into a fully automatic weapon.:evillol: If you ban ANY particular weapon, only criminals will have them. Like it or not, that's just the way it is........and that IS the truth, regardless of what any of us truly think. The gun is NOT the culprit, it's the people using them. I don't see how that's so hard for some people to understand.:confused:

I agree with everything you say. People are the problem and people need to be regulated in their actions and punished when they stray. Sure you can engineer your semiautomatic to be fully automatic. I hope you don't because then you would be a criminal! Since we are friends I would be forced to visit you in jail and I don't like jails either. That doesn't mean we don't need them, however.

[44INAROW]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
I agree with everything you say. People are the problem and people need to be regulated in their actions and punished when they stray. Sure you can engineer your semiautomatic to be fully automatic. I hope you don't because then you would be a criminal! Since we are friends I would be forced to visit you in jail and I don't like jails either. That doesn't mean we don't need them, however.

I like to see grown men having a nice, friendly debate :)

[waterboy]

Originally posted by 44INAROW
I like to see grown men having a nice, friendly debate :)
:mad: Shut up......or I'll shoot!:mad:

:D

[Phil C]

Come on now!
What part of IF GUNS ARE OUTLAWED THEN ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS do you not understand?

:mad:

[waterboy]

Originally posted by Phil C
Come on now!
What part of IF GUNS ARE OUTLAWED THEN ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS do you not understand?

:mad:
Don't worry........I ain't never turning my guns in, even if I have to stash them. I guess I will become an outlaw if they ever ban a weapon that I just happen to already have, but what they don't know won't hurt 'em. That's my philosophy. I guess if I own guns now that are not registered it means I'm an outlaw, huh? I personally think I have a right to defend my family, my property, and myself with whatever means necessary........and I will! What I'm trying to say is: IF GUNS ARE OUTLAWED, THEN I WILL BE AN OUTLAW!:cool:

[icu812]

Is the purpose of owning firearms only for self protection from criminals, hunting and recreation? Usually we have a peaceful mini revolutions via elections. Someday we may not and then you will wish you had those assault weapons. Our founding fathers envisioned such a day would likely come, as it did for them. I bet the Brittish wish they had outlawed modern firearms and left us with the bow & arrow.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
You forget that I am not alone in believing assault weapons serve no valid function in the hands of the general public, much less in the hands of criminals. The use of "YOU" to indicdate only me is an insult.

You are entitled to your opinion, me to mine. I made no mention as to whether banning certain weapons could be connected to stopping crime but now that you bring it up at least it would be more difficult for criminals (admittedly non-criminals also) to buy assault weapons. Stop it totally, no. Just as having speed limits on motor vehicles does not stop speeding by SUV's. By the way, I believe you are correct about SUV's killing more people than guns used by law-abiding citizens. The vast majority of deaths caused by motor vehicles (including SUV's) as well as firearms occur from some violation of some law or from just just plain carelessness as do gun related deaths. It's the bad guys who most often kill. Neither of us advocates banning motor vehicles, just controlling them as much as possible. Very few people are killed by law abiding citizens by the way, whether by vehicle or gun.

Do laws stop violators? Of course not. They simply control the majority of folks. Tha't called society and like it or not we are all members of this society and should have rights as well as curbs on our actions that damage others. Freedom of speech? Try yelling "FIRE" in a crowded stadium. Freedom of religion? Just try advocating jihad against the government. Freedom of the press? Try printing libelous articles. Prove a legitimate need for assault weapons and I might buy into your side. Just don't demand I prove banning assault rifles stops crime and stand there smugly waiting for me to buy the side of all wepons being legal.

I would refer you again to my previous post where I stated that there are already some weapons Americans can't legally own, such as most explosives, nukes, and fully automatic weapons. If you think all weapons should be legal to own you are even further from reality.


Ok! First off when I say YOU I basically mean anyone who shares your views. Since it is you that I am addressing in my post then it might seem personal. Never was my intent.
I guess we agree on a lot of what you say but just not the proper way to get there. I also beleive nobody needs an assault weapon. Dead only has 1 level. Whether a person is killed with a BB gun or a rocket launcher is irrelavent. Dead is dead. I own a 20 gauge shotgun that I take out of the bag once every couple of years to clean and if a robber broke into my house I would have to hit them on the head with the gun because I don't even own ammo for it. So I am not a gun enthusiasts. I'm a rights enthusiast. that's why I asked for some rhyme or reason for outlawing any weapons.
1. They "serve no valid function in the hands of the general public" is a very poor reason for making them illegal. The list of other legal things that would fall under this category is endless.
2. "it would be more difficult for criminals (admittedly non-criminals also) to buy assault weapons." Again the question has to be asked if you are willing to violate the rights of innocent people in order to make it more difficult for crimminals???? I don't think that is the intent of laws in this country.
So I really don't understand your arguement about the subject. Will it stop the crimminals? If yes Then I will vote for making guns illegal. But since everyone with half a brain understands it will not stop crime then it's a mute point..................

[Phil C]

Originally posted by waterboy
Don't worry........I ain't never turning my guns in, even if I have to stash them. I guess I will become an outlaw if they ever ban a weapon that I just happen to already have, but what they don't know won't hurt 'em. That's my philosophy. I guess if I own guns now that are not registered it means I'm an outlaw, huh? I personally think I have a right to defend my family, my property, and myself with whatever means necessary........and I will! What I'm trying to say is: IF GUNS ARE OUTLAWED, THEN I WILL BE AN OUTLAW!:cool:

waterboy what that saying (IF GUNS ARE OUTLAWED THEN ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS) means (and it has been around for many years) is that if guns are outlawed and a large majority of the honest law abiding citizens turn theirs in that the criminals will not turn theirs in and leave good citizens at a disadvantage and dangerous position. A criminal with a gun going against an honest citizen would have an advantage if the citizen only had a bat or knife to defend himself. You would not really be an outlaw but merely an honest citizen not obeying the law for safety.

[Phil C]

Originally posted by 44INAROW
I like to see grown men having a nice, friendly debate :)

44 I admire the Methodist Church.

[waterboy]

Originally posted by Phil C
waterboy what that saying (IF GUNS ARE OUTLAWED THEN ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS) means (and it has been around for many years) is that if guns are outlawed and a large majority of the honest law abiding citizens turn theirs in that the criminals will not turn theirs in and leave good citizens at a disadvantage and dangerous position. A criminal with a gun going against an honest citizen would have an advantage if the citizen only had a bat or knife to defend himself. You would not really be an outlaw but merely an honest citizen not obeying the law for safety.
I appreciate your clarification on that!;) I ain't gonna be giving up my guns either way. Like I say, "IF GUNS ARE OUTLAWED, THEN I WILL BE AN OUTLAW!" I never wanna be that poor feller who thinks he can carry a bat or a knife to a gunfight.......and win! I'd rather be an alive outlaw than a dead idiot!:D

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by Reds fan
Thank you, you just proved a point. People are ignorant of the already existing laws, the definition you just provided is of guns that are already illegal. How can you claim to want "sensible" gun laws when you are ignorant of current laws and the true definition of firearms? You fall for the "scary looking gun" propoganda put forth by the gun control.

Ignorant? I am very aware that certain guns, including assault rifles and fully automatic weapons are regulated. These are sensible laws and should not be changed. Where is my ignaorance in anything this definition states? I was asked for a definition of assault weapons, not all guns. I gave it and that makes me ignorant?

You need to calm down and read what has been said in most of these posts instead of jumping in head first without looking. No one I have read here is advocating any more gun control, just keep what we have.

I take your calling me ignorant as as saying I don't know laws and assume that is what you meant. If you really meant anything else, let me know.

[pirate4state]

I haven't read any of this thread, but I'm gonna assume that all of you are behaving and following the board rules. Don't make me get my gun! :D

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by pirate4state
I haven't read any of this thread, but I'm gonna assume that all of you are behaving and following the board rules. Don't make me get my gun! :D

Everyone is being nice except me. Get your gun as it is probably illegal anyway!:cool:

[Reds fan]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
Ignorant? I am very aware that certain guns, including assault rifles and fully automatic weapons are regulated. These are sensible laws and should not be changed. Where is my ignaorance in anything this definition states? I was asked for a definition of assault weapons, not all guns. I gave it and that makes me ignorant?

You need to calm down and read what has been said in most of these posts instead of jumping in head first without looking. No one I have read here is advocating any more gun control, just keep what we have.

I take your calling me ignorant as as saying I don't know laws and assume that is what you meant. If you really meant anything else, let me know.

I am sorry you took the word ignorant as an insult, it was not intended that way at all. I am ignorant of many things, I am not educated in the arts, computer science or many other disciplines for example, at least not enough to argue factually. Perhaps a better choice of words would have been misinformed on the subject of assault rifles. Many rifles, and shotguns for that matter, have been thrown into the "assault weapon" category out of misinformation.

I'll give you a couple of examples.... the Remington Model 740 Woodsmaster, built in many calibers, would have been made illegal because it is a semi-automatic firearm. Same with the Browning A-5 model shotgun.

When the assault weapons ban was originally proposed these and many other rifles and shotguns would have been lumped in to the legislation because of the general assumption by our lawmakers that the public does not know the difference. Functionally there is no difference between the civilian AR-15 and the Remington 740, both operate on the same gas operating principle but some will say that since the AR-15 "looks like a military weapon" it is "sensible" to make illegal. This thought process is not logical, it is fear propagated out of ignorance.

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, only with the right to keep and bear arms. It does get old to hear that "if it's not for hunting then why is it needed" argument.

[ASUFrisbeeStud]

Originally posted by Ernest T Bass
An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a subject.
I have many guns, some of which are of the assault variety. I don't own them to defend me and my family against Outlaw Pete or to make sure I can kill a Bambi if times get really hard. I have them to defend against John Q. Government when he gets a little power hungry(kinda like he is right freakin' now), and decides he's gonna flex some muscle. That's exactly what the founding fathers intended when they wrote the 2nd amendment.

