PDA

View Full Version : What are you going to do? GDG



Paul Johnson
11-04-2008, 10:39 PM
What are you going to do when they come to take your guns?

BonMallari
11-04-2008, 10:45 PM
what guns ? I dont own any guns, I am a bowhunter, and the camo was used for paintball.Now the guy down the street has some automatic weapons....when i throw a bumper I yell BANG real loud

harvey8542
11-04-2008, 10:52 PM
This day I can honestly say I am disappointed with the country I love.I pray it works out but will not at all be surprised when this idiot runs this country into the dirt. Add to that now for the next couple years I have to listen to aassholes like Rev Jackson and Sharpton gloat makes me want to puke!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I will not call him my president.

luvmylabs23139
11-04-2008, 10:54 PM
Well it won't be local LEO's around here since they all hunt and believe in CCW for private citizens. Obama would have to send some federal person.

spaightlabs
11-04-2008, 10:56 PM
well Paul - no one has come to the house yet. I offer you my standard deal. For every day after BHO takes office that you still have your guns, you send me a dollar. I'll do the same for every day after he is office after they take your guns.

I believe that the correct term for what you are displaying is called histrionics. It is not appealing, so stop it.

achiro
11-04-2008, 10:57 PM
Well it won't be local LEO's around here since they all hunt and believe in CCW for private citizens. Obama would have to send some federal person.
Pay attention, its going to be the civilian paramilitary that he is putting together. ;-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXvLWB_NLKE&feature=related

Pete
11-04-2008, 11:00 PM
Well if that happens you'll see many of us on the 6 o clock news

Bud Bass
11-04-2008, 11:04 PM
What are you going to do when they come to take your guns?

NOBODY is going to take our guns, why do you people keep trying to spread fear rather then look at the positive. Bush is out!! Bud

Bud Bass
11-04-2008, 11:08 PM
well Paul - no one has come to the house yet. I offer you my standard deal. For every day after BHO takes office that you still have your guns, you send me a dollar. I'll do the same for every day after he is office after they take your guns.

I believe that the correct term for what you are displaying is called histrionics. It is not appealing, so stop it.


I'll see that bet and raise it a buck. Any takers, put your money where your mouth is. Bud

Scout
11-04-2008, 11:12 PM
Screw the guns, Raising taxes in a recession (we arent there yet but we will get there); is what turns recessions into depressions.

sportsman
11-04-2008, 11:23 PM
What are these people on that support Obama? They look like a bunch of crazed loonies with their buggy eyes and annoying grins on their faces. Does anyone know of any good countries to move to? I was thinking Mexico.

K.Bullock
11-04-2008, 11:24 PM
What are you going to do when they come to take your guns?

I guess it was fortuitous that martians came and snatched all of my guns for an interplanetary safari about 30 minutes ago. They said they would forgo the customary probe of I didn't file a police report. (phew) that was close.

Bruce MacPherson
11-04-2008, 11:25 PM
NOBODY is going to take our guns, why do you people keep trying to spread fear rather then look at the positive. Bush is out!! Bud

I have to ask, what did Bush do to you? How do you let one guy make you that unhappy? Now your guy gets elected and no one is supposed to feel the same way you apparently feel about Bush? It's our right as Americans to dislike whomever we want to, at least I think it is.

Mac

AmiableLabs
11-04-2008, 11:32 PM
What are you going to do when they come to take your guns?
Hyperbole.

If anything they will try and re-institute the ban on semi-autos that expired in 2004, and also ban .50 caliber rifles. They may also pass that ludicrous micro-stamping of ammunition and ballistic fingerprinting of guns. There is a good chance they will ban all use of lead in all types of ammunition. They may try and use the courts to roll-back concealed carry.

But quite frankly I don't see banning all guns anywhere on their immediate agenda. Look for a reintroduction of the so-called "fairness doctrine" but only against talk radio, mainstream media will be immune. And look for the elimination of secret ballots on union votes. These are on the short list.

Good-bye drilling in ANWAR and off the coast. Good-bye clean coal. Hello higher energy prices. Good-bye caps on punitive damages in spurious lawsuits. Hello higher insurance premiums the cost of which is passed onto the consumers. Good-bye checks and balances; Hello legislating from the bench.

I could go on, but I just don't see banning all guns on the short list.

