Political Discussion

[msm859]

Whether they do it through QE3 or Cap and Tax to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the result is ultimately the same. Energy and transportation costs go up through the roof, and everything becomes a lot more expensive.

Actually many economists would say we need more inflation. 5 months ago Krugman said the feds should be doing what they just announced. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/06/op...inflation.html
The real problem may be somewhere down the road if do not eventually deal with the 800 pound gorilla - the growing deficit - and we then end up with hyper inflation as the only way out.

[GoingDown]

For those that don't know what this (QE3) means you will know when gasoline reaches 5-6 dollars a gallon and you will have to beg for food since that too will be expensive.

This is money printing.

Whether they do it through QE3 or Cap and Tax to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the result is ultimately the same. Energy and transportation costs go up through the roof, and everything becomes a lot more expensive.

[chrisdfw]

Well to follow your statements to their logical conclusion then anyone should be able to have every weapon available in their personal arsenal - hand grenades, rocket launchers, nuclear weapons, fighter jets......where does it stop?

Arms, as understood would include those weapons which can be carried and fired by a person, in my opinion anyway, which would exclude nuclear weapons. Hand grenades, I am ok with regulating as explosives just like all other high explosives. To me it stops at weapons designed to be carried and employed by an individual. Explosives should be regulated, not banned as weapons, but regulated to keep someone from blowing up their neighborhood.

Sorry, I did not mean voted for, I meant advocated, he did when running for senate advocate eliminating the ability to carry all handguns..... except by law enforcement. He has publically called for reinstating bans on my weapons, on my magazines, and on my ability to carry my handgun to protect myself. That alone disqualifies him from getting my vote. Anyone who would deny me the right to carry my weapon to protect myself is putting my life at risk. I have used my handgun to protect myself and I believe I would have been killed or seriously injured had I not possessed it, which Obama would prefer.

[jacko]

Talk about insecurity.

[QUOTE=frogger;582882]Hmmmmmmmmm.... always wanted a fighter jet.

I'm not going to step in this steaming pile of bovine excrement, however I will say that in the town that I work in, there is most certainly a "need" for a firearm.

I'm going to do a drive by here and drop this off and run:

[b]I'm too old to run. That's why I carry a gun.

--- PEOPLE ASK WHY?

Why Carry a Gun?

My old grandpa said to me 'Son, there comes a time in every man's life when he stops bustin' knuckles and starts bustin' caps and
usually it's when he becomes too old to take an a$$ whoopin.'

I don't carry a gun to kill people.
I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

I don't carry a gun to scare people.
I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.

[msm859]

msm, the logic in saying that 10 rounds is ok, but 30 is not escapes me. Also, what gives you or me the right to determine what someone else "needs" in able to properly defend themselves?

If we limited people's protection to 6 rounds, then, what happens if there are 4 or 5 home invaders? What happens if the person defending themselves wants to fire a couple of warning shots? What happens if the assailants are prepared for a more lengthy engagement? What if the person defending themselves, their family, and their property is not an expert marksman and happens to miss a couple of times? They are supposed to surrender their lives because "we" decided they must be limited in their magazine capacity? If 30 is arbitrarily determined to be too many, and that people do not "need" this many, then, why is it determined that 6 or 10 is acceptable? My point is that arbitrarily determining what someone else may or may not "need" is part of the big problem, no one has the right to limit your god given ability to defend yourself and your family. Whenever I hear the phrase "There ought to be a law", I cringe, as the true need for additional laws and regulations arises quite infrequently in my opinion. Unfortunately, legislators feel they are elected to "do something" and that usually means create new legislation.

The logic is I have NEVER heard of any of your hypotheticals. I have heard of numerous times wherein the assault rifles/large clips have caused mayhem on too many innocent people.
However, I do not expect to change anyones mind like I said I realize for some this is a hot button. I have already spent more energy talking about it then I care -- because it really is a NON issue for me. I personally put it in the same category as gays and abortion. Stupid wedge issues to get a select group to vote against their more important economic interests to put a certain party in power. And that is my final word on "guns".

[AngelinaCatHub]

msm, the logic in saying that 10 rounds is ok, but 30 is not escapes me. Also, what gives you or me the right to determine what someone else "needs" in able to properly defend themselves?

If we limited people's protection to 6 rounds, then, what happens if there are 4 or 5 home invaders? What happens if the person defending themselves wants to fire a couple of warning shots? What happens if the assailants are prepared for a more lengthy engagement? What if the person defending themselves, their family, and their property is not an expert marksman and happens to miss a couple of times? They are supposed to surrender their lives because "we" decided they must be limited in their magazine capacity? If 30 is arbitrarily determined to be too many, and that people do not "need" this many, then, why is it determined that 6 or 10 is acceptable? My point is that arbitrarily determining what someone else may or may not "need" is part of the big problem, no one has the right to limit your god given ability to defend yourself and your family. Whenever I hear the phrase "There ought to be a law", I cringe, as the true need for additional laws and regulations arises quite infrequently in my opinion. Unfortunately, legislators feel they are elected to "do something" and that usually means create new legislation.