Exactly, check the sig!

[Phil C]

Originally posted by waterboy
I appreciate your clarification on that!;) I ain't gonna be giving up my guns either way. Like I say, "IF GUNS ARE OUTLAWED, THEN I WILL BE AN OUTLAW!" I never wanna be that poor feller who thinks he can carry a bat or a knife to a gunfight.......and win! I'd rather be an alive outlaw than a dead idiot!:D


;) :clap:

[carter08]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
100's of years ago has no bearing on what is happening today unless you are a victim of moral relativism, or the "hey, if it feels good just do it" crowd. History is a lesson on not making mistakes from the past, if you truly understand history. If you can't judge this current "low point" clearly then folks must sympathize with them, I guess.
Words have meaning and I know what I wrote. Cryptic? Not even close...

History does tend to repeat itself.
:)

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by Reds fan
I am sorry you took the word ignorant as an insult, it was not intended that way at all. I am ignorant of many things, I am not educated in the arts, computer science or many other disciplines for example, at least not enough to argue factually. Perhaps a better choice of words would have been misinformed on the subject of assault rifles. Many rifles, and shotguns for that matter, have been thrown into the "assault weapon" category out of misinformation.

I'll give you a couple of examples.... the Remington Model 740 Woodsmaster, built in many calibers, would have been made illegal because it is a semi-automatic firearm. Same with the Browning A-5 model shotgun.

When the assault weapons ban was originally proposed these and many other rifles and shotguns would have been lumped in to the legislation because of the general assumption by our lawmakers that the public does not know the difference. Functionally there is no difference between the civilian AR-15 and the Remington 740, both operate on the same gas operating principle but some will say that since the AR-15 "looks like a military weapon" it is "sensible" to make illegal. This thought process is not logical, it is fear propagated out of ignorance.

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, only with the right to keep and bear arms. It does get old to hear that "if it's not for hunting then why is it needed" argument.

As I am ignorant when it comes to guns, I'll have to take your word that the ones mentioned above are actually not of the assault variety. This is one of the very reasons that the NRA exists, to inform the government when gun control comes up. They are an extremely powerful lobby.

I have always thought it naive to believe that keeping weapons to fend off the government is a valid reason to own guns. Not that the government can't become abusive, but that any person, or even a group of persons can fight the government off. Those folks at Ruby Ridge and the David Koresh compound certainly proved you can't win a shoot-out with the feds. And I'm not saying they were or were not fanatics and criminals because that's not something I really know. Just that keeping weapons to shoot the feds is futile. You can't win except in court and it cost them their lives to find out, right or wrong.

I really don't care why you have guns as long as you comply with the law. Laws exist as much to make it difficult for criminals to buy weapons as it is to control law-abiding citizens. That business about being free just because we are allowed to own personal weapons is just, in my opinion, so much bunk. Lots of countries which have gun control do not allow our freedoms to their citizens but almost as many as have gun control do have our freedoms, such as England, Germany, Japan, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland and many more than I know. The difference is we control the government, not the other way around.

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by Phil C
44 I admire the Methodist Church.

Phil, I'm a Methodist. Do you admire the idea of Methodism or the people? Actually the church is the people. Or the people are the church. Whatever. :)

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by carter08
History does tend to repeat itself.
:)
.
Do you seriously see modern Christianity more of a problem than Sharia Islamic Law?

[ASUFrisbeeStud]

Originally posted by ronwx5x


I have always thought it naive to believe that keeping weapons to fend off the government is a valid reason to own guns. Not that the government can't become abusive, but that any person, or even a group of persons can fight the government off. Those folks at Ruby Ridge and the David Koresh compound certainly proved you can't win a shoot-out with the feds. And I'm not saying they were or were not fanatics and criminals because that's not something I really know. Just that keeping weapons to shoot the feds is futile. You can't win except in court and it cost them their lives to find out, right or wrong.

.

I disagree with you about it being naive, maybe a few can't stand against the government but if you stand united as a country against tyrrany than you can win. Our founding fathers did just that.

[sinton66]

Originally posted by ronwx5x

I have always thought it naive to believe that keeping weapons to fend off the government is a valid reason to own guns. Not that the government can't become abusive, but that any person, or even a group of persons can fight the government off. Those folks at Ruby Ridge and the David Koresh compound certainly proved you can't win a shoot-out with the feds. And I'm not saying they were or were not fanatics and criminals because that's not something I really know. Just that keeping weapons to shoot the feds is futile. You can't win except in court and it cost them their lives to find out, right or wrong..

Ruby Ridge and such were done in by a simple numbers majority. The situation would be different if ALL of the people rose up. Remember, this country was BORN out of revolution. Brittain was the most powerful military in the world at the time. How successful would that have been without private citizens owning weapons? The population beat the British by hiding behind rocks and trees and picking them off one by one. Basically, it's all relevant to enough cause.

One thing's for sure, if the Government did get abusive and turned on it's people, what chance would any of us have WITHOUT weapons? Naive? Really? I'll say again, one of the main reasons this nation has been as free as it is for as long as it has been is the private ownership of guns.

Here's some history for you. During the latter stages of the VietNam war, the protests had turned violent (Kent State and others) and there was lots of talk of revolution. The government commissioned a study of all the weapons sold in the United States by all the manufacturers allowed to do so versus the number of weapons seized , turned in, and destroyed. They wanted to know what they would be facing if the people turned on them. The study showed there were 7.5 weapons in the US for every man, woman, and child. The problem was that just since the implementation of the registration laws, they only knew where about ten percent of them were. Do you suppose that got their attention? Do you think they KNEW they would have a difficult time convincing the military to turn their weapons against their own people? Do you think they KNEW what chance they had without military support? Have you ever wondered WHY Richard Nixon FINALLY pulled the troops out of VietNam?

Why do they keep pushing to outlaw guns? It IS CONTROL, my friend. If they CAN'T control the guns, they'll go after the ammo. They'll outlaw reloading supplies, powder sales, etc. If you can't USE the guns, every other weapon will become illegal. You won't be able to buy or possess a bow, arrows or a hunting knife. No spears, swords, machetes, mace, or lances. You might even get shot if they see you throwing rocks at them (Kent State).

I can testify to this, you might be surprized to learn of some of the things our government has done in the name of "National Security". You might be surprized to learn about secret military weapons tests and various forms of warfare research conducted against US citizens without their knowledge or consent.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not an advocate of overthrowing the government, but I'm also not one to be naive enough to believe they always have my best interests at heart.

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by sinton66
Ruby Ridge and such were done in by a simple numbers majority. The situation would be different if ALL of the people rose up. Remember, this country was BORN out of revolution. Brittain was the most powerful military in the world at the time. How successful would that have been without private citizens owning weapons? The population beat the British by hiding behind rocks and trees and picking them off one by one. Basically, it's all relevant to enough cause.

One thing's for sure, if the Government did get abusive and turned on it's people, what chance would any of us have WITHOUT weapons? Naive? Really? I'll say again, one of the main reasons this nation has been as free as it is for as long as it has been is the private ownership of guns.

Here's some history for you. During the latter stages of the VietNam war, the protests had turned violent (Kent State and others) and there was lots of talk of revolution. The government commissioned a study of all the weapons sold in the United States by all the manufacturers allowed to do so versus the number of weapons seized , turned in, and destroyed. They wanted to know what they would be facing if the people turned on them. The study showed there were 7.5 weapons in the US for every man, woman, and child. The problem was that just since the implementation of the registration laws, they only knew where about ten percent of them were. Do you suppose that got their attention? Do you think they KNEW they would have a difficult time convincing the military to turn their weapons against their own people? Do you think they KNEW what chance they had without military support? Have you ever wondered WHY Richard Nixon FINALLY pulled the troops out of VietNam?

Why do they keep pushing to outlaw guns? It IS CONTROL, my friend. If they CAN'T control the guns, they'll go after the ammo. They'll outlaw reloading supplies, powder sales, etc. If you can't USE the guns, every other weapon will become illegal. You won't be able to buy or possess a bow, arrows or a hunting knife. No spears, swords, machetes, mace, or lances. You might even get shot if they see you throwing rocks at them (Kent State).

I can testify to this, you might be surprized to learn of some of the things our government has done in the name of "National Security". You might be surprized to learn about secret military weapons tests and various forms of warfare research conducted against US citizens without their knowledge or consent.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not an advocate of overthrowing the government, but I'm also not one to be naive enough to believe they always have my best interests at heart.

You are misunderstanding what I said. I never advocated more gun control. I simply said my opinion is that groups will not be successful with firepower against the government. I lived through all of the Vietnam era and proudly served there.

The protests against that war, and it was a war, were never successful because people had guns. It was fear on the part of the government that continued armed suppression was futile, and would incite further rebellion by students but certainly not because the government feared they would be beaten by force of arms. The majority of Americans were never any great threat to riot.

I am not aware of the studies you cite, but the tide turned when the government used firepower to supress protests, not when protestors used or threatened to use violence. As I said in a previous post, we control the government, not the other way around. I too think that the powers that be sometimes use poor judgement and I would cite Guantanamo as an example. We, as Americans, received more ill will from the rest of the world than any value received from that fiasco.

Politicians often place their own interests ahead of ours. They know full well, however, that they can be voted out of office and that is the greatest control we have on the government.

[sinton66]

I was responding to your "naive" comment, not your stance on gun control. You missed the statement "It's all relative to the amount of CAUSE". If there's sufficient cause, the "majority of Americans" might also rise up.

And, if you really think WE control the government, I don't think it's me that's "naive".

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by sinton66
I was responding to your "naive" comment, not your stance on gun control. You missed the statement "It's all relative to the amount of CAUSE". If there's sufficient cause, the "majority of Americans" might also rise up.

And, if you really think WE control the government, I don't think it's me that's "naive".