AmiableLabs
11-04-2008, 11:37 PM
What are these people on that support Obama? They look like a bunch of crazed loonies with their buggy eyes and annoying grins on their faces. Does anyone know of any good countries to move to? I was thinking Mexico.
In the past, the U.S. with the Dems in charge was still vastly better than any other nation on God's green Earth.

I am trusting it will be the same the next two years.

Paul Johnson
11-05-2008, 12:09 AM
In the past, the U.S. with the Dems in charge was still vastly better than any other nation on God's green Earth.

I am trusting it will be the same the next two years.

Never in the past have we had a government with the legislative and executive branches controlled with people as far to the left as the one we have now. Under Carter, the legislative branch was controlled by the southern Democrats which were center or center right. For most of this nations history, the people have been center right, not far left. While I believe that your comments in the previous post were right on, you forgot to consider what will happen if Obama gets to appoint several of the Supreme Court Justices.

I feel sorry for my children and grand children because of the mess they will inherit. It will be impossible for the federal government to collect enough taxes to pay for Social Security, Medicare and the national debt, let alone all the new programs, even if you tax all corporations and the rich at 100%. The class warfare that Obama used to garner the youth vote, the minority vote and the soccer moms vote is absolutely ludicrous. The fact that people fell for it is a testament to their lack of knowledge about how this nation works. As for the university graduates that believe in the liberal ideals, they have been brain washed by professors that have a PhD'itis. This is a disease that people with graduate degrees get where they believe that because they are experts in one small area, they must be experts in everything (I spent my career doing cancer research at a university and managed to avoid catching PhD'itis).

Loren Crannell
11-05-2008, 01:16 AM
I feel sorry for my children and grand children because of the mess they will inherit.

I think the price tag to your children will be $700 billion + $$$ to AIG + $$$$$$$$ for Iraq war + $$$$$$ for Afghanistan. Oh..sorry, that's the financial bill that President Bush put us in.



Loren

Bud Bass
11-05-2008, 01:18 AM
What are these people on that support Obama? They look like a bunch of crazed loonies with their buggy eyes and annoying grins on their faces. Does anyone know of any good countries to move to? I was thinking Mexico.

Good bye, don't let the door hit you in the butt. Bud

Paul Johnson
11-05-2008, 01:35 AM
I think the price tag to your children will be $700 billion + $$$ to AIG + $$$$$$$$ for Iraq war + $$$$$$ for Afghanistan. Oh..sorry, that's the financial bill that President Bush put us in.

Loren

Do not forget the Social Security reform and the Medicare reform the Reid, Pelosi and company have continously blocked. Oh! I forgot, they are liberal Democrats!

PS If you think the debt is bad know you may want to educate yourself on what will happen when the Social Security and Medicare trust fund runs out of money. Oh! I forgot, these are things that the liberal democrats do not want you to know about. The fact is, it will take half the income of every working America just to pay the Social Security and Medicare obligations.

JDogger
11-05-2008, 01:35 AM
Pay attention, its going to be the civilian paramilitary that he is putting together. ;-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXvLWB_NLKE&feature=related

Like Switzerland...right...oh never mind, they're socialists.

JD

Loren Crannell
11-05-2008, 01:50 AM
Do not forget the Social Security reform and the Medicare reform the Reid, Pelosi and company have continously blocked. Oh! I forgot, they are liberal Democrats!

PS If you think the debt is bad know you may want to educate yourself on what will happen when the Social Security and Medicare trust fund runs out of money. Oh! I forgot, these are things that the liberal democrats do not want you to know about. The fact is, it will take half the income of every working America just to pay the Social Security and Medicare obligations.

The medicare and social security funds have just lost 20-35% of the value because of the issues from the issues that we are facing now.

I am not a liberal, and I agree that far left has made medicare reform difficult. BUT, the Republican stance has always been to go private and that isn't the answer either.

There are always two sides of the argument, and when the country can look at it from a moderate point of view both parties will be better.

I fully understand your point about medicare and social security, but those are CURRENT problems and not an Obama created issue. Maybe you don't agree with his proposed solution, and I am not crazy about it either, but it took a bipartisan government to get us to this point.

cotts135
11-05-2008, 05:06 AM
This day I can honestly say I am disappointed with the country I love.I pray it works out but will not at all be surprised when this idiot runs this country into the dirt. Add to that now for the next couple years I have to listen to aassholes like Rev Jackson and Sharpton gloat makes me want to puke!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I will not call him my president.

