Log in

View Full Version : Hannity says to blame only liberals for high gas prices



Pages : 1 [2]

Hello~Kitty
05-09-2005, 01:37 PM
Why must you look to label everything with "environmental" or "liberal" rather than accepting there is more than one factor? Too complex for TV?

ROTFLMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well to be fair, an example of the consequences of not following that line of thinking can be seen in the recent action of that N.C church which kicked out those who did not support Bush 100% ;)

Hef
05-09-2005, 08:18 PM
Do some research. You'll find info to support both positions. I'm swamped with research on anothersubject and just poping in here on breaks..... its fine if you dont agree and all but dont just say no way without even looking to see.... if you still feel its ludicrous after reading up on the subjetc, then cool- that's your opinion but its silly(imo) to deciede on something without even considering the possiblity first


As the individual stating a position, the burden is upon YOU to support your claim when challenged in a debate. I'm not saying "you are DEFINITELY wrong", but that I doubt the validity of your statement and require proof before I accept it as fact. I have no obligation in the debate to research your claim for you.

And I will reciprocate if you challenge my assertions. That's how debate works.







I do not agree that Dems are trying to remove the moral compass of the nation. The basic principles of the Dem party are largey the same as those in most religions. ...things like help the poor (welfare) be there for the elderly(Social Security) love thy neighbor (civil rights) ....there is debate on how well those programs are working but that's another topic ;) Also God has notbeen removed from the Pledge- it is just a choice to say or not for those who may not have the same "god" or who may not be religious. It's optional and not a requirement and therefor an extention of freedom of religion.Same thing with the comandments...having it there is a symbol of state supported religion. There have been compromises like putting symbols of other religions so it isn't a one religion deal.....last time I checked the money said in God We Trust but I'd be ok with it being removed though for the following reasons:

Interestingly enough, a Dem - Barbara Boxer - got a bill passed and signed into law for federally funding restoration projects on historically significant and actively used churches. There's a "seperation of church and state" issue. I'm surprised such a bill would be authored by a Dem.




religion belongs in the hearts and minds of the followers and in church if they choose....not in government. That was the whole point of leaving England and creating a new life here in what is now the US.


Agreed.





Right on...I totally respect your opinion but I disagree on the direction you are seeing Dems go towards.... Me, I see Republicans running straight into theocracy but hey others disagree...and that's their right to do so 8)

Gotta get back to my own research now~ have a great night !

PS to D.D ~ go get em babe. It's so awesome to watch you put the nay sayers to shame with your knowledge on these subject....5 stars !

I see the RNC moving towards fascism, and the DNC moving equally fast towards communism. I don't like either. I settle for the Republicans only because they are more inclined to acknowledge the 2nd Amendment as an individual right, and with such protection I have the means to defend the rest of my rights when they've finally been trampled too much. But honestly, the Republicans are just as authoritarian as the Democrats so I can see their position on the 2nd changing in the next 10 years.

Eh, we don't have to agree. I want as much for you to live doing your own thing as I want to do mine. I don't want Congress legislating morality, just abiding by it as they lead us. They have enough trouble doing that.

Jay Zeno
05-09-2005, 08:36 PM
As the individual stating a position, the burden is upon YOU to support your claim when challenged in a debate. I guess, in a formal debate. I looked at this more as a friendly (I hope!) discussion. If I say, "I would like us to strive to live in a cleaner environment," which is pretty much what I have been saying, that's my opinion. That's the fact.

Truthfully, I kinda slide past the web site references that are posted here by various advocates as being used for biased purposes. And I don't want my friendly discussion bogged down with weighted reporting. But that's just me.



Interestingly enough, a Dem - Barbara Boxer - got a bill passed and signed into law for federally funding restoration projects on historically significant and actively used churches. There's a "seperation of church and state" issue. I'm surprised such a bill would be authored by a Dem.Oh, I'm sure you can find subsidized historical restoration that includes churches in many regions of the country. While I'm a separatist when it comes to church and state, I'm also a realist in acknowledging that the role of religion and its structures have been important pieces of history. I don't view that much as either Democrat or Republican.



I see the RNC moving towards fascism, and the DNC moving equally fast towards communism. In this last election. I was really hoping for a McCain-Lieberman campaign, of more moderate guys with more reasonable voices. I think the country is ready for it - I don't suppose the parties are.

I have to note with some wryness that I'm apparently being called a liberal here right now. Man, the lumps one has to take for wanting a cleaner (and better conserved) world. Last October, I was being called a conservative.

devilsadvocate667
05-09-2005, 08:38 PM
I see the RNC moving towards fascism, and the DNC moving equally fast towards communism.

You see the democrats moving toward total redistribution of the wealth and government ownership of the manufacturing process? Please explain. Higher taxes , slightly more social programs and regulation doesn't mean communism.



I don't like either. I settle for the Republicans only because they are more inclined to acknowledge the 2nd Amendment as an individual right


I have news for you: there is no serious mainstream effort to take away your gun owership rights. It's a myth. A few here and there may be against guns, but there is no attack on anyone's 2nd amendment rights. But while you're supporting the party typically associated with 2nd amendment rights, you support the party that stomps on pretty much all of the others.