I certainly believe in the American electoral system in general terms. Abuses in isolated cases? Sure, no doubt. Overuse of money? Of course. Direct election in America is still among the fairest in the world.

LBJ certainly "tweaked" the system. Elimination of the electoral college would have changed the results of several presidential elections. But naive? No, I just believe our system generally works as advertised.

I also can see that with enough "cause" the general population might rise up in protest but I'm not certain they could win a battle. It would take a sustained guerilla action of many years duration by most of the population, not groups of untrained armed militia, and we have proved over and over that as a people we don't have the ability to stick with a long term conflict. We like things over, decided, and ended in a very short time. Maybe that doesn't speak very well of Americans, but in my opinion it is true. Not all Americans, but the majority.

If the government truly became abusive, I don't know, maybe people's ability would change and enough people would be willing to sustain long term deprivation, injury, death and homelessness and find the fortitude to win. Hard to envision that happening.

Those in the lower end of the economic stratum in our country would be the ones to carry the brunt. They have less to lose and more to gain. Just not enough of them.

Isn't discussion fun?;)

[sinton66]

You may also have "glossed over" these questions:

originally posted by sinton66:
Do you think they KNEW they would have a difficult time convincing the military to turn their weapons against their own people? Do you think they KNEW what chance they had without military support?

In my opinion, it's highly doubtful they would be able to convince the American Military to turn their weapons on their own people. (A few isolated groups, maybe, but not a BIG slice of the population) They would face massive desertions. Without dependable military support, it would get MUCH easier and might not last very long at all.

Also worthy of consideration, if a total global economy collapse were to happen, it might turn into a war between the "haves" and the "have nots". I can almost guarantee in that scenario, a gun would be the ONLY thing worth owning.

I've always been a firm believer in this statement:
"It's better to have a gun and never need it than the other way around".

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
Those in the lower end of the economic stratum in our country would be the ones to carry the brunt. They have less to lose and more to gain. Just not enough of them.
Isn't discussion fun?;)
.
There's alot of them, more than those who stand to lose money today by the redistribution of wealth, more votes I guess. (A fault with your statement, but different in it's contextual intention I guess, so I withdraw that)
.
I am amazed that folks are more concerned with God-Fearing Christians defending their status-quo rights for the ownership of guns vs the deafening lack of concerned(talk from the left) against possible terrorists building training camps here in the USA.
:confused: :confused: :confused:
Why is that? Could it be because of political convenience?

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
There's alot of them, more than those who stand to lose money today by the redistribution of wealth, more votes I guess. (A fault with your statement, but different in it's contextual intention I guess, so I withdraw that)
.
I am amazed that folks are more concerned with God-Fearing Christians defending their status-quo rights for the ownership of guns vs the deafening lack of concerned(talk from the left) against possible terrorists building training camps here in the USA.
:confused: :confused: :confused:
Why is that? Could it be because of political convenience?

We probably differ in the definition of the lower end of the economic stratum. I was speaking of people at or near poverty. There are many, but not the numbers needed to carry on a rebellion.

I am not at all concerned about controlling weapons belonging to "God-fearing Christians defending their status-quo rights for the ownership of guns". I too am for the status quo. Not more laws, just maintain and enforce the ones we already have to get more weapons out of the hands of those who are criminals. If we all have to bend a little, so be it, that's the American way.

If you have weapons which are legal under current laws, good on you. Terroist training camps are a different matter. If they violate the law, arrest them and close the doors. Simple as that. There is nothing at all confusing about that.

[Farmersfan]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by sinton66
You may also have "glossed over" these questions:


In my opinion, it's highly doubtful they would be able to convince the American Military to turn their weapons on their own people. (A few isolated groups, maybe, but not a BIG slice of the population) They would face massive desertions. Without dependable military support, it would get MUCH easier and might not last very long at all.


I agree with most of what you say except the thoughts on a revolution. A armed revolution would never work in this country. The idea I put forth about a militia being effective was meant against an invading force in concert with the trained military. A armed militia would never be successful against our own government. In the first place, it is our governments job to protect the country from hostile takeover from any entity. (even those located within our own borders). The only moral or democratic way to take over our government with force would be to have a minimum of 51% of the population in favor of the takeover and that could never happen. Even if a revolutionary force equal to 49% of the population where to step forward it would be wrong for it to attempting to force it's designs, ideas, beliefs or what have you on the rest of the country. Regardless of how bad things get in Washington I don't think I want Bubba Joe Bob from the Republic of Texas committee making my laws and telling me what I can and cannot do.............Unless of course the choices are him or Obama, then I pick Bubba! :D :D :D

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by Ernest T Bass
Define "terrorist".

This is from the Random House dictionary. It is the definition of terrorism, not terroist but a terroist would be one who advocates terrorism.

"–noun 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government. "

Works for those advocating violence aginst others, against the government, or the government against the people.

My own definition would include those who intend for their "rights" to override those of anyone else, whether society or the government, and use or intend to use violence to enforce it. It is an assault against civility and society.

The important point is that terrorists violate the law. In this context, the laws could be bad but that is outside the conversation above. Anyone you don't like who uses intimidation can be labled a terrorist by you. Even the school bully.

[Farmersfan]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by sinton66
[[In my opinion, it's highly doubtful they would be able to convince the American Military to turn their weapons on their own people.



Wouldn't the opposite also be true? How many citizens could shoot and kill American soldiers? Most of us have children or grandchildren that serve in the military. Just a question!

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
Anyone you don't like who uses intimidation can be labled a terrorist by you. Even the school bully. [/B]



Just for conversation:
The biggest threat ever issued in the history of mankind was issued by the Church. "Do as we say or burn in hell for all eternity" could be considered the grandfather of all threats. So would THEY be classified as Terrorists?
For that matter, God has caused the death of more humans than all other forces combined. It is taught that God's wrath is brought about by not following his rules so wouldn't God be the ultimate Terrorist?

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
Just for conversation:
The biggest threat ever issued in the history of mankind was issued by the Church. "Do as we say or burn in hell for all eternity" could be considered the grandfather of all threats. So would THEY be classified as Terrorists?
For that matter, God has caused the death of more humans than all other forces combined. It is taught that God's wrath is brought about by not following his rules so wouldn't God be the ultimate Terrorist?

The speaker is not threatening to do harm to listeners. His point is that unless one follows "his" interpretation of scripture, one brings death and destruction upon oneself. Not terrorism. God can't be a terrorist since he is deity and not a person.

That's not to say the religious folks have not been terrorists at some point. We have all read of the crusades as well as the Spanish inquisition. Heck we have our own instance in the Salem witch trials.

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by Ernest T Bass
So, what happens when the government gets out of hand and makes laws that are unconstitutional? According that definition, George Washington and the Continental Army were terrorists.

I have no doubt that during the Revolutionary War the British would have labled the Continental Army as terrorists if that concept existed then. Terrorist is just that, a label. But no matter what you call them, those who foment mindless death on the population just to impose their will are, by any definition, terrorists.

You answered your own question IMO, about laws that are unconstitutional. That is exactly why we have separation of the legislature from the legal and executive branches. Acts as a check and balance system.

[Farmersfan]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ronwx5x
[B]The speaker is not threatening to do harm to listeners. His point is that unless one follows "his" interpretation of scripture, one brings death and destruction upon oneself. Not terrorism. God can't be a terrorist since he is deity and not a person.



It's just semantics. And yes the speaker is threatening to do harm by withholding the Grace of God. The Catholic Church boldly claims that your ascention into heaven is dependant on last rights administered by THEM. Absolution is dependant on confession to THEM and a member of THEM accepting the confession and granting the Absolution.......... So there is no real difference in threating your life with a gun and threating your soul with denial of Ascention into Heaven.

I also have never seen a disclaimer that being a "deity" exempts you from the normal defintions in Websters.......
But it is ironic how you will accept the idea that if God kills millions of people for selfish reasons it is ok. But if a man kills a single person for selfish reason they are a terrorist, murderer and outcast. We are taught from birth that God represents Love, Peace and Forgiveness yet we passively dismiss the hundreds and hundreds of actions by God that go against these ideas. Where was the forgivness when God destroyed the world in flood? Was there Love, peace or Forgiveness in Sodom and Gomorrah? Is there any kind of Love, Peace or Forgiveness in the idea that a person will burn for an eternity in the fires of hell unless God deems them worthy????? As people we would never accept the idea that a father would allow harm to come to his children for ANY REASON much less a simple difference in belief yet we claim God's love for his children is unimagineable but he will allow them an eternity of suffering in hell for a difference in opinion.... Almost all the things that we accept in our God we would attempt to denouce or destroy in other humans.
But i digress. Carry on!

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by Ernest T Bass
But what happens when that system is broken, as it is now. Partisanism is the only check there is in US government today, and that is quickly dissolving with the current seizure of power from the current adminstration.

Here we differ substantially in a belief that the system is broken. If you are referring to the government increasing gun control, I for one do not believe that is occuring. They keep trying, but it keeps getting denied by our court system. If, on the other hand, you are referring to our financial system, we might agree.

Partisanism is not the check I rely on. Our system of checks and balances seems to work quite well as constituted and has operated fairly well for almost 233 years. Even the Supreme Court has rejected a government redefinition of our right to bear arms. Control guns, yes, but ban guns, no way.

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ronwx5x
[B]The speaker is not threatening to do harm to listeners. His point is that unless one follows "his" interpretation of scripture, one brings death and destruction upon oneself. Not terrorism. God can't be a terrorist since he is deity and not a person.



It's just semantics. And yes the speaker is threatening to do harm by withholding the Grace of God. The Catholic Church boldly claims that your ascention into heaven is dependant on last rights administered by THEM. Absolution is dependant on confession to THEM and a member of THEM accepting the confession and granting the Absolution.......... So there is no real difference in threating your life with a gun and threating your soul with denial of Ascention into Heaven.