Disappointed in Democracy Harvey?
Speaking of running us into the dirt, I think the current president has done a great job at that.In fact it is because of where this country is today that the Republicans are now on the sidelines licking their wounds.

K.Bullock
11-05-2008, 06:30 AM
Disappointed in Democracy Harvey?
Speaking of running us into the dirt, I think the current president has done a great job at that.In fact it is because of where this country is today that the Republicans are now on the sidelines licking their wounds.

Not necessarily. If you recall McCain was in the lead until wall street fell 5000 points. It is surprising he was doing that well considering Bush's approval ratings. McCain is basically just one really unlucky duck.

For Obama it was a perfect storm of opportunity and the media did not hurt him much either.I am interested as all get as to what the republican strategy is going to be in 2010.

At any rate congrats to the Dems on your victory.Forgive me if I do not share in your enthusiasm. :)

The one neat thing to come out of this is that we lived to see an African American(partly anyway) elected President. I hope this helps to heal the racial divisions in this country.

cotts135
11-05-2008, 07:12 AM
Not necessarily. If you recall McCain was in the lead until wall street fell 5000 points. It is surprising he was doing that well considering Bush's approval ratings. McCain is basically just one really unlucky duck.
That's true but alot of that was from bounce he received from the Republican Convention. Gauging by the width and breadth of Obama's victory, my belief is that McCain still would have lost. If the Republicans had stood by their core beliefs of small government, being fiscally conservative, and the belief in the rule of law and not men then I think they would be alot happier today.

Sundown49 aka Otey B
11-05-2008, 07:13 AM
Just for the record.........everyone blames Bush for everything wrong with this country. How come no one hs brought up tht our Dem Congress has an approval rating 10 points LOWER than Bush but they re Great now......I call BS on that. Everyone talks about Stephens being investigated. One question WHY spend so much money to get elected for a job that pays what a Senator or Representative makes? How come any of them come out of Congress as multimillionaires without taking bribes? The whole dang bunch are CROOKS... If you just pick one of our congressmen and run an HONEST NON Partisan investigation and try them in a honest court.....Big Bubba would have a bunch of new roommates.. I am glad I am old becuse I probably will never see the destruction complete of the Country that is very close in the offing.....Dang shame.

K.Bullock
11-05-2008, 07:24 AM
That's true but alot of that was from bounce he received from the Republican Convention. Gauging by the width and breadth of Obama's victory, my belief is that McCain still would have lost. If the Republicans had stood by their core beliefs of small government, being fiscally conservative, and the belief in the rule of law and not men then I think they would be alot happier today.

Honestly I hope that is hat we return to. Playing to the middle left just isn't cutting it. I look for a resurgence of true conservatism in the coming years. Neo-cons be damned.

Bob Gutermuth
11-05-2008, 08:44 AM
They come for my guns I send them bullets.

I wonder if they have field trials in Argentina?

Steve
11-05-2008, 10:57 AM
[quote=lcrannell;355077]
There are always two sides of the argument, and when the country can look at it from a moderate point of view both parties will be better./quote]

There are two sides, right and wrong. There are two kinds of moderates, ones who have strong principles, but fall to the left or right depending on the issue. The other type of moderate has no principles and just goes with the flow.

precisionlabradors
11-05-2008, 11:03 AM
so nobody is a taker for the dollar for dollar thing? haha. i'll triple it.
________
Lolite vaporizer review (http://www.vaporshop.com)

achiro
11-05-2008, 11:06 AM
so nobody is a taker for the dollar for dollar thing? haha. i'll triple it.
No because as I said before, it's not the point. Amiable had a pretty good post on it, it won't be an all or none ban. It will start by increasing the price of ammo through taxes and legislation against the ammo manufacturers.
The only saving grace it seems is that the Repubs kept a filibuster proof number in the Senate. That will keep the dims a bit more to the center.

Bob Gutermuth
11-05-2008, 11:09 AM
Better increase your arsenals now, before the new laws are on the floor of the congress.

Steve Amrein
11-05-2008, 12:21 PM
The folks that really want to take your guns away have figured out different ways to do so. What will happen is just like they are trying to do to other sporting venues like off road vehicles and boating. They have figured out if they can take the fun out of it and make it as unpleasant and expensive that eventually it will become such a small group of enthusiasts left doing it than they end up getting their way. Boating just missed getting a huge fee (sin tax) just this year which to reach compliance would have all but done in boating as a recreation. Believe it or not Pelosi actually fought it when she found out what would happen to her state. Then they have added sound, emission and other safety stuff. Thus increasing Horsepower, speed and other evil things.