But honestly, the Republicans are just as authoritarian as the Democrats

LOL! That's a good one. You have to ignore a lot of Bush policies in order to make that statement fly.

devilsadvocate667
05-09-2005, 08:43 PM
and mean conservatives like me refuse to allow our local government to subsidize mass transportation with our taxes.

Why wouldn't anyone want to subsidize mass transportation? In the long run it costs less for government. Mostly due to fewer cars creating less damage to the roads, and less construction.

Hello~Kitty
05-09-2005, 08:43 PM
As the individual stating a position, the burden is upon YOU to support your claim when challenged in a debate. I'm not saying "you are DEFINITELY wrong", but that I doubt the validity of your statement and require proof before I accept it as fact. I have no obligation in the debate to research your claim for you.
Here's a little something on the subject for you...I'm sure there are better but it was one of the first to pop up when I searched so... I'm not real into a debate on this as I have heard reasonable arguemnt on both sides, I just happen to feel that oil is one of if not the main purpose.

http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/iraq.asp


Interestingly enough, a Dem - Barbara Boxer - got a bill passed and signed into law for federally funding restoration projects on historically significant and actively used churches. There's a "seperation of church and state" issue.
Well see I'm not a Dem actually I'm an Ind. who is socially liberal. I don't care which party pulls Church/State stuff, I oppose it for reasons I listed previously



I don't want Congress legislating morality, just abiding by it as they lead us. They have enough trouble doing that.


"aint' that the sad truth !

Jay Zeno
05-09-2005, 08:47 PM
Why wouldn't anyone want to subsidize mass transportation? In the long run it costs less for government. Mostly due to fewer cars creating less damage to the roads, and less construction.

Depends on the population density, truly. Just doesn't work in many places. I don't want to subsidize it in a place where it's impractical, and I don't much like subsidizing systems elsewhere that I'll never use.

Hello~Kitty
05-09-2005, 08:48 PM
I have to note with some wryness that I'm apparently being called a liberal here right now. Man, the lumps one has to take for wanting a cleaner (and better conserved) world. Last October, I was being called a conservative.

:) I hear that ! I think it was my very first post in this section that got me called a "loon" because I didn't support a specific conservative position ( Schiavo case ) ~ which either meant a lunatic or a birdbrain ...... talk about putting someone on the defensive fromthe get go :-\

devilsadvocate667
05-09-2005, 08:49 PM
Depends on the population density, truly. Just doesn't work in many places. I don't want to subsidize it in a place where it's impractical, and I don't much like subsidizing systems elsewhere that I'll never use.

Sure, I'll agree with that. In NYC, it makes sense. In Mineapolis and Chicago, as well as LA... it makes sense.

It really doesn't make sense in Detroit any more.

Jay Zeno
05-09-2005, 08:54 PM
Sure, I'll agree with that. In NYC, it makes sense. In Mineapolis and Chicago, as well as LA... it makes sense.

It really doesn't make sense in Detroit any more.

I don't know about Detroit at all, but my point had more to do with areas under a critical population or population density - for argument's sake, let's call it a dense urban area under 500,000. The infrastructure would go too largely unused, with too many empty trains and/or buses, to make it feasible. And the trouble is that, despite what the urbanized folks think, that's a HUGE chunk of the people in this fair land.

Hef
05-09-2005, 08:57 PM
You see the democrats moving toward total redistribution of the wealth and government ownership of the manufacturing process? Please explain. Higher taxes , slightly more social programs and regulation doesn't mean communism.


Democrats are responsible for most "wealth redistribution" programs, such as Social Security (a joke), welfare, grants (for a wide range of reasons), etc. "Slightly" is an understatement.





I have news for you: there is no serious mainstream effort to take away your gun owership rights. It's a myth. A few here and there may be against guns, but there is no attack on anyone's 2nd amendment rights. But while you're supporting the party typically associated with 2nd amendment rights, you support the party that stomps on pretty much all of the others.

What bubble are you living in? Are you familiar with the Assault Weapons Ban? Are you aware of how many states have their own AWB's in place, and who got them enacted? Recognize any of these names?

Feinstein
Schumer
Kennedy
Boxer
Kerry
Warner

Now, can you tell me how many of them are Republicans? I'll tell you - 1 - Warner, from VA. He is currently promoting an AW/.50 Ca Ban in his state.

You may not be aware, but any law which requires the registration, taxation, confiscation, licensure, or banning of any firearm is an infringement of our 2nd Amendment right. Think about that. Now consider how many states require licenses, registration, or taxes paid in order to own and/or carry a firearm. Take a look at www.packing.org to see the laws state by state.

There is indeed a movement to incrementally remove our 2nd Amendment right.

I realize that, on a national level, the RNC doesn't act to protect my civil rights - ie the Patriot Act, etc. However, the Dems (nationally) are actively working against civilian firearms ownership. I'd rather see the Constitution Party take office, but our country is tied up in a 2-party system, so I choose the party which offers me the chance to fight back if need be.

Without the 2nd Amendment, all our other rights are meaningless. They are no longer rights, but priviledges granted to us by the state as they see fit.




LOL! That's a good one. You have to ignore a lot of Bush policies in order to make that statement fly.