I also have never seen a disclaimer that being a "deity" exempts you from the normal defintions in Websters.......
But it is ironic how you will accept the idea that if God kills millions of people for selfish reasons it is ok. But if a man kills a single person for selfish reason they are a terrorist, murderer and outcast. We are taught from birth that God represents Love, Peace and Forgiveness yet we passively dismiss the hundreds and hundreds of actions by God that go against these ideas. Where was the forgivness when God destroyed the world in flood? Was there Love, peace or Forgiveness in Sodom and Gomorrah? Is there any kind of Love, Peace or Forgiveness in the idea that a person will burn for an eternity in the fires of hell unless God deems them worthy????? As people we would never accept the idea that a father would allow harm to come to his children for ANY REASON much less a simple difference in belief yet we claim God's love for his children is unimagineable but he will allow them an eternity of suffering in hell for a difference in opinion.... Almost all the things that we accept in our God we would attempt to denouce or destroy in other humans.
But i digress. Carry on!

The speaker is not threatening bodily harm in this example, just defining what might happen if one does not believe. I'm not going to get into a theological argument as that is a matter of faith, and not provable as an argument for or against anything.

By the way, this is fun!!!!!!:)

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
The speaker is not threatening bodily harm in this example, just defining what might happen if one does not believe. I'm not going to get into a theological argument as that is a matter of faith, and not provable as an argument for or against anything.

By the way, this is fun!!!!!!:)


You are correct. This is fun. But I need to point out that I did not comment on anything that is a matter of faith. In fact I think the things I stated should be supported by those with max faith. Anyone who truely loves and believes in God would never believe God capable of all the horrors that the Church teaches us about. It has nothing to do with faith.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
You are correct. This is fun. But I need to point out that I did not comment on anything that is a matter of faith. In fact I think the things I stated should be supported by those with max faith. Anyone who truely loves and believes in God would never believe God capable of all the horrors that the Church teaches us about. It has nothing to do with faith. I agree, the whole "god fearing" thing is silly to me.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
The speaker is not threatening bodily harm in this example, just defining what might happen if one does not believe. I'm not going to get into a theological argument as that is a matter of faith, and not provable as an argument for or against anything.

By the way, this is fun!!!!!!:)


Let me clarify what I meant in my most recent post. I am not trying to judge anyone's faith or judge them for that faith. I am simply voicing my opinion that what we are taught about God has to be accepted for what it really is: A calculated attempt by the church to protect it's very existence. There is far too much hate, death and judgement taught in the Bible to be a true accurate reflection of a worthy God. I choose to believe that if God exists he is a much more loving and caring God. The God that created the human race would not force the devotion of his children with the threat of eternal suffering. But that's just my opinion.

[sinton66]

I agree with most of what you say except the thoughts on a revolution. A armed revolution would never work in this country.

I'm sure the British had this same thought before the Revolutionary war. There were plenty British Loyalists here when that war started. If they were still around, they were pretty quiet afterward. All that has to happen is sufficient cause. It happened before, it could happen again(unless they get rid of the guns first).

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by DDBooger
I agree, the whole "god fearing" thing is silly to me.
.
Silly to some but my understanding of "God-fearing" is more about personal responsibilities/consequences. It's a maturity issue(and helped by Christianity). Even under other understandings(I don't know exactly what yours is) how could it be silly?
I will do my part to keep this discussion in it's "downlow parameters".:D

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
Silly to some but my understanding of "God-fearing" is more about personal responsibilities/consequences. It's a maturity issue(and helped by Christianity). Even under other understandings(I don't know exactly what yours is) how could it be silly?
I will do my part to keep this discussion in it's "downlow parameters".:D nothing but personal opinion good sir, nothing but personal opinion developed by my understanding of religion anthropologically and sociologically! I neither seek to discourage or encourage one way or the other! ;) you and me differ on so much, but our mutual respect is based on the knowledge that neither of us feel we are wrong, merely share different opinions :)

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by sinton66


I'm sure the British had this same thought before the Revolutionary war. There were plenty British Loyalists here when that war started. If they were still around, they were pretty quiet afterward. All that has to happen is sufficient cause. It happened before, it could happen again(unless they get rid of the guns first). [/B]



Certainly if a unifying cause was suffecient enough to get the majority on the same page then a revolutionary force would not only have a good chance of de-throning the government but it would be just in doing so. My comment was that I don't believe in this society that we live in today there exists such a cause. We are too divided in beliefs about religion, politics, race and sex in this country to become a large enough force. The Government might attempt to disarm the public and if more than 50% of the population agree with this attempt then the attempt is justified. I don't like it any more than you do but the fundemental purpose of a democracy dictates that the voice of the majority is law..........................
Most of what I read on here would indicate that you would be classified as a philosophical anarchist. I share most of your beliefs that might be based on the fact that much of what is being done by government is not neccessary or even helpful and acceptance by the masses is due more to a lack of involvement and knowledge than by actual agreeance. A resistance force no matter how small might serve to "open the eyes" of those who otherwise are indifferent. I would agree with that.

[DDBooger]

anyone who believes that the revolutionaries won because of their ability to shoot from behind a rock with great accuracy is a history revisionist or romantic. The order that things transpired were very timely for the sake of this nation. W/0 France it is not likely the Revolution would have succeeded, it wasn't the militia that tipped the scales, but European training that enabled the Americans to go muzzle to muzzle with the Brits. The Kentucky Long Rifle did strike fear in The British Officers, but if the Americans didn't ever fight pitched battles, you'd essentially have gotten an America where the big cities were controlled by the British and pockets of resistance in rural areas. All of this combined with the fact that the Brits were essentially fighting a World War never brought their full force to bear on the Colonies.
In fact w/o Comte de Grasse impeccable timing and defeat of the British fleet at Chesapeake Bay, The war may have continued for many Years because Cornwallis would have escaped. The whole using them as an example for a contemporary defense is off base if you ask me. Brits were kinsmen, but never seen countrymen except in elite circles. Any uprising today would likely mimic more the Civil War, and at that, unless those rebelling formed a standing military, it would be route.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by DDBooger
anyone who believes that the revolutionaries won because of their ability to shoot from behind a rock with great accuracy is a history revisionist or romantic. The order that things transpired were very timely for the sake of this nation. W/0 France it is not likely the Revolution would have succeeded, it wasn't the militia that tipped the scales, but European training that enabled the Americans to go muzzle to muzzle with the Brits. The Kentucky Long Rifle did strike fear in The British Officers, but if the Americans didn't ever fight pitched battles, you'd essentially have gotten an America where the big cities were controlled by the British and pockets of resistance in rural areas. All of this combined with the fact that the Brits were essentially fighting a World War never brought their full force to bear on the Colonies.
In fact w/o Comte de Grasse impeccable timing and defeat of the British fleet at Chesapeake Bay, The war may have continued for many Years because Cornwallis would have escaped. The whole using them as an example for a contemporary defense is off base if you ask me. Brits were kinsmen, but never seen countrymen except in elite circles. Any uprising today would likely mimic more the Civil War, and at that, unless those rebelling formed a standing military, it would be route.


I believe so too! The training of our military would snuff out any advantage a militia had in knowledge of terrain. The only effective tool a militia would have on our trained military would be the kinship factor. But then again the Duty to Country factor in the military might counter that effectively. I think it would all be dependant on the size of the militia force and how they conducted themselves. Any aggressive action would quickly be put down.....

[TheDOCTORdre]

Originally posted by Farmersfan


I also have never seen a disclaimer that being a "deity" exempts you from the normal defintions in Websters.......
But it is ironic how you will accept the idea that if God kills millions of people for selfish reasons it is ok. But if a man kills a single person for selfish reason they are a terrorist, murderer and outcast. We are taught from birth that God represents Love, Peace and Forgiveness yet we passively dismiss the hundreds and hundreds of actions by God that go against these ideas. Where was the forgivness when God destroyed the world in flood? Was there Love, peace or Forgiveness in Sodom and Gomorrah? Is there any kind of Love, Peace or Forgiveness in the idea that a person will burn for an eternity in the fires of hell unless God deems them worthy????? As people we would never accept the idea that a father would allow harm to come to his children for ANY REASON much less a simple difference in belief yet we claim God's love for his children is unimagineable but he will allow them an eternity of suffering in hell for a difference in opinion.... Almost all the things that we accept in our God we would attempt to denouce or destroy in other humans.
But i digress. Carry on!


i started to type something and then i realized this is not a religious topic...I'll just stop myself and leave it at i have issues with this post

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by Ernest T Bass
Also, any milita vs military action would almost definately be a war of attrition, which plays right into the militia's hands. A military rarely wins a war of attrition. not quite, those militias in history had help from outside nations. Viet Cong, Iraq, Greece, The forces they were fighting were invading/conquering/liberators. Attrition in our history has proven to benefit large militaries (Union, WWI & II). This would be a Civil insurrection.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by TheDOCTORdre
i started to type something and then i realized this is not a religious topic...I'll just stop myself and leave it at i have issues with this post


I apologize if what I said struck a nerve. Getting into a heated discussion about faith and belief would be short lived on this forum. I didn't mean to reflect on anyone's faith or belief. Only our exact understanding of the words that are written in the Bible and the contradictions they create. Example #1 is the idea that God Loves all his children unconditionally yet text after text after text in the Bible teaches us otherwise. There are only two rational answers for this:
1. God really isn't as Loving and Caring as we are taught. Or,
2. There was an entity other than God responsible for those contradictory writtings in the Bible.
I choose the latter because the first answer is not acceptable in my book.
Feel free to M2M me if you have insight that I might find interesting because we are all on a life long fact finding tour. But if all you have to contribute is the normal blind, deaf and dumb statements about "not for us to question why" or "mysterious ways" then save it. God gave us a brain and to assume he expects us to NOT use it is just another contradiction.