The problem is while I might not need or want a 120 MPH boat or a 50 cal semi auto some day I may and my chance might be gone or so expensive, restrictive and limited that its no longer attractive.

Paul Johnson
11-05-2008, 08:56 PM
The medicare and social security funds have just lost 20-35% of the value because of the issues from the issues that we are facing now.

Actually, the Medicare and Social Security trust fund moneys are not invested in the stock market. They are loaned, read Treasury Bonds, to the federal government. Since there is not any money in the trust fund, the government must borrow from other sources, read increase the deficit and debt, just to pay for the current retiree's. Just what do you think will happen when the baby boomers, like me, become eligible for Social Security and Medicare.

To make matters worse, money borrowed from the trust fund does not appear as part of the deficit or debt. This is the smoke and mirrors accounting that the federal government is allowed to engage in. If businesses used this practice, they would be guilty of fraud.

Hoosier
11-05-2008, 09:29 PM
so nobody is a taker for the dollar for dollar thing? haha. i'll triple it.

I'll bet you $1000 that in four years we will have much higher taxes on ammo and a ban on semi -auto weapons.

Hoosier
11-06-2008, 10:07 AM
chirp, chirp, chirp

precisionlabradors
11-06-2008, 10:23 AM
I'll bet you $1000 that in four years we will have much higher taxes on ammo and a ban on semi -auto weapons.

okay. let's get specific. i might actually make this bet. don't know if this breaks forum rules, but i'll do it.

is any increase in tax a win for you? is any regulation of semi-auto weapons a win for you?

or if there is not a ban on completely ALL semi auto weapons, is that a win for me?
________
Pre-Paid Legal Services Dicussion (http://www.insurance-forums.org/pre-paid-legal-services/)

Bob Gutermuth
11-06-2008, 10:54 AM
Heller was decided by a 5-4 court. If the new admin gets to appoint any justices to SCOTUS it will not take much to revisit this decision on some future case and overturn it. BHO voted against all of the justices who came before the Senate during his term. Biden voted no on all 5.

Brady Bunch Gloats Over Obama Victory: The strong Election Day showing for Democrats signals stronger support for “sensible gun laws” in this country and a “significant setback” for the National Rifle Association, a gun control group said Tuesday night. The Brady Campaign issued a statement even before Sen. Barack Obama was declared the winner, saying the political environment is better than it’s been in years for “progress on gun violence prevention.” …Brady Campaign officials said it appears that the June Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller may be starting to have an impact on political races - “with the gun lobby failing to convince law-abiding gun owners that an Obama-Biden Administration would infringe on anyone's basic Constitutional rights…”

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=38807 (http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=38807)
http://www.ohioccw.org/content/view/4106/53/ (http://www.ohioccw.org/content/view/4106/53/)
---

Hoosier
11-06-2008, 11:14 AM
okay. let's get specific. i might actually make this bet. don't know if this breaks forum rules, but i'll do it.

is any increase in tax a win for you? is any regulation of semi-auto weapons a win for you?

or if there is not a ban on completely ALL semi auto weapons, is that a win for me?

Well I would say my friends semi-auto rifle that he takes to the range or another friends 1911 pistol that they keep for home protection are just as important to them as my Banelli is to me so all semi auto weapons would be included. As far as the tax on ammo more then a 10% increase. I think that ultamatly the court he appoints will disarm us, but not sure he can get that done in 4 years. He will however whittle away at our gun rights in a signifagent way. If he is elected to a 2nd term we are shit outta luck.

brian breuer
11-06-2008, 11:24 AM
Heller was decided by a 5-4 court. If the new admin gets to appoint any justices to SCOTUS it will not take much to revisit this decision on some future case and overturn it.
[/FONT]http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=38807 (http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=38807)
http://www.ohioccw.org/content/view/4106/53/ (http://www.ohioccw.org/content/view/4106/53/)
---

From the reports I've seen, the conservative justices are expected to remain in place for at least the next 4 years. The ones expected to resign (3 are considered probable) are the ones on the left. Obama appointees would only retain the current balance.

So for at least the next 4 years I would not expect much change in course regarding the S.C.