You have to ignore the faults of the Democrats to not recognize the accuracy of my statement.

devilsadvocate667
05-09-2005, 08:59 PM
I don't know about Detroit at all, but my point had more to do with areas under a critical population or population density

I know, that's why I brought up Detroit.

devilsadvocate667
05-09-2005, 09:07 PM
Democrats are responsible for most "wealth redistribution" programs, such as Social Security (a joke), welfare, grants (for a wide range of reasons), etc. "Slightly" is an understatement.

Social security isn't a socialistic program. It's encapsulated. It doesn't draw off the general funds and you get what you put inbto it. It is also the most successful govt program in hsitory. How is this evil?

Now grants are equal to communism? Are business grants communism? Is corporate bailouts and corporate welfare communism?




What bubble are you living in? Are you familiar with the Assault Weapons Ban? Are you aware of how many states have their own AWB's in place, and who got them enacted? Recognize any of these names?

Are you aware the constitution doesn't guaranty you the right to own any weapon you desire? There was a 1939 USSC case that outlined what you can and cannot own. The 2nd Amendment is painfully vague. Case law gives it the power.



You may not be aware, but any law which requires the registration, taxation, confiscation, licensure, or banning of any firearm is an infringement of our 2nd Amendment right.

Oh bullshit! They do no such thing. You are being over emotional and over reacting. If they are an infringement, why have they ALL been upheald as constitutional by the USSC? I suppose you know more about the constitution than people who have made it their life's work, eh?





There is indeed a movement to incrementally remove our 2nd Amendment right.

Nope, not in the slightest bit! SOrry, you just are being paranoid.


However, the Dems (nationally) are actively working against civilian firearms ownership.

LOL! Whatever. That simply is not true. there is no active agenda to take away guns. I'd venture to call that a lie.




Without the 2nd Amendment, all our other rights are meaningless. They are no longer rights, but priviledges granted to us by the state as they see fit.

What weapons do you think the 2nd amendment considers "arms"?






You have to ignore the faults of the Democrats to not recognize the accuracy of my statement.

LOL! Like what?

doc-catfish
05-09-2005, 09:36 PM
Social security isn't a socialistic program. It's encapsulated. It doesn't draw off the general funds and you get what you put inbto it. It is also the most successful govt program in hsitory. How is this evil?
SS is a government ran Ponzi scheme. It's "success" is based on making sure that the number of people paying into the system is exceeds the number living off of it. Unfortunately, social changes in American society have "inverted" the pyramid, so to speak.

Back in 1935 when SS was conceived, we were a more agrarian society. People had large families (provided for cheap farm labor) and did not live as long. Therefore the ratio of workers paying into SS far exceeded the number of people collecting benefits (about 16:1). Significant changes in our lifestyles have occured since that time though that have drastically reduced that ratio.

1. Due to medical advances, people are living longer, in many cases several years past 65, so there are more retirees.
2. Corporate farms have replaced family farms so there is not as much need for large families anymore. Fewer children, hence fewer active workers.
3. The baby boom generation getting up there in years and increasingly moving from group #2 to group #1. Today the worker:retiree ratio is about 3:1, and getting closer to 2:1 all the time.

I think the reason so many continue to defend SS is because they don't understand how it works. The money taken out of my paycheck doesn't go into a "locked box" and accrue interest for me like a 401k or IRA does. It immediately goes to a current retiree who is getting way more out of it than they ever put into it. But much like any Ponzi scheme where the pyramid has inverted and has run out of suckers (involuntary suckers in this case), those who got in late (namely pretty much anyone under 40) will never see the fruits of what they put into SS, at least not without massive reform far more radical than anything even the Bush administration is proposing.

I don't know about "evil", but I would hardly call SS a success.

Casual Observer
05-09-2005, 09:36 PM
Originally Posted by Hef
There is indeed a movement to incrementally remove our 2nd Amendment right.



Nope, not in the slightest bit! SOrry, you just are being paranoid.

Actually, the 102nd and 104th Congress tried to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

It's not being paranoid if they're really after you.

:)

devilsadvocate667
05-10-2005, 07:25 AM
SS is a government ran Ponzi scheme. It's "success" is based on making sure that the number of people paying into the system is exceeds the number living off of it.

Those who forget the past are condemned to be republicans. LOL! I guess people like you only believe what you want to believe as it applies to your party. You have to understand that before social security the vast majority of elderly in this nation lived far below the poverty line. While people like you may whine and want your money to go into the stock market and place it essentially on Black 22, the rest of the nation wants SECURITY, not Wall Street 3 card monte crooks playing the shell game with their future.

Yes, it's a success. It's popularity reflects this. Keep whining about SSI being socialism, push through your "reform" and kill the GOP for generations.


"1. Due to medical advances, people are living longer, in many cases several years past 65, so there are more retirees."

So what? Then raise the age. Destroying the system wont benefit anyone and will cause the same problems we had before SSI was around. One thing I've learned about radical extremist cons is that they will always throw the baby out with the bath water.



"I think the reason so many continue to defend SS is because they don't understand how it works."

Actually, those that are against SSI are typically lying with their justification. The system is 100% fine until 2040, then it's able to pay off 75% Raising the cap and rasing the age to collect will more than amply repair that. The rest of your rant is irrlevant propaganda!

But the real motivation for republicans is not fixing social security, it's getting the money from your half assed plan into the hands of Wall Street so they can have a boom. I'm sorry, but putting America's future into the hands of those who aren't the slightest bit concerned with anyone but themselves is like putting a gun to your head.