[OldBison75]

An uprising by the citizens in this country would be an ugly event in our history. The concept that the might of our military would overpower the citizen insurgents sound good logically, but I'm not sure about in reality. Before anyone tells me I'm stupid (like my wife does everyday) hear me out.

Our military has the weaponry and training to effectively overpower the citizen revolt in concept. What we don't know how to judge would be the response of the military as a whole. The issue that started the revolt would be one factor because the military is made up of citizens also. Many of those soldiers may have the same ideological and political views of the revolt and might choose to abandon the military and fight on the other side. I can almost guarantee that the use of tactical weaponry and tactical bombing and missles on family members and other citizens would probably cause some internal revolts among the military. Likewise, the citizens are so split on the ideological and political spectrum that any insurgence would be hard pressed to have enough willing support to succeed. I mean, really, how can you expect a citizenry that can even get 40% of its eligible voters to actually take part in the political process to work together to force change. Hell, you can't get twenty five people in a county party caucus to agree on anything.

The thing that gives the citizens the advantage is the anonymus nature of a citizen insurgence. They will blend in with the non-fighters and make detection and control very difficult for the military (look in Iraq now). Can the citizens take control of the government by force--I don't think so. But I do believe that they can make life very miserable for the government and force the government to react in a way that might then alienate more citizens and that is scary.

The key is to vote and promote a government that truly represents the majority of all citizens, not 36% of eligible voters.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by OldBison75
An uprising by the citizens in this country would be an ugly event in our history. The concept that the might of our military would overpower the citizen insurgents sound good logically, but I'm not sure about in reality. Before anyone tells me I'm stupid (like my wife does everyday) hear me out.

Our military has the weaponry and training to effectively overpower the citizen revolt in concept. What we don't know how to judge would be the response of the military as a whole. The issue that started the revolt would be one factor because the military is made up of citizens also. Many of those soldiers may have the same ideological and political views of the revolt and might choose to abandon the military and fight on the other side. I can almost guarantee that the use of tactical weaponry and tactical bombing and missles on family members and other citizens would probably cause some internal revolts among the military. Likewise, the citizens are so split on the ideological and political spectrum that any insurgence would be hard pressed to have enough willing support to succeed. I mean, really, how can you expect a citizenry that can even get 40% of its eligible voters to actually take part in the political process to work together to force change. Hell, you can't get twenty five people in a county party caucus to agree on anything.

The thing that gives the citizens the advantage is the anonymus nature of a citizen insurgence. They will blend in with the non-fighters and make detection and control very difficult for the military (look in Iraq now). Can the citizens take control of the government by force--I don't think so. But I do believe that they can make life very miserable for the government and force the government to react in a way that might then alienate more citizens and that is scary.

The key is to vote and promote a government that truly represents the majority of all citizens, not 36% of eligible voters.


I political coo might actually wake some people up. It could be like a snowball rolling downhill. Great Post. Very well put.

[Farmersfan]

Before the Black, Silent heliocopters show up at my house I want to make it perfectly clear that I do not advocate a overthrow of our government. Even with it's flaws it is still the best in the world.....:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

[OldBison75]

Farmersfan. I agree that we are much better off than anywhere else, and I am certianly not advocating any action beyond becoming involved in the political process and voting for your beliefs.

However, I will say that there is another thread about a terrorist training camp on US soil here in Texas that scares the hell outta me. The political climate in this country only goes to make the dissolusioned easy prey for recruiting by these nuts. And believe me, I have been in law enforcement for 28 years and have met quite a few of them, and some people can be easily encouraged to go into a rage against any authority, including the government.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Ernest T Bass
WWI and WWII were not wars of attrition. In both cases, Germany sought world domination. Europe was just the meeting point.
During the Civil War, the Confederate army had the war won until they went on the offensive and invaded Union territory.


uhhh WWII was a war of attriton. The Allies won for a lots of reasons but the two Main ones were

They had more of the three B's. Bullets, Bandages and Beans. Plus they had more access to Oil. Germany once they lost the Eastern Front had no access to Oil reserves.

Just look at the Battle of the Bulge. Germany was slowed not because of American forces, but they ran out of fuel


Japan was the same way.

Civil War was ALL about attrition. The North wore down the South. The South did not have the manufacturing plants the North had and also the lack of railroad lines.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
uhhh WWII was a war of attriton. The Allies won for a lots of reasons but the two Main ones were

They had more of the three B's. Bullets, Bandages and Beans. Plus they had more access to Oil. Germany once they lost the Eastern Front had no access to Oil reserves.

Just look at the Battle of the Bulge. Germany was slowed not because of American forces, but they ran out of fuel


Japan was the same way.

Civil War was ALL about attrition. The North wore down the South. The South did not have the manufacturing plants the North had and also the lack of railroad lines.
whew, saved me the time!
Civil War, WWI & WWII are the BEST examples of attrition.
Americans (even though we like to believe it) aren't exceptionally fit to fight wars as a people or culture, heck we are no where near as militaristic as other cultures, however when we industrialized this nation became a juggernaut, our ability to inundate the battle field with so much material was inexhaustible (factories were also unassaultable, protected by two large bodies of water, making our production uninterrupted). Lee didn't almost have a thing won, he was tactfully smart on the battlefield, but he never saw the big picture, or if he did, he was going for the fatal blow. Once he lost at Gettysburg, despite victories after, he was all but done. U.S. Grant was no genius, he just knew that his losses could be replaced, thus a war of attrition, no tactics, just pure slaughter. In fact Grant's tactic eerily foretold the future of warfare (trenches) in WWI. I can't remember where I read it, but fewer than 25% of frontal attacks succeeded.

Do I believe the govt can be overthrown, yes, by any example in history, not quite. Our situation would be unique and contextual. Unless those in the insurrection had the country's compassion, they'd be treated like all the other wackos in history (Koresh, Montana Militias). However a military coup, or something that fomented from within, I could see that as entirely possible. Collapse of the Soviet Union, the last vestiges of it tried to hold on, but the troops refused to massacre their people. Kind of a different ordeal, but what it would take. Only way I see civilians doing this would be to adopt a Palestinian insurgency type of modus operandi. We have so many big cities in this nation, operating from within civilian populations, creating collateral damage and discomforting the masses, perhaps they'd gain traction. Palestinians don't choose to live like dogs, but their tactics are a manifestation of their conditions and capabilities (none conventionally), just a young, angry population. Easily influenced by religious zealots with no HOLY intent.

[sinton66]

originally posted by OldBison75
The key is to vote and promote a government that truly represents the majority of all citizens, not 36% of eligible voters.

While I agree to a certain extent, there is more to it than that. Not only do we need to vote, we need to do so from an informed opinion. People do not make the time and effort to be properly informed. Government tends to "whitewash" unpopular ideas with the wording on the ballots in ways that depend on the "ignorance" or "apathy" of the people who actually vote in order to enhance the chances of passage of the bill in question. Our own beloved Texas has become a master of this tactic in the last twenty years. Combine that with political "doublespeak", it's a wonder anyone EVER really knows what's going on.

One example that comes to mind is the law Texas passed by putting the description" Allow Department of Public Safety Officers to call themselves State Troopers". Sounds innocent enough, but what this law actually did was place the world famous Texas Ranger organization completely under the Department of Public Safety and reduced this proud organization to nothing more than a "Detective Bureau". It also made it mandatory that to become a Ranger, one must come up through the DPS organization. I voted no, because I thought it should have been the other way around. DPS should have been put under the Rangers.

Then, you have the state of Texas engaging in double taxation tactics by requiring sales tax on cigarettes and alchohol. When dear old Gov. Perry was questioned about this, he said "Just consider it a user fee". NO, jackass, call it what it is, a tax upon a tax. This is one of the things that brought about the revolutionary war with Brittain. That was a common practice for them.

[Reds fan]

Originally posted by sinton66


While I agree to a certain extent, there is more to it than that. Not only do we need to vote, we need to do so from an informed opinion. People do not make the time and effort to be properly informed. Government tends to "whitewash" unpopular ideas with the wording on the ballots in ways that depend on the "ignorance" or "apathy" of the people who actually vote in order to enhance the chances of passage of the bill in question. Our own beloved Texas has become a master of this tactic in the last twenty years. Combine that with political "doublespeak", it's a wonder anyone EVER really knows what's going on.

One example that comes to mind is the law Texas passed by putting the description" Allow Department of Public Safety Officers to call themselves State Troopers". Sounds innocent enough, but what this law actually did was place the world famous Texas Ranger organization completely under the Department of Public Safety and reduced this proud organization to nothing more than a "Detective Bureau". It also made it mandatory that to become a Ranger, one must come up through the DPS organization. I voted no, because I thought it should have been the other way around. DPS should have been put under the Rangers.

Then, you have the state of Texas engaging in double taxation tactics by requiring sales tax on cigarettes and alchohol. When dear old Gov. Perry was questioned about this, he said "Just consider it a user fee". NO, jackass, call it what it is, a tax upon a tax. This is one of the things that brought about the revolutionary war with Brittain. That was a common practice for them. [/B]

Nail on the head about being informed voters, well said!

[mustang68]

Originally posted by sinton66


While I agree to a certain extent, there is more to it than that. Not only do we need to vote, we need to do so from an informed opinion. People do not make the time and effort to be properly informed. Government tends to "whitewash" unpopular ideas with the wording on the ballots in ways that depend on the "ignorance" or "apathy" of the people who actually vote in order to enhance the chances of passage of the bill in question. Our own beloved Texas has become a master of this tactic in the last twenty years. Combine that with political "doublespeak", it's a wonder anyone EVER really knows what's going on.

One example that comes to mind is the law Texas passed by putting the description" Allow Department of Public Safety Officers to call themselves State Troopers". Sounds innocent enough, but what this law actually did was place the world famous Texas Ranger organization completely under the Department of Public Safety and reduced this proud organization to nothing more than a "Detective Bureau". It also made it mandatory that to become a Ranger, one must come up through the DPS organization. I voted no, because I thought it should have been the other way around. DPS should have been put under the Rangers.