Brian

Hoosier
11-06-2008, 11:43 AM
http://bulletin.aarp.org/states/hi/articles/supreme_courts_future_hinges_on_who_wins__race.htm l?CMP=KNC-360I-GOOGLE-BULL&HBX_OU=50&HBX_PK=supreme_court_justices

AmiableLabs
11-06-2008, 01:36 PM
From the reports I've seen, the conservative justices are expected to remain in place for at least the next 4 years. The ones expected to resign (3 are considered probable) are the ones on the left. Obama appointees would only retain the current balance.
Barring all unforeseen circumstances, you are correct.

The problem is the unforeseen circumstances. :?

precisionlabradors
11-06-2008, 04:18 PM
Well I would say my friends semi-auto rifle that he takes to the range or another friends 1911 pistol that they keep for home protection are just as important to them as my Banelli is to me so all semi auto weapons would be included. As far as the tax on ammo more then a 10% increase. I think that ultamatly the court he appoints will disarm us, but not sure he can get that done in 4 years. He will however whittle away at our gun rights in a signifagent way. If he is elected to a 2nd term we are shit outta luck.

okay, so the terms are if there is a less than 10% increase on tax now, I win.

And if there is any legal semi-auto weapon in 4 yrs, I win. Meaning, if I can own my semi auto 12 guage in 4 yrs I win.

What is the current ammo taxation?
________
DILAUDID OR DEMEROL (http://www.rehab-forum.com/dilaudid-rehab/)

Hoosier
11-06-2008, 07:00 PM
okay, so the terms are if there is a less than 10% increase on tax now, I win.

And if there is any legal semi-auto weapon in 4 yrs, I win. Meaning, if I can own my semi auto 12 guage in 4 yrs I win.

What is the current ammo taxation?

I'm fine with the tax part. But you changed my position on semi-auto weapons look at my post.

precisionlabradors
11-06-2008, 07:23 PM
I'll bet you $1000 that in four years we will have much higher taxes on ammo and a ban on semi -auto weapons.

this original post said that we will have a ban on semi-auto weapons.

so to me that means that if i can own any type of semi-auto weapon within 4 yrs I win.

also, the claim is that obama will increase ammo taxes 300% as per NRA website. so 10% really isn't much like you claimed. i want at least the 300% increase claim if i'm gonna make the bet.
________
Anal Cams (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/webcam/anal-sex/)

Patrick Johndrow
11-06-2008, 07:30 PM
This is a really good time to join the NRA if you arent already a member.

M Remington
11-06-2008, 08:26 PM
I have no problem with them taking assault weapons. They have no purpose other than to kill people.

Pete
11-06-2008, 08:35 PM
QUOTE Brady Bunch Gloats Over Obama Victory: The strong Election Day showing for Democrats signals stronger support for “sensible gun laws” in this country and a “significant setback” for the National Rifle Association, a gun control group said Tuesday night. UNQUOTE

This is the problem with that way of thinking
Lets say 50 years from now we are mostly a socialist country and a majority votes to form a new constitution. Should majority rule?.

We are not a democrocy but a Republic Is the word democrocy even mentioned in the constitution.

For the republic for which it stands One nation under God and all that ancient history stuff.

Pete

Hoosier
11-06-2008, 08:39 PM
this original post said that we will have a ban on semi-auto weapons.

so to me that means that if i can own any type of semi-auto weapon within 4 yrs I win.

also, the claim is that obama will increase ammo taxes 300% as per NRA website. so 10% really isn't much like you claimed. i want at least the 300% increase claim if i'm gonna make the bet.

You must think we are gonna loose a lot gun rights. The preconditions you use are major erosions of the what we currently have. You want to win if they ban every gun but yours. Other people enjoy shooting sports that ain't in your narrow view of what gun rights are. If they ban one guys rifle we all lost something. I think the point was made, and collecting from you would be a chore in itself.

precisionlabradors
11-06-2008, 08:56 PM
okay-let's re-define. if it is illegal to own ALL types of semi auto guns within 4 yrs you win.
if the current ammo tax is increased by 300% or more, you win.

if not, i win. i really will make this bet.
________
Oregon Medical Marijuana (http://oregon.dispensaries.org/)

Hoosier
11-06-2008, 10:57 PM
okay-let's re-define. if it is illegal to own ALL types of semi auto guns within 4 yrs you win.
if the current ammo tax is increased by 300% or more, you win.

if not, i win. i really will make this bet.