The funny thing is that the vast majority of Americans agree with me. This is why "reform" is dead in the water. Many GOP congressmen wont touch this with a 10 foot pole. Move on to somethng else. The GOP is looking silly and dishonest over this.

devilsadvocate667
05-10-2005, 07:29 AM
Actually, the 102nd and 104th Congress tried to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

It's not being paranoid if they're really after you.

:)


LOL! Whatever!

Jay Zeno
05-10-2005, 07:41 AM
Those who forget the past are condemned to be republicans.

That is as absurd but, I suppose, serves the same style of gratification as "blame only liberals for high gas prices."

Melonie
05-10-2005, 09:08 AM
Actually, those that are against SSI are typically lying with their justification. The system is 100% fine until 2040, then it's able to pay off 75% Raising the cap and rasing the age to collect will more than amply repair that. The rest of your rant is irrlevant propaganda!

As long as this thread has gone off the road completely, I suppose it's worth correcting an error. The fact is that the Social Security system is in trouble the second that monthly SSI check payout dollars to retirees exceeds monthly SSI payroll tax receipts from workers. By the best projections, this is due to happen in 2017 or 2018. The minute that more must be paid out in Social Security benefit checks than is being received in SSI payroll tax receipts from workers, general income taxes must be raised to make up the difference - no way around this.

Fact is that the extra money being taxed away from current workers beyond the immediate amount needed to write SSI benefit checks to retirees is simply spent by the gov't for general revenue purchases. In exchange, the SSI administration is given non-marketable special bond certificates which sit in a file cabinet somewhere. The theory that Social Security isn't in trouble until 2040 ignores the fact that the second these non-marketable bonds need to be cashed in to cover the revenue shortfall, the ONLY place they can be cashed in is from the US general budget. The ONLY way the US general budget can cover the 'cost' of cashing in the SSI bonds is to raise taxes. Thus as things are currently structured, a 'stealth' SSI tax increase is scheduled to take effect in 2017 or 2018, which is contrary to GWB's commitment that increased taxes will not be part of any Social Security bailout plan. If this 'stealth' tax increase is thus taken off the table, then the SSI goes in the red in 2017 or 2018, not 2040.

discretedancer
05-10-2005, 09:49 AM
The fact is that the Social Security system is in trouble the second that monthly SSI check payout dollars to retirees exceeds monthly SSI payroll tax receipts from workers. ...The minute that more must be paid out in Social Security benefit checks than is being received in SSI payroll tax receipts from workers, general income taxes must be raised to make up the difference - no way around this.
Unless you take into account ALL THE MONEY SAVED during the years when income to the system exceeded expenses, providing the system with a surplus. OOPS! I forgot, our brilliant leaders spent that money on other programs already....expecting (as politicians always do) people later to clean up the mess.

Also...this demonstrates how "beltway budgeting" by both parties has ruinedour economy. Instead of using the SSI as a surplus and investing it (in the stock market GW trusts so much even) we built this house of cards.

Sure not good to the 7th generation!

,,,from the detail you provided later, I gather:

SSI as an administration and as taxpayer recipients were given a guarrantee (with those bond certificates) that their "investment in the nation" would be repaid in full (with interest?) and now that the time for repaying SSI the lender for its investment, the borrower (US general treasury) wants to restructure the system....screwing over those closest to collecting on their investment.

HMM....if true, it seems the US government isn't a very good credit risk - it defaults on loans made to its own people! God help any foreign investor holding any sort of promise certificate or debt

doc-catfish
05-10-2005, 10:50 AM
Those who forget the past are condemned to be republicans. LOL! I guess people like you only believe what you want to believe as it applies to your party.
Amazing, on this thread I'm a neo-Con. On another, I'm practically a Communist.


You have to understand that before social security the vast majority of elderly in this nation lived far below the poverty line.
Actually, a good chunk of the elderly were living in the ground. Only about 55-60% of the population made it to age 65 in 1940, compared to 75-80% today.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html


While people like you may whine and want your money to go into the stock market and place it essentially on Black 22, the rest of the nation wants SECURITY, not Wall Street 3 card monte crooks playing the shell game with their future.
You've apparently never read anything on long term investing strategies. No long term investor would put all their money on a single secuirty on a single day and prays that it will be up the day they retire. At least I hope not.


Yes, it's a success. It's popularity reflects this.
If I were 65 right now and were getting way more out of SS than I ever put in, I'd probably like it too. Although I'd think I'd have liked it even better if I could have taken the money that I put into SS over my working years, and had stuck in into an IRA with a properly allocated stock/bond portfolio instead. Over the years (and by years I'm talking from the 1920's to today), the stock market has gained an average of 10% annually. Even at a more modest 8%, do you know what happens to an amount of money invested in a tax shelter over thirty years? It multiplies to ten times its original value.


So what? Then raise the age.
Try getting all the people who are at/near retirement age to agree to this suggestion. And unlike those of us in our 20's and 30's who can't fathom what things will be like in 30-40 years, they vote in bunches. Precisely why I don't see GWB getting much progress done on this, if any.


One thing I've learned about radical extremist cons is that they will always throw the baby out with the bath water.
I see nothing radical or extreme about private citizens getting to keep what is rightfully theirs.