Then, you have the state of Texas engaging in double taxation tactics by requiring sales tax on cigarettes and alchohol. When dear old Gov. Perry was questioned about this, he said "Just consider it a user fee". NO, jackass, call it what it is, a tax upon a tax. This is one of the things that brought about the revolutionary war with Brittain. That was a common practice for them. [/B]


As long as we continue to align our vote with republican/democrate ideology< Informed or not>we must continue to line up each year (April 15) and enjoy our sheering.


:( :( :( :(

[sinton66]

Originally posted by mustang68
As long as we continue to align our vote with republican/democrate ideology< Informed or not>we must continue to line up each year (April 15) and enjoy our sheering.


:( :( :( :(

Understood, April 15 will come around every year no matter who's in charge, even if there was another choice. The best we can hope for is to have some control over those who are SUPPOSED to be representing us. There is no way to do that if we don't know what they're up to. It's up to us to find out.

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by sinton66


While I agree to a certain extent, there is more to it than that. Not only do we need to vote, we need to do so from an informed opinion. People do not make the time and effort to be properly informed. Government tends to "whitewash" unpopular ideas with the wording on the ballots in ways that depend on the "ignorance" or "apathy" of the people who actually vote in order to enhance the chances of passage of the bill in question. Our own beloved Texas has become a master of this tactic in the last twenty years. Combine that with political "doublespeak", it's a wonder anyone EVER really knows what's going on.

One example that comes to mind is the law Texas passed by putting the description" Allow Department of Public Safety Officers to call themselves State Troopers". Sounds innocent enough, but what this law actually did was place the world famous Texas Ranger organization completely under the Department of Public Safety and reduced this proud organization to nothing more than a "Detective Bureau". It also made it mandatory that to become a Ranger, one must come up through the DPS organization. I voted no, because I thought it should have been the other way around. DPS should have been put under the Rangers.

Then, you have the state of Texas engaging in double taxation tactics by requiring sales tax on cigarettes and alchohol. When dear old Gov. Perry was questioned about this, he said "Just consider it a user fee". NO, jackass, call it what it is, a tax upon a tax. This is one of the things that brought about the revolutionary war with Brittain. That was a common practice for them. [/B]

One of the problems with becoming an "informed" voter is the enormous number of offices we must vote on. For example, why are state judges elected rather than appointed? This exposes the candidates for judgeships to partisanship and confuses the public. While appointments are also subject to partisanship, at least we only have one official to hold accountable rather than all those elected judges.

I am poorly informed on the part about Texas Rangers. I mistakenly thought they were under the DPS and had been for many years. I also believed all Rangers were selected from the ranks of the DPS. What is the problem with doing it this way?

As far as taxing taxes, you and I are in complete agreement. If the state is going to place a tax on tobacco and alcohol, it should be based on the actual selling price without taxes. That would be difficult (impossible?) to calculate,and might change this sad practice.

[Farmersfan]

And can anyone here explain the idea of the Electorial Collage process? It seems to me that each canidate should be credited with the percent of the state's electorial votes that represent the percent of the state's actual votes they received. Granting all the electorial votes to a single canidate for winning 51% of the state's popular vote seems to completely nullify the other 49% of the population's votes. That seems un-American to me....

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
That seems un-American to me.... actually, it sounds as if it is something UNIQUELY American. :rolleyes: I think despite your affiliation, we can all agree with this. :nerd:

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by Ernest T Bass
The Electoral College was originally intended to prevent the general public from being able to decide the president. Our founding fathers felt the general public wasn't intelligent or informed enough to make that decision(kinda hard to argue with right now). James Madison is credited with saying "the masses are asses". irregardless, hardly democratic, mainly a hegemonic tool to remove the possibility of a populist unseating the status quo.

[Trashman]

it was actually created to keep the majority from running over the minority.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by Trashman
it was actually created to keep the majority from running over the minority.

It appears that it would serve to accomplish the exact opposite. The voice of the minority is completely disregarded.

[sinton66]

I am poorly informed on the part about Texas Rangers. I mistakenly thought they were under the DPS and had been for many years. I also believed all Rangers were selected from the ranks of the DPS. What is the problem with doing it this way?

The Texas Rangers were THE official "State Police" until this bill passed. They were a world famous organization that could draw the best law enforcement personnel from wherever they chose. They did indeed often draw from DPS, but it wasn't the ONLY place they could get new Rangers. Now they're under the "highway patrol". There was nothing wrong with combining the two, it just should have been the other way around (IMO). DPS should have been put under the official state police organization. If the leadership of the Rangers took places at the very top of DPS, then I suppose it would have been acceptable. Who knows what they did in reality.


it was actually created to keep the majority from running over the minority.
The US Constitution dictates that the STATES elect the President, not the popular vote. The Electoral College is that process. Each State has the ability to decide for itself how to "align" its' electoral votes (Usually prescribed in the State's Constitution). Some require them to follow the popular vote. Some require ALL their electorial votes to be cast for one and only one candidate.

[sinton66]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
One of the problems with becoming an "informed" voter is the enormous number of offices we must vote on. For example, why are state judges elected rather than appointed? This exposes the candidates for judgeships to partisanship and confuses the public. While appointments are also subject to partisanship, at least we only have one official to hold accountable rather than all those elected judges.

You should thank your lucky stars Texas elects its judges. Appointed judges are there for life and it takes an impeachment process to get rid of a bad one. If the people in Texas Districts are wise enough, all they have to do is NOT re-elect them. I've seen that come in quite handy in a few cases.


Originally posted by ronwx5x

As far as taxing taxes, you and I are in complete agreement. If the state is going to place a tax on tobacco and alcohol, it should be based on the actual selling price without taxes. That would be difficult (impossible?) to calculate,and might change this sad practice.

A much simpler solution is to consider the excise taxes attached to the base price of the products (as evidenced by the tax stamps on them) all the State is entitled to. Texas appears to be growing more "greedy" by the day. All "user fees" are getting more and more expensive, for instance, hunting and fishing license fees are outrageously high. It's not sufficient enough to have a fishing license, you also have to have a saltwater stamp if you want to fish there(added extra cost). There are many more.

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by sinton66
You should thank your lucky stars Texas elects its judges. Appointed judges are there for life and it takes an impeachment process to get rid of a bad one. If the people in Texas Districts are wise enough, all they have to do is NOT re-elect them. I've seen that come in quite handy in a few cases.



A much simpler solution is to consider the excise taxes attached to the base price of the products (as evidenced by the tax stamps on them) all the State is entitled to. Texas appears to be growing more "greedy" by the day. All "user fees" are getting more and more expensive, for instance, hunting and fishing license fees are outrageously high. It's not sufficient enough to have a fishing license, you also have to have a saltwater stamp if you want to fish there(added extra cost). There are many more.

I consider myself an informed voter for major races. I have never been well informed on races for "minor offices" and I feel that I never have enough information to make an informed decision. With that being said, I also believe the general population is equally uninformed and simply vote the party line , make a guess or vote uninformed on a whim. The fallacy in your statement about electing them is "If the people in Texas District are wise enough...". This probably would get rid of really bad judges, but not, IMO, those who are just generally biased or incompetent. People are generally not knowledgeable enough to make sound decisions. The only information we often receive is some attorney poll on who is best or most well liked and that is certainly no basis on which to make an informed decision. Here in the Houston area we are often voting for 15-20 secondary races and know little about the people running for office.

For folks who are informed, this may be the best way to select candidates for any position. Unfortunately, most of us don't fall into that category. You can make all the arguments you want for becoming more informed but I don't see that happening.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
I consider myself an informed voter for major races. I have never been well informed on races for "minor offices" and I feel that I never have enough information to make an informed decision. With that being said, I also believe the general population is equally uninformed and simply vote the party line , make a guess or vote uninformed on a whim. The fallacy in your statement about electing them is "If the people in Texas District are wise enough...". This probably would get rid of really bad judges, but not, IMO, those who are just generally biased or incompetent. People are generally not knowledgeable enough to make sound decisions. The only information we often receive is some attorney poll on who is best or most well liked and that is certainly no basis on which to make an informed decision. Here in the Houston area we are often voting for 15-20 secondary races and know little about the people running for office.

For folks who are informed, this may be the best way to select candidates for any position. Unfortunately, most of us don't fall into that category. You can make all the arguments you want for becoming more informed but I don't see that happening.


Because we have no accountability for our canidates we really don't know who we are voting for even in major elections. They put forth the persona that they think we want to see. Most say one thing to get elected and then do another once they win.....

[shankbear]

It is commonly called the cult of personality.

[waterboy]

Originally posted by shankbear
It is commonly called the cult of personality.
Hey, I like that song!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ5SVDYBNrY

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
Because we have no accountability for our canidates we really don't know who we are voting for even in major elections. They put forth the persona that they think we want to see. Most say one thing to get elected and then do another once they win.....

The accountability for Presidents is an election every four years. If you doubt that, ask Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter and George H.W Bush. No accountability? Ask Richard Nixon about that one.

As for Congress, there have been a number of Representatives who have been voted out in the last four years. Also several forced to resign and without an impeachment hearing. I call that accountability. If you don't think so, you need to be informed and vote.

Sure, all politicians try to tell us what they think we want to hear. That would be true for winners and losers alike. If the candidate is elected and fails to execute the majority of his/her promises, vote the suckers out!

To me, most cynicism about politicians comes from people who take little or no interest in the electoral process. If we make it our intent to know who we are voting for, we should get better representation. If we don't, we deserve what others give us.