I agree with you 100%, but let's not be too hard on MSM. I believe he/she got the message. I too believe the best defense is "speak softly (look meek) but carry a big stick (have a weapon and know how to use it and hope you don't have to)".

[filed]

msm, the logic in saying that 10 rounds is ok, but 30 is not escapes me. Also, what gives you or me the right to determine what someone else "needs" in able to properly defend themselves?

If we limited people's protection to 6 rounds, then, what happens if there are 4 or 5 home invaders? What happens if the person defending themselves wants to fire a couple of warning shots? What happens if the assailants are prepared for a more lengthy engagement? What if the person defending themselves, their family, and their property is not an expert marksman and happens to miss a couple of times? They are supposed to surrender their lives because "we" decided they must be limited in their magazine capacity? If 30 is arbitrarily determined to be too many, and that people do not "need" this many, then, why is it determined that 6 or 10 is acceptable? My point is that arbitrarily determining what someone else may or may not "need" is part of the big problem, no one has the right to limit your god given ability to defend yourself and your family. Whenever I hear the phrase "There ought to be a law", I cringe, as the true need for additional laws and regulations arises quite infrequently in my opinion. Unfortunately, legislators feel they are elected to "do something" and that usually means create new legislation.

[AngelinaCatHub]

Interesting

Here I find a lot of answers to those who asked questions or remarked how well he did to improve our Country. (do I have to define who 'he' is?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-HqHSkYG-Y

[AngelinaCatHub]

I agree he spent money like a liberal and cut taxes without cutting the spending to go with it. Bush is only one building block in the slaughter house that America is becoming. It started with Nixon severing the dollar from gold. Once that happened they all spent up a storm and did it on borrowed money.

Only big inflation of the money supply will pay off the debt and that's exactly what they will do to pay it down.

Yes I agree. Inflation is a very insidious tax. It robs from the poor and pays stuff off for the rich. The Libs just cannot figure this out. Food Stamps et. al. are denominated into dollars and ergo purchase less. Mortgages paid off with less purchasing power of dollars. They just can't figure this out without explaining it like a grammar school teacher.

Now, a new horizon. QE3 the last shovel pat on the grave of our economy. Then, the confiscation of Gold, Silver, other wealth to back the Orange Money (scrip) when the green money no longer buys stuff. (And some ask why I will hold onto my gun?)

BTW I've been waiting on you to chime in. Where you been? 'Hub

[banca rotta]

I agree with you about Clinton signing the bill to end Glass Steagall, but in his defense it was a Republican bill and they in fact had a veto proof vote on it. I totally disagree with you about Bush. He in fact is the primary cause of the current economic state. The Bush tax cuts, 2 unnecessary and unpaid for wars and the big pharma drug give away. He also set the get away with anything environment starting when Enron raped and pillaged CA that he could have easily stopped with FERC - the banks then saw they could get away with anything - as they have. You are correct about concern with the dollar. The 800 pound gorilla is the looming deficit. We will at some point reach critical mass were perhaps the only answer will by hyper inflation.

I agree he spent money like a liberal and cut taxes without cutting the spending to go with it. Bush is only one building block in the slaughter house that America is becoming. It started with Nixon severing the dollar from gold. Once that happened they all spent up a storm and did it on borrowed money.

Only big inflation of the money supply will pay off the debt and that's exactly what they will do to pay it down.

[AngelinaCatHub]

Well like I said I don't profess to be an expert, but I thought "assault" rifle also had something to do with the ability to automatically fire x number of rounds.
As to 9-10 no special reason - 6 would be fine also. Whatever is "normal".
Why not 30 - because I have children and a grandchild and when there are more and more crazy attacks at schools, rallies and movies I would be in favor of depriving Every single person in this country the right to own an assault rifle or 30 round clip, that they do not "need" for any legitimate reason, if it would save 1 innocent life from these crazy events.

This is a nice post. I have to agree with you. This is the "real world". Frogger came up with a reason. Here is one more reason: In TX a Luby's restaurant was visited by a daughter and her elder parents. Luby's posted a no firearms sign. The lady had a carry permit but as the permit states she could not LEGALLY carry it in so she put her weapon into her car. In came a crazy and started to clear the floor with bullets and people. She survived but witnessed the murder of many people including her parents. Do I completely obey the rules? I'll leave that not answered. 'Hub

[AngelinaCatHub]

Well like I said I don't profess to be an expert, but I thought "assault" rifle also had something to do with the ability to automatically fire x number of rounds.
As to 9-10 no special reason - 6 would be fine also. Whatever is "normal".
Why not 30 - because I have children and a grandchild and when there are more and more crazy attacks at schools, rallies and movies I would be in favor of depriving Every single person in this country the right to own an assault rifle or 30 round clip, that they do not "need" for any legitimate reason, if it would save 1 innocent life from these crazy events.

Hi Msm859. I'm pleased we are still friends. LOL. An assault rifle is a loose term. For instance some where actually 22 squirrel guns with folding stocks made to look mean Any gun could be an assault gun. It is how you were to use it. For instance some shotguns could hold 50 20 gauge shells. Some only one. The AR15 is a civilian version of an M16 slandered issue to our military. The M16 can shoot automatic but not for long as the standard clip is 20 shots. It is more accurate to shoot semi-automatic, which means every time the trigger is pulled. The AR15 is the same gun but is built to be semi. It is only a 22 caliber called a 223 which has a very large kicker in back of the 22 slug.

Then there are pieces like a sniper rifle that is not on the list as assault, shoot only one bullet at a time (I'm no gun enthusiast as to all models) but may shoot up to a 50 caliber near two miles. I believe that one sniper got four enemies at 700 yards. Others may chime in and add the facts. Depending on the piece they can hold many different count of bullets. Usually it is better to have more than what you need than one less than you need. The M16 had two sizes, a 20 count and a 30 count. The 30 was troublesome as the spring was weak so the GI's would duct tape two 20's upside down together so they had 40 rounds and could fast change.

I understand that you have some fear in these, but if properly trained and see that they are only a tool, and there is a right and wrong way to use it, you would see that in your own family, and in our World today, it may be useful to have. Nobody (in their right mind) wants to murder another, but if you or worse your family is at threat, this tool is handy to have around. You don't wish to use a fire extinguisher, but it is handy to have around with a fire. So, do you see where some of us are? Not meaning Lib or Con, Rep or Dem. Just safe. 'Hub

[frogger]

Well to follow your statements to their logical conclusion then anyone should be able to have every weapon available in their personal arsenal - hand grenades, rocket launchers, nuclear weapons, fighter jets......where does it stop?

Hmmmmmmmmm.... always wanted a fighter jet.

I'm not going to step in this steaming pile of bovine excrement, however I will say that in the town that I work in, there is most certainly a "need" for a firearm.

I'm going to do a drive by here and drop this off and run:

I'm too old to run. That's why I carry a gun.

--- PEOPLE ASK WHY?

Why Carry a Gun?

My old grandpa said to me 'Son, there comes a time in every man's life when he stops bustin' knuckles and starts bustin' caps and
usually it's when he becomes too old to take an a$$ whoopin.'

I don't carry a gun to kill people.
I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

I don't carry a gun to scare people.
I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.

I don't carry a gun because I'm paranoid.
I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world..

I don't carry a gun because I'm evil.
I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.

I don't carry a gun because I hate the government.
I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.

I don't carry a gun because I'm angry.
I carry a gun so that I don't have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.

I don't carry a gun because I want to shoot someone.
I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.

I don't carry a gun because I'm a cowboy.
I carry a gun because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a cowboy.

I don't carry a gun to make me feel like a man.
I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.

I don't carry a gun because I feel inadequate.
I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate..

I don't carry a gun because I love it.
I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.

Police protection is an oxymoron.

Free citizens must protect themselves.

Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess.

Personally, I carry a gun because I'm too young to die and too old to take an a$$ whoopin'.....author unknown

[LadyInTheRed]

I realize that guns are a hot point issue for some people. I admit I don't understand it. I have never had a gun never felt like I needed one. I don't have any problem with someone wanting them for hunting or self defense. For those purposes you don't need assault rifles, automatic weapons and 30 round clips.

This is one point where I agree with people with whom I disagree on every other political issue.

Criminals will have assault rifles regardless of laws prohibiting them. Why should law abiding citizens be prevented from having the same weapons criminals have? I live in a city where there are definitely gangs and individual criminals with assault rifles and a police force that is much too small for a city of its size. Police officers have actually told citizens that they should be prepared to protect themselves because there is a good chance the police won't get to us quickly enough in an emergency. I believe we should have a right to fight fire with fire. I don't have any gun, but I have long been considering getting one and probably will eventually. My husband and I talk about a shot gun and a side arm and never an assault rifle. But, I want the right to decide what is necessary to arm myself against the criminals that may invade my home at any time or roam the neighborhoods stealing supplies from me and my neighbros after a major earthquake or other natural disaster.

I think the chances of having to defend myself against a tyranical government is tiny and my chances of succeeding are even smaller. But, things can change. Why erode our rights to prepare to defend ourselves from all possible foes, whether they be from local thugs, outside invaders or our own government? Once we let the rights go, it's much harder to get them back if we later discover they were more necessary than we thought.

[msm859]

Thanks for your reply. I believe the primary defining characteristics in that law were cosmetic. Flash suppressors, telescoping stocks, and the like. Basically, ban them because they look scary. As to 9-10 rounds, why is that number appropriate, and 30 is not?

Well like I said I don't profess to be an expert, but I thought "assault" rifle also had something to do with the ability to automatically fire x number of rounds.
As to 9-10 no special reason - 6 would be fine also. Whatever is "normal".
Why not 30 - because I have children and a grandchild and when there are more and more crazy attacks at schools, rallies and movies I would be in favor of depriving Every single person in this country the right to own an assault rifle or 30 round clip, that they do not "need" for any legitimate reason, if it would save 1 innocent life from these crazy events.