The funny thing is that the vast majority of Americans agree with me.
Because the mast majority of Americans don't understand how the government funds SS. They think it works the same way a 401K does, which it doesn't.


This is why "reform" is dead in the water. Many GOP congressmen wont touch this with a 10 foot pole. Move on to somethng else. The GOP is looking silly and dishonest over this.
I agree the GOP is looking silly and dishonest. They should have some balls and quit pandering to what is popular at the moment and do what in the long run will be better for their constituents. If you've got a horse with a broken leg, you don't just slap a band aid on it. Unfortunately, like any other public officials they have to kiss ass in order to keep their jobs.

Destiny
05-10-2005, 11:24 AM
Amazing, on this thread I'm a neo-Con. On another, I'm practically a Communist. That's what we love about ya' Doc! :-*

Hello~Kitty
05-10-2005, 01:31 PM
on the subject of SS:

Bush's S.S plan hits middleclass hard cutting benefits over 40% for someone earning 50 some grand a year

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=617653#2

CuriousJ
05-10-2005, 01:59 PM
This just goes on and on - the more I hang out here in this thread the more I understand why as a nation we get nothing accomplished and argue about who's got the best conclusion or answer to the problem hell give a man a or a woman a piece of paper write about a study you have concluded circulate it out to the general public and watch the world latch on to your ideas . Many studies have budgets and hidden agendas, I wonder how many are listed here ? We are all to blame in some roundabout way for high gas prices , like everytime you turn on your ignition !
And yes I like all the points its just sometimes comes down to who has the best referenced articles ?
ok back to to you guys take it away more references please !

discretedancer
05-10-2005, 02:04 PM
How would you suggest debates be handled CJ?

Sh0t
05-10-2005, 02:12 PM
This is the best part of the SS website:

CuriousJ
05-10-2005, 02:35 PM
How would you suggest debates be handled CJ?
You are all doing fine I just like to put a break in there sometimes, you people are way above my mental capacity meaning I dont retain or research or debate quite as well as all you do nor will I ever . But I like to give a simple solution or opinion at times sorry to interupt as you were please , dont mind me . ;)

Hef
05-10-2005, 02:52 PM
What weapons do you think the 2nd amendment considers "arms"?





"Arms" are any weapons which the average man could purchase, maintain, carry, and employ. Crew-served weapons, ordnance, tanks, artillery, etc would not be covered under the term "arms". Firearms, edged weapons, mace, etc would.

I will address the rest of your post this evening. Right now I'm going out with my girl to take her daughter for ice cream. Three year olds don't like to wait.

:)

Jay Zeno
05-10-2005, 03:13 PM
"Arms" are any weapons which the average man could purchase, maintain, carry, and employ. Crew-served weapons, ordnance, tanks, artillery, etc would not be covered under the term "arms". Firearms, edged weapons, mace, etc would.

Damn - and here I was hoping for swords, front-loaded cannon, muskets as part of a well-regulated militia, as was apparently in the minds of the Framers.

Hef
05-10-2005, 06:36 PM
Damn - and here I was hoping for swords, front-loaded cannon, muskets as part of a well-regulated militia, as was apparently in the minds of the Framers.

Actually, they intended for the average civilian to be able to arm himself (or herself) as well as the professional soldiers they might encounter if faced with an invasion by a foreign army or a confrontation with our own government's soldiers. In 1792, that meant the weapons you describe. Today, it would be M16's, M249 SAW's, MP5's, etc.

The idea was that we, as citizens, have a means to say "ENOUGH" and TAKE back our government if it gets hijacked and our rights are threatened. The tools to do so must be equal to those we would likely face.

This is assuming all other non-violent methods of defending our rights have been exhausted and we have no choice but to fight.

Have you read the Federalist Papers?

Melonie
05-10-2005, 06:41 PM
This is the best part of the SS website:

hmmm, they should have explained the swarm of locusts properly !!!!

Hef
05-10-2005, 07:06 PM
Social security isn't a socialistic program. It's encapsulated. It doesn't draw off the general funds and you get what you put inbto it. It is also the most successful govt program in hsitory. How is this evil?

Successful for whom? And I didn't say it draws off the general fund, but that money collected is deposited into the general fund, which basically makes it another source of revenue for Congress to blow on bullshit.



Now grants are equal to communism? Are business grants communism? Is corporate bailouts and corporate welfare communism?

Where is Congress granted the authority to use our tax money to give business grants and corporate welfare?






Are you aware the constitution doesn't guaranty you the right to own any weapon you desire? There was a 1939 USSC case that outlined what you can and cannot own. The 2nd Amendment is painfully vague. Case law gives it the power.

I'm aware, but I have the right to own any small arm I choose. I think the case you are referring to is U.S. vs. Miller, which stated that a particular weapon's protection under the 2nd Amendment is contingent upon it's suitability to serve a military purpose. Miller's sawed-off Stevens shotgun was found to be unsuitable for use in a militia, and therefore was afforded no protection under the 2nd Amendment.





Oh bullshit! They do no such thing. You are being over emotional and over reacting. If they are an infringement, why have they ALL been upheald as constitutional by the USSC? I suppose you know more about the constitution than people who have made it their life's work, eh?

Registration facilitates future confiscation.

Licensing gives the government the power to decide who is allowed (or disallowed) to exercise a right, a power which they were never intended to have.

Taxation of firearms and ammunition makes it possible for the government to effectively remove your right by making ownership of such weapons prohibitively expensive.

They haven't ALL been upheld by the US Supreme Court, as they have refused for years to hear 2nd Amendment cases. The constitutionality of those laws is still in question.








Nope, not in the slightest bit! SOrry, you just are being paranoid.

Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get me. :P

Every gun control measure enacted has been a compromise on the part of lawful gun owners to satisfy anti-gun people, and with each law our right to own firearms and use them has been chiseled down just a little bit.

In 1982, one could have bought a full-auto M16 for $600, and registered it on the NFA registry for another $200. After the 86 Machine Gun Ban (FOPA, enacted under Reagan), that weapon's value skyrocketed. Now the same weapon with 23 years of wear&tear goes for over $16,000. What positive effect has that ban had on society? None, except now only the rich guys (like Cheney) can afford one.




LOL! Whatever. That simply is not true. there is no active agenda to take away guns. I'd venture to call that a lie.

You aren't familiar with Dianne Feinstein, are you?






What weapons do you think the 2nd amendment considers "arms"?

Already addressed this one.








LOL! Like what?

This string of last-line comments covers enough crap to deserve a thread all it's own. I think I'll just let it die. ;)

Casual Observer
05-10-2005, 07:14 PM
Originally Posted by Casual Observer
Actually, the 102nd and 104th Congress tried to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

It's not being paranoid if they're really after you.






LOL! Whatever!

It's not whatever; repeal was attempted twice, under the WJC administration. Twice.

discretedancer
05-10-2005, 07:52 PM
I'm aware, but I have the right to own any small arm I choose....[but]that a particular weapon's protection under the 2nd Amendment is contingent upon it's suitability to serve a military purpose.
and licensing allows the government to begin to regulate weapons, and attempt to reduce the number that don't fit that criteria

All products and equipment are taxed, at different rates, wy not firearms?



Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get me. :P
Just because you think they are doesn't mean it's true



Every gun control measure enacted has been a compromise on the part of lawful gun owners to satisfy anti-gun people,
Re-worded, it means the same thing :

Every gun control measure enacted has been a compromise on the part of lawful anti-gun people to satisfy gun owners

Wow...a compromise! How awful!!


and with each law our right to own firearms and use them has been chiseled down just a little bit.

and with each advance in "hunting technology" (sorry, automatic rifles for squirrelhunting??Please!) and each theft of, illegal sale of or "accidental firing" of has chiseled our safety down just a little bit


After the 86 Machine Gun Ban (FOPA, enacted under Reagan),would that be around the time a "legal gun owner" shot at our president and permanently wounded Mr Brady?

Yes, I think it was...in fact I think that ban is actually called the "Brady Bill"

Gun collector myself (stored at my firing range, safely locked away)....I hate to see bulletheads overstating the case

Hef
05-10-2005, 08:08 PM
and licensing allows the government to begin to regulate weapons, and attempt to reduce the number that don't fit that criteria

All products and equipment are taxed, at different rates, wy not firearms?

Firearms are protected under the Bill of Rights, those other items are not.

Licensing does not in any way help in reducing the number of weapons which don't fit the Miller test. If you think it does, please explain how. Illegal weapons will never be brought forth for registration, and legal weapons modified to be illegal will "disappear".



Just because you think they are doesn't mean it's true

True.



Re-worded, it means the same thing :

Every gun control measure enacted has been a compromise on the part of lawful anti-gun people to satisfy gun owners

Wow...a compromise! How awful!!

Wrong. Anti-gun people give up NOTHING when a new gun control measure is enacted. Look at the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986, the 1989 Import Ban (enacted by Bush Sr.), and the Assault Weapons Ban. Tell me what compromise was made by the anti-gun side in any of those acts.




and with each advance in "hunting technology" (sorry, automatic rifles for squirrelhunting??Please!) and each theft of, illegal sale of or "accidental firing" of has chiseled our safety down just a little bit

The 2nd Amendment doesn't have a damned thing to do with hunting.



would that be around the time a "legal gun owner" shot at our president and permanently wounded Mr Brady?

And a crazed man who shot at our president with a revolver is related to a ban on legally owned machine guns how?




Yes, I think it was...in fact I think that ban is actually called the "Brady Bill"

The Brady Bill didn't ban anything. Try background checks.



Gun collector myself (stored at my firing range, safely locked away)....I hate to see bulletheads overstating the case

I collect guns too, but I keep them at home, within reach. Most are stored but I have a few loaded and ready in case I might need them in a hurry. Luckily, they sit idle, unless I bring them to the range.

Jay Zeno
05-10-2005, 08:32 PM
Actually, they intended for the average civilian to be able to arm himself (or herself) as well as the professional soldiers they might encounter if faced with an invasion by a foreign army or a confrontation with our own government's soldiers. In 1792, that meant the weapons you describe. Today, it would be M16's, M249 SAW's, MP5's, etc. And Hellfire missiles, Abrams tanks, and nuclear weapons, I guess.

Sorry. The logic doesn't appeal to me. Not that it matters.