[waterboy]

Unfortunately, ron, I only have one vote.:dispntd: All it takes is one uninformed voter to cancel mine out. Either that, or someone who doesn't have the same value system as me. I vote my conscience and that is all I can do.........and that is what I do every election. I always read up on the candidates before I vote, too, and vote for the candidate I trust the most to do what's in my best interest. It doesn't always work out the way I want it to, though. Politics and honesty don't seem to mix too well.:doh:

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by waterboy
Unfortunately, ron, I only have one vote.:dispntd: All it takes is one uninformed voter to cancel mine out. Either that, or someone who doesn't have the same value system as me. I vote my conscience and that is all I can do.........and that is what I do every election. I always read up on the candidates before I vote, too, and vote for the candidate I trust the most to do what's in my best interest. It doesn't always work out the way I want it to, though. Politics and honesty don't seem to mix too well.:doh:

waterboy, you are doing exactly what you are supposed to do, be an informed voter. The fact that you are sometimes (or often) outvoted makes you nothing less. Hard as it may be to believe, you might be wrong or just in the minority.

I have voted for folks who lost, but just as often voted for folks who I later wished I had never heard of. All we can do is try. Thanks for voting anyway!

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
The accountability for Presidents is an election every four years. If you doubt that, ask Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter and George H.W Bush. No accountability? Ask Richard Nixon about that one.

As for Congress, there have been a number of Representatives who have been voted out in the last four years. Also several forced to resign and without an impeachment hearing. I call that accountability. If you don't think so, you need to be informed and vote.

Sure, all politicians try to tell us what they think we want to hear. That would be true for winners and losers alike. If the candidate is elected and fails to execute the majority of his/her promises, vote the suckers out!

To me, most cynicism about politicians comes from people who take little or no interest in the electoral process. If we make it our intent to know who we are voting for, we should get better representation. If we don't, we deserve what others give us.


The electorial process is a hoax. Nobody actually knows what they are voting for. And re-election is determined by media and economic conditions. The worst President in the history of the world can get re elected if the economic conditions and world events fall just right for him. Public sentiment is set by the media. You and I might be able to see through some of the smoke screen but most can't.(or choose not to).

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
The electorial process is a hoax. Nobody actually knows what they are voting for. And re-election is determined by media and economic conditions. The worst President in the history of the world can get re elected if the economic conditions and world events fall just right for him. Public sentiment is set by the media. You and I might be able to see through some of the smoke screen but most can't.(or choose not to).

I'm sad you feel that disillusioned with our system. The media does have a huge influence on all of us but they will jump all over any tidbit, no matter which candidate. Without the media, we would know even less about the candidates.

As far as the worst President being reelected, I would remind you of Jimmy Carter. True, he had a bad economy and the Iranian hostage situation, but much of his doings were due to his own incompetence, And we know he didn't get reelected! Makes a pretty good ex-President some of the time when he isn't talking about international relations, i.e. the Mideast. But then international relations were far from a strong point with that good ol' boy.

I think you give short shrift to voters. The fact that we don't agree with the liberal majority makes them no more wrong than they think we are. The majority has spoken with a very large voice about what they thought of Dubya. There is always next time. Imagine how the liberal left felt when George W. was elected twice.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
I'm sad you feel that disillusioned with our system. The media does have a huge influence on all of us but they will jump all over any tidbit, no matter which candidate. Without the media, we would know even less about the candidates.

As far as the worst President being reelected, I would remind you of Jimmy Carter. True, he had a bad economy and the Iranian hostage situation, but much of his doings were due to his own incompetence, And we know he didn't get reelected! Makes a pretty good ex-President some of the time when he isn't talking about international relations, i.e. the Mideast. But then international relations were far from a strong point with that good ol' boy.

I think you give short shrift to voters. The fact that we don't agree with the liberal majority makes them no more wrong than they think we are. The majority has spoken with a very large voice about what they thought of Dubya. There is always next time. Imagine how the liberal left felt when George W. was elected twice.



I take exception to the use of the word disillusioned. That would require that I thought something differently than what is reality. I have known what is really happening in politics my entire life. Our Fore Fathers left the mother ship because of one fundemental flaw in their system of rule: Taxation without Representation.. And that situation still exists in this country today under a different hat. With no accountability in place for political leaders they are not required to vote in line with the ideas and desires of those who granted them their proxy votes. If you voted for a canidate because of what he tells you he will do once he gets into office and then he proceeds to do otherwise then he is MISREPRESENTING or violating your proxy which should be illegal.
As an American you have a single vote that impacts the future of this country and how it will be run. You grant that vote to a given canidate based on a certain set of ideas and beliefs. Why we don't expect those ideas and beliefs to be upheld is beyond me.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by Ernest T Bass
Im willing to bet that the media had alot to do with what people thought about Dubya. In fact, the majority of Americans are not liberal, they are in fact moderate. That being known, McCain should have won the election(I didn't like him, way too liberal for me, but most Americans fall in line with him), but the media picked Obama, just like they picked Bush and they picked Clinton in 1996(media hated Dole).
There's a book called "Just How Stupid Are We: Facing the Truth About the American Voter". You should read it. Most of the points in it are things you've never noticed, but you can't argue with it. Obama definately read it before starting his campagin. I think he may have based his campaign on it.


We have been in a toward spiral in our economy for a year now because of what the media constantly told America about Dubya for almost 10 years. There will be no recovery until the average citizen gets over the "sky is falling" mentality that has been brain washed into each of us................

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
I take exception to the use of the word disillusioned. That would require that I thought something differently than what is reality. I have known what is really happening in politics my entire life. Our Fore Fathers left the mother ship because of one fundemental flaw in their system of rule: Taxation without Representation.. And that situation still exists in this country today under a different hat. With no accountability in place for political leaders they are not required to vote in line with the ideas and desires of those who granted them their proxy votes. If you voted for a canidate because of what he tells you he will do once he gets into office and then he proceeds to do otherwise then he is MISREPRESENTING or violating your proxy which should be illegal.
As an American you have a single vote that impacts the future of this country and how it will be run. You grant that vote to a given canidate based on a certain set of ideas and beliefs. Why we don't expect those ideas and beliefs to be upheld is beyond me.

Disillusioned - the fact or condition of being disenchanted.

I only meant that I was sad you were unhappy and disappointed with the electoral system. It is the only system outlined by our constitution and everyone is free to vote their own conscience. I know of no taxes impsed by non-elected officials. If you do, please explain.

Once again I beieve the accountability of elected officials is reflected in the fact that they must stand for reelection periodically. Personally, I expect all politicians to uphold their promises, whether I voted for them or not. If they don't, I don't vote for them. Unlike some folks who feel some liberal will simply cancel their vote, I believe my vote will cancel that of some liberal!

What other system would you propose? While we may not like how an election turns out, the system seems to work as well as intended. My vote counts as much as any liberal even though more voted that way in the last Presidential and Congressional elections. I also believe that trend will soon change, and I don't mean four years, but sooner than that. We have congressional elections every two years somewhere.

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
We have been in a toward spiral in our economy for a year now because of what the media constantly told America about Dubya for almost 10 years. There will be no recovery until the average citizen gets over the "sky is falling" mentality that has been brain washed into each of us................

Sorry, but no way the media caused our financial problems by dissing George W. Now that the finger pointing is in full swing, our system of finance looks like the worst of the worst. I remind you this is the same system that helped make America great and not long ago was touted as the best in the world. Same system, but fingers pointing in a different direction. I'm convinced a huge amount of our problems began with the terroistic campaigns of Eliott Spitzer. He obviously didn't improve anything. He was certainly aided by our Congress' decision to force bad loans on FNMA and Freddie Mac. Can you say Barney Frank?

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by Ernest T Bass
For over two years now, Obama and the media have told us how much trouble our economy was in, when there was no evidence of any economic downturn. But, enough of that destroyed consumer confidence. Then, as luck would have it, the housing bubble that's been destined to burst since 1994 finaly did, and viola! Homemade economic crisis that you can blame on your opponent.

Wow, how you can stretch what is reality (bad economy) into some media conspiracy is beyond my ability to comprehend. The economy was actually headed toward a problem and the media reporting it certainly did not cause it. At least in my opinion, obviously not yours.

I'm no fan of biased reporting, but that's not what caused the bubble to burst. Bad loans were the cause and that's not opinion, that's fact.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
Sorry, but no way the media caused our financial problems by dissing George W. Now that the finger pointing is in full swing, our system of finance looks like the worst of the worst. I remind you this is the same system that helped make America great and not long ago was touted as the best in the world. Same system, but fingers pointing in a different direction. I'm convinced a huge amount of our problems began with the terroistic campaigns of Eliott Spitzer. He obviously didn't improve anything. He was certainly aided by our Congress' decision to force bad loans on FNMA and Freddie Mac. Can you say Barney Frank?


Nobody said the media caused the financial problems. I said the media caused the consumer confidence to be at a all time low. America has survived worse things than what has been going on recently but for some reason everyone thinks we are doomed. Why? Because they have been told for many years that we are doomed. And the bubble didn't burst because of bad loans. The bubble burst because it was way over inflated to begin with. It does that about every 20 years or so. Research it. The bad loans only fueled the "sky is falling" panic that most Americans felt because the non-stop efforts by some to discredit the existing regime. 95% of American companies are still just as strong as they ever were but the consumer spending dropped to nothing and stock prices were drivin down by wide spread panic and magically we have a bad economy. I'm telling you that the stock market will go back to at least 9000 on the Dow for no other reason than consumers just taking a deep breath and getting a clue......

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
Nobody said the media caused the financial problems. I said the media caused the consumer confidence to be at a all time low. America has survived worse things than what has been going on recently but for some reason everyone thinks we are doomed. Why? Because they have been told for many years that we are doomed. And the bubble didn't burst because of bad loans. The bubble burst because it was way over inflated to begin with. It does that about every 20 years or so. Research it. The bad loans only fueled the "sky is falling" panic that most Americans felt because the non-stop efforts by some to discredit the existing regime. 95% of American companies are still just as strong as they ever were but the consumer spending dropped to nothing and stock prices were drivin down by wide spread panic and magically we have a bad economy. I'm telling you that the stock market will go back to at least 9000 on the Dow for no other reason than consumers just taking a deep breath and getting a clue......