I haven't said 300%, but I'm sure it will be significant,and I'm sure enough that they will go after assault weapons (semi-auto) to bet on it.So lets do it. Four years starts when he's sworn in. By the way I didn't redefine anything. But you tacked on that 300% pork.

AmiableLabs
11-06-2008, 11:28 PM
I have no problem with them taking assault weapons. They have no purpose other than to kill people.
1) For competitive target-shooting, the military design background of some "assault weapons" makes them the most preferred of all firearms. The apex of the world of target shooting is the national target matches held every year Camp Perry, Ohio, under the supervision of the federal government's Civilian Marksmanship Program. In fact, the Colt AR-15 Sporter and its ancestors, loaded with 20 or 30 round magazines, have long been required weapons in some Civilian Marksmanship competitions. Most of the other politically incorrect rifles outlawed by the gun bans are usable in other Civilian Marksmanship events, and are highly prized competition target guns.

It is also worth noting that the development of these competitive target shooters from young ages, that become our military and law enforcement snipers, saving lives every day.

But I suppose if target shooters said "Go ahead and ban shotguns, I don't hunt;" Or, "Go ahead and outlaw the use of live birds in field trials, they don't need them," such logic would work for you like it works for them?

2) Regardless of whether you agree with it or not; Regardless of whether you like it or not, the genuine meaning of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was intended for the people to be able to protect themselves from the U.S. government in case it became tyrannical and attempts to take away the peoples' rights. It was not intended to protect hunters from having hunting rifles. The people are better armed with military style semi-autos than they are with hunting rifles and shotguns.

precisionlabradors
11-07-2008, 12:24 AM
I haven't said 300%, but I'm sure it will be significant,and I'm sure enough that they will go after assault weapons (semi-auto) to bet on it.So lets do it. Four years starts when he's sworn in. By the way I didn't redefine anything. But you tacked on that 300% pork.

i really am game for the bet. but i want to be sure what the terms are.

your original post was that there will be a ban on ALL semi-auto weapons, and that taxes will be MUCH higher. I tacked the 300% on from the NRA website.

In order to make the bet I want to know what percentage window we are talking on MUCH higher taxes on ammo. And the ban has to be on ALL semi-auto weapons.
________
Prilosec lawsuites (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/prilosec/)

AmiableLabs
11-07-2008, 12:45 AM
My take:

As I said before, I do NOT believe that gun control is on the front burner for the Democrats!

If anything comes down, it will not be within the first two years of The Chosen One's reign. And what do the Democrats seek the most --

1. Reinstituting the AW ban.
2. Micro-stamping ammo.
3. Ballistic fingerprinting of handguns.

Because of Pittman-Robertson, an increase on the tax on ammo is complicated beyond belief and therefore VERY unattractive, and I don't think it has any chance whatsoever, no matter how much The Chose One wants it. That is a foolish bet.

Buster Brown
11-07-2008, 06:15 AM
what guns ? I dont own any guns, I am a bowhunter, and the camo was used for paintball.Now the guy down the street has some automatic weapons....when i throw a bumper I yell BANG real loud


Me neither. I had a few guns once but I got rid of them. I sold them at the flea market...I guess I should have kept reciepts...but then I never expected Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden to take them away...Oh well...perhaps if you go down to the flea market you might find that person...I'm not really sure as I remember what they look lie nor did I get a name..they were middle height, middle weight..they were kind of effeminate also so I'm not sure if they were a gay man or a lesbian woman...no distinguishable features...gosh I really don't remember.....:-x

Buster Brown
11-07-2008, 06:17 AM
My take:

As I said before, I do NOT believe that gun control is on the front burner for the Democrats!

If anything comes down, it will not be within the first two years of The Chosen One's reign. And what do the Democrats seek the most --

1. Reinstituting the AW ban.
2. Micro-stamping ammo.
3. Ballistic fingerprinting of handguns.

Because of Pittman-Robertson, an increase on the tax on ammo is complicated beyond belief and therefore VERY unattractive, and I don't think it has any chance whatsoever, no matter how much The Chose One wants it. That is a foolish bet.

I'm not familiar with Pitman Robertson Act can you explain especially why it is so complicated?

Buster Brown
11-07-2008, 06:37 AM
1) For competitive target-shooting, the military design background of some "assault weapons" makes them the most preferred of all firearms. The apex of the world of target shooting is the national target matches held every year Camp Perry, Ohio, under the supervision of the federal government's Civilian Marksmanship Program. In fact, the Colt AR-15 Sporter and its ancestors, loaded with 20 or 30 round magazines, have long been required weapons in some Civilian Marksmanship competitions. Most of the other politically incorrect rifles outlawed by the gun bans are usable in other Civilian Marksmanship events, and are highly prized competition target guns.

It is also worth noting that the development of these competitive target shooters from young ages, that become our military and law enforcement snipers, saving lives every day.

But I suppose if target shooters said "Go ahead and ban shotguns, I don't hunt;" Or, "Go ahead and outlaw the use of live birds in field trials, they don't need them," such logic would work for you like it works for them?

2) Regardless of whether you agree with it or not; Regardless of whether you like it or not, the genuine meaning of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was intended for the people to be able to protect themselves from the U.S. government in case it became tyrannical and attempts to take away the peoples' rights. It was not intended to protect hunters from having hunting rifles. The people are better armed with military style semi-autos than they are with hunting rifles and shotguns.

Amiablelabs:

I think I agree with your logic..unless it was tongue in cheek.

Define assault weapon...I think there in lies the problem... wouldn't someone who has a ruger 10/22 semi auto .22 be an assault rifle...it's high capacity (10 shots and you can get 20 and 30 round clips), or how about a .22 with a tubular magazine, they hold up to 20 or more .22's...how a about a tubular mag Marlin 30-30...hmmm it holds more than 3 or 4 doesn't it....where do we stop...lets see...how about a semi-auto hand gun.....What about a semiauto shotgun....how about a Remington 870...hmmm....it holds 5 shots...is that an assault weapon....

I think this logic is not very well thought out. If you own guns you need to resist ANY ban on guns. Guns don't kill people. People kill people! I guarantee you if you take any gun that is functioning properly and load it place it on a table and if a person doesn't disturb it, the gun will not kill anyone by itself...come back a hundred years from now and the gun will still be sitting there. Perhaps we need to enforce the laws we have now and put stiffer penalties on crimes committed with any weapon...

I think a lot of folks want gun bans because they are not exposed to them and they are of the false thought that if you take everyones guns away gun crimes go away. They don't realize the fallicy in that logic. First off most crimes where a gun is used to committ a felony were obtained or used illegally. Do you think the 3rd time looser driveby gang member obtained that gun legally? Do you think that by making it illegal they would not obtain one anyway?

It's the second amendment to the constitution. Those guys who wrote it...I believe the really meant it...

Hoosier
11-07-2008, 07:53 AM
i really am game for the bet. but i want to be sure what the terms are.

your original post was that there will be a ban on ALL semi-auto weapons, and that taxes will be MUCH higher. I tacked the 300% on from the NRA website.

In order to make the bet I want to know what percentage window we are talking on MUCH higher taxes on ammo. And the ban has to be on ALL semi-auto weapons.

Read my original post if you see the word ALL in it I'll give you $1000 dollars right now. I don't think they will take all of em until his second term. I also gave you the 300% you came up with. Do we need to get lawyers involved to make a simple bet. Is it gonna be one of those " that depends on what the the meaning of the word is is" situations. I can see wanting actual % but come on you've been spouting off for a while how they are not gonna take our guns and when it comes time to put your money were your mouth is you want to it to take guns out of every gun cabinet in America be for you'll bet. What the hell is the difference between your semi-auto deer rifle and another guys assault rifle. they look different and it's somebody else.

precisionlabradors
11-07-2008, 10:18 AM
Read my original post if you see the word ALL in it I'll give you $1000 dollars right now. I don't think they will take all of em until his second term. I also gave you the 300% you came up with. Do we need to get lawyers involved to make a simple bet. Is it gonna be one of those " that depends on what the the meaning of the word is is" situations. I can see wanting actual % but come on you've been spouting off for a while how they are not gonna take our guns and when it comes time to put your money were your mouth is you want to it to take guns out of every gun cabinet in America be for you'll bet. What the hell is the difference between your semi-auto deer rifle and another guys assault rifle. they look different and it's somebody else.

thats funny about putting your money where your mouth is. i see it the exact same way. you original post said: I'll bet you $1000 that in four years we will have much higher taxes on ammo and a ban on semi -auto weapons.

i interpret that to mean that you think ALL semi-auto's will be illegal within 4 yrs. Again you are the one that said much higher taxes, so I am wondering what that means. Again, I'm more than willing to make the bet, but want clear terms. I thought you were saying that it will be illegal to own a semi auto gun of any type within 4 yrs and were saying that there will be a HUGE increase in taxes on ammo. 300% is what I've seen, so I was going with that figure.

Clearly: I will take your bet of :I'll bet you $1000 that in four years we will have much higher taxes on ammo and a ban on semi -auto weapons. if that means that ALL semi autos will be banned and there is a SIGNIFICANT (doesn't have to be 300%) increase in taxes.

If you think it is only about losing semi auto assault weapons, just say so and the bet will be moot. It's just that I get tired of hearing about how we won't be able to hunt due to BHO legislation. It's not true in my opinion, and I'm willing to bet a grand on it.

So, if you're interested, let's do it.
________
Volcano vaporizer (http://volcanovaporizer.net/)

Hoosier
11-07-2008, 10:35 AM
thats funny about putting your money where your mouth is. i see it the exact same way. you original post said: I'll bet you $1000 that in four years we will have much higher taxes on ammo and a ban on semi -auto weapons.

i interpret that to mean that you think ALL semi-auto's will be illegal within 4 yrs. Again you are the one that said much higher taxes, so I am wondering what that means. Again, I'm more than willing to make the bet, but want clear terms. I thought you were saying that it will be illegal to own a semi auto gun of any type within 4 yrs and were saying that there will be a HUGE increase in taxes on ammo. 300% is what I've seen, so I was going with that figure.

Clearly: I will take your bet of :I'll bet you $1000 that in four years we will have much higher taxes on ammo and a ban on semi -auto weapons. if that means that ALL semi autos will be banned and there is a SIGNIFICANT (doesn't have to be 300%) increase in taxes.

If you think it is only about losing semi auto assault weapons, just say so and the bet will be moot. It's just that I get tired of hearing about how we won't be able to hunt due to BHO legislation. It's not true in my opinion, and I'm willing to bet a grand on it.

So, if you're interested, let's do it.

I can't imagine doing any type of business with you. I gave you the 300%now you want to put your own interpretation on the rest of what I said and expand it to the absolute maximum in your favor. Then if I don't go for that it's me being the hypocrite. YOU HAVE BEEN SAYING THEY WON'T TAKE YOUR GUNS WELL HERE'S YOUR CHANCE TO BET THEY WON'T TAKE MY GUNS.

Comrade Fields

precisionlabradors
11-07-2008, 11:46 AM
then explain what you meant. if i feel like what you meant won't happen, i'll take your bet. it's not a matter of them "taking" my or your guns.

i'm betting on the legality.

come up with some terms for the bet and we'll make it. if not, let's drop it.
________
Jailbroken (http://jailbroken.org/)

AmiableLabs
11-07-2008, 11:57 AM
I'm not familiar with Pitman Robertson Act can you explain especially why it is so complicated?
P-R is not complicated. What is complicated is adding another excise tax on ammo when there already is one!

In 1937 sportsmen lobbied congress to create a 10% excise tax on guns and ammo to aid wildlife conservation. It passed and was known as the Pittman-Robertson Act, named after the two sponsors of the legislation (TRIVIA: the "Robertson" named was Rev. Pat Robertson's father). In 1970, the excise tax was expanded to include handguns and archery equipment. Since 1937, P-R has raised $4.4 billion for wildlife conservation.

So whenever you go buy a box of shells, or a brick of cartridges, you not only pay sales tax, you also pay an additional 10% excise tax into P-R.

Putting still another excise tax on ammo is on its face an absurd notion to most people and that is why it really has no hope of passing. The idea is usually raised by a Democrat congress-critter that doesn't know about P-R (hello Sen. Obama). There is also a "nuance." Democrat constituencies like animal rights and environmentalist groups, really do not want the attention brought to the fact that sportsmen voluntarily pay for wildlife conservation, that a debate over this legislation would bring.

Unless the Democrats win a longstanding super-majority indicating a mandate for more liberalism, I just don't see it happening.

Hoosier
11-07-2008, 02:35 PM
then explain what you meant. if i feel like what you meant won't happen, i'll take your bet. it's not a matter of them "taking" my or your guns.

i'm betting on the legality.

come up with some terms for the bet and we'll make it. if not, let's drop it.

Think I'll go argue with a bag full of hammers.