Hef
05-10-2005, 08:37 PM
And Hellfire missiles, Abrams tanks, and nuclear weapons, I guess.

Sorry. The logic doesn't appeal to me. Not that it matters.

I guess you missed the part where I gave you the definition of "arms". All 3 abovementioned weapons would not be protected under the 2nd Amendment.

We don't have to agree. To each his own.

Jay Zeno
05-10-2005, 08:45 PM
I guess you missed the part where I gave you the definition of "arms". All 3 abovementioned weapons would not be protected under the 2nd Amendment. Why, no, I didn't, but then it seemed to evolve to matching what an invading army would have. So the Second Amendment applies to arms under a certain "I can carry" threshold, to match that which an invading army might have, but limited to well under what an invading army might have, and it doesn't have anything to do with the citizens carrying the limited arms being in a well-regulated militia.

I must've misread it, which, of course, is entirely possible.

discretedancer
05-11-2005, 04:50 AM
Firearms are protected under the Bill of Rights, those other items are not.
Personal property isn't constitutionally protected? Please.



Licensing does not in any way help in reducing the number of weapons which don't fit the Miller test. If you think it does, please explain how.
By making it harder for people to "hide" weapons. Making "law abiding" people think twice before sawing off a shotgun or converting a weapon totrue automatic.

True criminals will always have weapons, but when a large majority of crime is committed with weapons that are either used by their legal owners, or were at one time legally owned and registered (allowing cops at least a place to start looking for the criminal user) I think the argument for registering weapons is pretty strong.


Anti-gun people give up NOTHING when a new gun control measure is enacted.
Sure they do...when the measure extends the definition of "legal weapons" to include assault weapons (which people have fought to legalize), etc.


Every gun control measure enacted has been a compromise on the part of lawful anti-gun people to satisfy gun owners




The 2nd Amendment doesn't have a damned thing to do with hunting.
No, but that's an often used argument for allowing certain weapons. Frankly, not even "shooting at the range" applies..

the text A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
clearly states the MAIN PURPOSE of arms is a well regulated militia and that FOR THAT PURPOSE the right of the people shall not be infringed

Registration doesn't infringe that right, any more than requiring you to register your car prevents safe drivers. With even www.savetheguns.com listing the statistic that "About fifteen (15) children ages 0 to 19 are killed each month because of the mishandling of a loaded gun." it seems that proper registration AND TRAINING along with background checks should be required of all weapons.

The framers' understanding of weapons (consisting at the time of powder and ball muskets, not even imagining dozens-of-rounds-per-minute assault rifles) and their uses assumed a basic knowledge VIRTUALLY FROM BIRTH aboutguns and safety. Our current society doesn't. Times have changed.






Try background checks.which if we didn't register weapons would happen how? Thanks for strengthening my point.

discretedancer
05-11-2005, 09:22 AM
Is hannity the one whose phone number is *** 9-NO SPIN?

One of those nutcase radio guys (basically a NeoCon) has that number...its so ironic. All the guy does is spin!

Hef
05-11-2005, 07:13 PM
Personal property isn't constitutionally protected? Please.



Firearms are the only personal property specifically addressed by Constitutional Amendment, and for a reason. Other property is protected by the 4th Amendment.



By making it harder for people to "hide" weapons. Making "law abiding" people think twice before sawing off a shotgun or converting a weapon totrue automatic.

By definition, law-abiding people don't break the law.



True criminals will always have weapons, but when a large majority of crime is committed with weapons that are either used by their legal owners, or were at one time legally owned and registered (allowing cops at least a place to start looking for the criminal user) I think the argument for registering weapons is pretty strong.

Most crimes committed with firearms are committed by the 7th owner or later, and the weapons are almost always stolen (usually around the 4th owner). Registration would have little effect on crimes committed with firearms as it is practically impossible to trace ownership under such conditions. Theft ends the trail unless the weapon happens to show up somewhere else and is caught by law enforement.

I can provide ATF Trace Gun Reports to prove it of you like..




Sure they do...when the measure extends the definition of "legal weapons" to include assault weapons (which people have fought to legalize), etc.

Assault weapons (I hate that term, it's so made-up) have always been legal. I own several and plan to purchase more, and they were all bought during the AWB. And if you're wondering, assault weapons account for less than .01% of all violent firearms-related crimes in America. Not a single person was ever convicted under the AWB. So if it's so ineffective, why keep it?





No, but that's an often used argument for allowing certain weapons. Frankly, not even "shooting at the range" applies..

All weapons are allowed. An arguement must be made to disallow. Unless an individual proves themself unfit, they should be able to own any weapon they choose.



the text A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
clearly states the MAIN PURPOSE of arms is a well regulated militia and that FOR THAT PURPOSE the right of the people shall not be infringed

Correct. But that statement specifies a purpose, without exclusion. I do not need to be acting as a militiaman in order to exercise my 2nd Amendment right.



Registration doesn't infringe that right, any more than requiring you to register your car prevents safe drivers. With even www.savetheguns.com listing the statistic that "About fifteen (15) children ages 0 to 19 are killed each month because of the mishandling of a loaded gun." it seems that proper registration AND TRAINING along with background checks should be required of all weapons.

I'm not familiar with that website. Can you provide CDC or FBI data to support that statistic?



The framers' understanding of weapons (consisting at the time of powder and ball muskets, not even imagining dozens-of-rounds-per-minute assault rifles) and their uses assumed a basic knowledge VIRTUALLY FROM BIRTH aboutguns and safety. Our current society doesn't. Times have changed.

Applying your logic to our other rights, we could also say they could never imagine the internet, TV, or telephones, so the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to them.

Most firearms owners are very knowledgeable and cautious with their guns. Only a very small perecentage act improperly - statistically far less than automobile owners. Down South, firearms knowledge "from birth" as you put it is pretty commonplace. Funny, we don't really have the mass shootings like L.A. does, with all their gun restrictions. I wonder why.






which if we didn't register weapons would happen how? Thanks for strengthening my point.

Registration and background checks happen independently of each other. For example, I can buy any firearm I like in my state of SC (except for NFA Class 3/machine guns), and only have to show my driver's license while I wait for a NCIS approval from the FBI. It usually takes about 15 minutes. There is no registration. The ATF has a record of the transaction (de facto registration) on my form 4473, but by law it is supposed to be destroyed after 90 days. Now it seems the ATF and some other law enforcement agencies are illegally maintaining records longer than allowed. Chicago's CAGE unit is one fine example.

In other states, a license is required to purchase a firearm, and registration is mandatory (like CA). Some states choose to have "safety inspections" at the local PD when a new gun is purchased. Safety isn't the reason. The inspecting officer usually notes the make, model, caliber, and serial number of the weapon and hands it back to the owner. More registration.

Hef
05-12-2005, 11:50 AM
An interesting read from a Canadian perspective.

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpos...3f-0d83536dfe4c

Gun control myths just won't die

Lorne Gunter
National Post

May 9, 2005



I have never owned a firearm. Heck, I've never even held a real gun, much less fired one. Still, there are few federal programs that irk me more than Ottawa's gun registry.

It's not just the waste, although that's atrocious -- nearly $2-billion for a dysfunctional pile of uselessness.

And it's not just the uselessness. The registry is also one of those truisms for liberals, one of their articles of blind faith. To a liberal, universal registration of guns is something all intelligent people must support or, well, they're not intelligent. They use gun control as a litmus test for who is and isn't sophisticated and subtle of mind. So that even if you can prove the registry will have no practical effect -- it won't prevent armed robberies or murders, or keep enraged spouses from killing one another -- a liberal still has to cling to it for fear of being seen as NOKD (not our kind, dear).

But what troubles me most is what it says about its supporters' attitude toward the people and government. Backing most gun laws amounts to proclaiming trust in government over trust in one's fellow citizens.

This is especially true of Canada's gun registry. You really, really have to have faith in government, and be really, really suspicious of the gun owner down the block to continue to think our national registry will ever do any good.

Frankly, I'll take my law-abiding neighbours over politicians, bureaucrats, experts and advocates any day.

Believers in our registry like to say that since its inception in 1998 it has helped keep gun licences out of the hands of 13,000 people deemed unstable or too violent to possess guns. What they never boast about is that the registry doesn't even try to track the 131,000 convicted criminals in Canada who have been prohibited by the courts from owning guns.

Gee, who do you think is the greater risk?

Still, the fact that 13,000 Canadians -- about one-half of one per cent of applicants -- have been refused a licence in the past seven years might be meaningful if gun-controllers could then point to lowered murder rates, or show that firearms suicides have declined faster than suicides by other methods, or demonstrate a significant reduction in spousal homicides (most of the 13,000 denials have stemmed from complaints by one partner against another).

But despite these thousands of licence refusals, government ministers and special interest groups who favour the registry can't even point to a reduction in armed robberies.

The registry is not keeping the unfit from getting guns, just licences. And licences don't kill people, guns do. Keeping licences out of the hands of people who shouldn't have guns is meaningless.

James Roszko, the slayer of four Mounties in Alberta, had been banned from owning guns for the past five years. But paper gun controls were useless at keeping him from acquiring the weapons he used in his murders.

The only meaningful gun control is taking firearms away from criminals. And since crooks, drug dealers and murderers don't register their weapons, the registry is useless in this task.

Consider, too, (from the latest Statistics Canada homicide report), that 68% of firearms murders in Canada in 2003 were committed with handguns, and handguns have been subject to mandatory federal registration since 1934. Indeed, in the past 15 years, the percentage of total murders committed with handguns has doubled, despite their being tightly controlled.

That should tell you all you need to know about the worth of firearms registries.

Now the Library of Parliament has released a comparison of violent crime rates in the Northern Plains states versus Canada's Prairie provinces. The simple conclusion: Rates of gun ownership among law-abiding private citizens have no effect on crime.

Despite having nearly twice as many households with guns as their Canadian counterparts -- and similar economic, cultural and social demographics -- Minnesota, North Dakota, Montana and Idaho have lower crime rates than Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Researchers determined "both violent and property crime rates were two-thirds higher in the Canadian Prairie provinces than in the four border states."

Murder was 1.1 times higher; violent assaults and attempted murder, 1.5 times; robbery, 2.1 times; breaking and entering, 2.3; and vehicle theft, 3.2.

Harassing duck hunters, target shooters and gun collectors to register their firearms will have no effect on crime. But don't tell liberals. They take great comfort in their myths.