Bad loans and extremely high leverage were the cause of the financial problems, period, the end. The "crisis" may well have been worse than necessary because of widespread media talk, but in general, the media were reporting the facts. Will the S&P 500 recover? I certainly believe that to be true. The feeding frenzy by the press on the "uncovered" bonuses lately have not helped, but that's hogwash. The bonuses had nothing to do with our current problems. Matter of fact the bonuses represent less than 1/10 of 1% of the loans given out. When the financial industry was turning out huge profits, no one complained about bonuses. People want to complain about poor judgement by management, but who do you think paid the bonuse when things were good? The same people paying them now, that's who. And that is the consumer.

When people have no job or fear that they may have less income, yes they stop spending as much. But blaming the problems on people hoarding money just does not prove out. Did it exacerbate the existing problems? Certainly, but that didn't start the fiasco. Root cause? No way.

Blaming the media is a copout. Too much money flowing too freely to to many people who could not afford it was the main problem. I work in the financial industry and know of what I speak.

[LH Panther Mom]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
Bad loans and extremely high leverage were the cause of the financial problems, period, the end. The "crisis" may well have been worse than necessary because of widespread media talk, but in general, the media were reporting the facts. Will the S&P 500 recover? I certainly believe that to be true. The feeding frenzy by the press on the "uncovered" bonuses lately have not helped, but that's hogwash. The bonuses had nothing to do with our current problems. Matter of fact the bonuses represent less than 1/10 of 1% of the loans given out. When the financial industry was turning out huge profits, no one complained about bonuses. People want to complain about poor judgement by management, but who do you think paid the bonuse when things were good? The same people paying them now, that's who. And that is the consumer.

When people have no job or fear that they may have less income, yes they stop spending as much. But blaming the problems on people hoarding money just does not prove out. Did it exacerbate the existing problems? Certainly, but that didn't start the fiasco. Root cause? No way.

Blaming the media is a copout. Too much money flowing too freely to to many people who could not afford it was the main problem. I work in the financial industry and know of what I speak.
I would add the months of gas at $4.00/gallon and higher as a contributing factor in the economy. Most of us working folks have to use some sort of transportation to get to our jobs, whether it's driving our own vehicle, carpooling, or public transportation.

[sinfan75]

Originally posted by LH Panther Mom
I would add the months of gas at $4.00/gallon and higher as a contributing factor in the economy. Most of us working folks have to use some sort of transportation to get to our jobs, whether it's driving our own vehicle, carpooling, or public transportation. $4 is gonna seem cheap in about a year if certain things get passed.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
Bad loans and extremely high leverage were the cause of the financial problems, period, the end. The "crisis" may well have been worse than necessary because of widespread media talk, but in general, the media were reporting the facts. Will the S&P 500 recover? I certainly believe that to be true. The feeding frenzy by the press on the "uncovered" bonuses lately have not helped, but that's hogwash. The bonuses had nothing to do with our current problems. Matter of fact the bonuses represent less than 1/10 of 1% of the loans given out. When the financial industry was turning out huge profits, no one complained about bonuses. People want to complain about poor judgement by management, but who do you think paid the bonuse when things were good? The same people paying them now, that's who. And that is the consumer.

When people have no job or fear that they may have less income, yes they stop spending as much. But blaming the problems on people hoarding money just does not prove out. Did it exacerbate the existing problems? Certainly, but that didn't start the fiasco. Root cause? No way.

Blaming the media is a copout. Too much money flowing too freely to to many people who could not afford it was the main problem. I work in the financial industry and know of what I speak.


I also worked in the financial industry for years. I chose to get out 3 years ago. And you make some very good points but you are confusing the cause with the symptoms. All the things you mentioned caused some major concerns in our society but the underlying reason it effected our economy so negitively was the public sentiment factor. Public sentiment and investor fear caused the market to slip so far so fast. And even if No-Bama isn't intelligent enough to see it we do live in a economy that is market driven. As the Market goes-so the country goes..............

[Farmersfan]

We can debate all day long the cause and effect situation in this country but here is a perfect example of how the media and partisan politicians push panic and discontent on the masses. Every single American in this country right now assumes we are in a recession and have out of control unemployment. Why? Because that is what they are told every single moment of every single day by a media that emphisizes the negative and Politicians that are trying to establish themselves as the savior. But the truth is the unemployment rates right now is this country are still primarily in the single digits and rarely more than 3 or 4 percent above the normal unemployment rate even in good times. With all the crapola and political nonsense we find ourselves in right now we are still functioning at a very, very high level in this country. The daily news would lead you to believe EVERYONE is out of work but truthfully look at your surroundings and ask yourself exactly how many people do you KNOW for a fact are out of work and cannot get another job. Unless you live in a area where a single company shut down 1000s of jobs I would say the answer might be 1. Perhaps two. I know of none! Some have had their hours reduced but they are still working. In fact I know for a fact that some have even upgraded by changing jobs.......
It's primarily public panic that is driving our economic downturn right now....

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
We can debate all day long the cause and effect situation in this country but here is a perfect example of how the media and partisan politicians push panic and discontent on the masses. Every single American in this country right now assumes we are in a recession and have out of control unemployment. Why? Because that is what they are told every single moment of every single day by a media that emphisizes the negative and Politicians that are trying to establish themselves as the savior. But the truth is the unemployment rates right now is this country are still primarily in the single digits and rarely more than 3 or 4 percent above the normal unemployment rate even in good times. With all the crapola and political nonsense we find ourselves in right now we are still functioning at a very, very high level in this country. The daily news would lead you to believe EVERYONE is out of work but truthfully look at your surroundings and ask yourself exactly how many people do you KNOW for a fact are out of work and cannot get another job. Unless you live in a area where a single company shut down 1000s of jobs I would say the answer might be 1. Perhaps two. I know of none! Some have had their hours reduced but they are still working. In fact I know for a fact that some have even upgraded by changing jobs.......
It's primarily public panic that is driving our economic downturn right now....

The current uneployment rate nationwide is somewhere between 9.5% and 10.5%. Texas is about a percentage point below that. While not yet in depression territory, that number is about double what we have seen for the past decade. If you are among those still fully employed, you probably have not felt much effect. If, however, you are unfortunate enough to have lost your job or been forced to take a pay cut, you most likely feel the effects and find the current downturn to appear worse than someone unaffected. I still have a job but can tell you I expect to earn at least 30% less than last year.

I have a son-in-law who worked at Beneficial Finance. He came to work about two weeks ago and was told to release all his employees. The parent company, HSBC, was eliminating all North American operations. Now that is a direct result of the mortgage industry problems. Think he feels the economy is much better than the media says? That is hardly public panic.

Recessions are indeed self-feeding, but they are not self-induced. They occur suddenly, usually following a period of high GDP growth and are a reaction to the overextension of credit. The great depression was a direct result of margin debt on equities that could not recover from a period of sharp declines in the market. Over leveraged? You better betcha.

All this "history" tells us why things happened in the past but certainly not what the future holds. I am an eternal optimist when it comes to our American economy and believe this current setback will begin to give way to recovery within the next 9-12 months. All those "toxic assets" will turn out to be a bitter pill, but not a deadly poison. End of sermon.

[sinton66]

Getting off track here folks. This topic is about the Bill of Rights.

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
We can debate all day long the cause and effect situation in this country but here is a perfect example of how the media and partisan politicians push panic and discontent on the masses. Every single American in this country right now assumes we are in a recession and have out of control unemployment. Why? Because that is what they are told every single moment of every single day by a media that emphisizes the negative and Politicians that are trying to establish themselves as the savior. But the truth is the unemployment rates right now is this country are still primarily in the single digits and rarely more than 3 or 4 percent above the normal unemployment rate even in good times. With all the crapola and political nonsense we find ourselves in right now we are still functioning at a very, very high level in this country. The daily news would lead you to believe EVERYONE is out of work but truthfully look at your surroundings and ask yourself exactly how many people do you KNOW for a fact are out of work and cannot get another job. Unless you live in a area where a single company shut down 1000s of jobs I would say the answer might be 1. Perhaps two. I know of none! Some have had their hours reduced but they are still working. In fact I know for a fact that some have even upgraded by changing jobs.......
It's primarily public panic that is driving our economic downturn right now....

Fear? Like the fear of losing your guns? Is it anything like that public panic? Well here is what YOUR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES had to say about gun control..


Q: Is the D.C. law prohibiting ownership of handguns consistent with an individual’s right to bear arms?
A: As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.

Q: But do you still favor the registration & licensing of guns?

A: I think we can provide common-sense approaches to the issue of illegal guns that are ending up on the streets. We can make sure that criminals don’t have guns in their hands. We can make certain that those who are mentally deranged are not getting a hold of handguns. We can trace guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers that may be selling to straw purchasers and dumping them on the streets.

Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008

That crazy liberal media...


:rolleyes: :rolleyes:


Also, I work for a company that does asset management for banks. I would think that 4000 to 6000 foreclosures a week probably means that the state of our economy isnt strong or even average. We only have 21 clients that send us new assets. That means we only have a portion of the foreclosures the US is facing. It is something to think about.

[Farmersfan]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rockdale80
A: I think we can provide common-sense approaches to the issue of illegal guns that are ending up on the streets. We can make sure that criminals don’t have guns in their hands. We can make certain that those who are mentally deranged are not getting a hold of handguns. We can trace guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers that may be selling to straw purchasers and dumping them on the streets.


That crazy liberal media...



Common Sense? No-bama?

Hell, there ain't no wonder the world is confused.......

[Phil C]

Remember - words can't actually physically hurt you. Remember the old childhood saying "Sticks and Stones may break my bones but Names will never hurt me."

:mad: