myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Gun Nuts
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 109, 110, 111 ... 162, 163, 164  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5579

PostPosted: Sun Nov 03, 2013 11:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The ad hominem on the right can't seem to figure out how to spell--or how to stay on topic. Let's return to the question of gun nuts, and what is is really about--making sure that gun manufacturers sell as many guns as possible without any pesky paperwork. That paperwork is favored by a vast majority of the country, in an effort to make it harder, if not impossible, for criminals and crazy people to get guns. In their triumphant whackiness, the gun nuts declare that unless it stops guns from getting in the hands of criminals completely, no restriction on liberty (i.e. gun sales) is possible.

One can only hope that Obama uses this obstruction, and the insane objection to any government program, in the 2014 elections. Here is a practical result.

Quote:
Washington -- The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is an agency under siege, a hostage of sorts in the long war over guns and their proper place in America's social fabric. It is the federal agency that National Rifle Association members and other gun enthusiasts love to hate.

The ATF, charged with keeping track of the nation's 300 million guns, has an annual budget of $1 billion, half that of the Drug Enforcement Administration and a pittance compared with the $8 billion showered on the FBI. In addition to firearms, the bureau investigates bombings, regulates the explosives industry and tries to halt illegal trafficking of alcohol and cigarettes.

As enforcement responsibilities grow and its funding stays static - the bureau's roster of agents has grown by just 38 in the past 12 years, to 2,388 - some jobs slip through the cracks.

The agency is incapable of inspecting a majority of the nation's 137,000 gun dealers and other licensees within a mandated five-year time frame, according to a Justice Department inspector general's report in April.

One result: From 2004 to 2011, the number of firearms considered lost or stolen increased 18 percent, to 174,679. Many of those are believed to have fallen into the hands of criminals.


The anti-government wing nuts in the Tea Party have no real comprehension of what government does, or perspective. Compare the 2,388 ATF agents nation-wide with the police force of San Francisco--1600 officers--and you see the problem. The right is fond of claiming that when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. They are even more fond of assuring that this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, weakening the ability of the ATF to actually track the illegal sales of guns. As long as the wing nuts pander to the NRA, guns will continue to flow into Oakland with virtually no restrictions--and kill both those in the gun and drug trade, and innocent bystanders. The empathy challenged right is capable of connecting their policies to the death of children.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
reinerehlers



Joined: 25 Jul 2001
Posts: 1106

PostPosted: Sun Nov 03, 2013 12:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac wrote:
The ad hominem on the right can't seem to figure out how to spell--or how to stay on topic. Let's return to the question of gun nuts, and what is is really about....


You were saying?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5579

PostPosted: Sun Nov 03, 2013 12:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RR catches a typo. There there, do you feel better? Substance and logic are welcome as well.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
reinerehlers



Joined: 25 Jul 2001
Posts: 1106

PostPosted: Sun Nov 03, 2013 12:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Feel better? Ya, it made ME laugh.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
feuser



Joined: 29 Oct 2002
Posts: 1398

PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2013 12:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/01/us/lax-gunfire/

The intelligence source said Ciancia's family became concerned in recent days after he sent his brother and father "angry, rambling" texts venting about the government, living in Los Angeles and his unhappiness generally.

I wonder what's it going to be like if every angry & paranoid grump decides to exercise their 2nd amendment rights like this dude. There certainly seems to be no shortage of them....

_________________
florian - ny22

http://www.windsurfing.kasail.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DanWeiss



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 1979
Location: Connecticut, USA

PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2013 3:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevenbard wrote:
I have never paid minimum wage. They make a choice to buy it or not. I will be paying some minimum wage if forced to buy it though. That is the sad reality.

Why is it the employers responsibility to pay for health coverage. He might as well be required to buy auto insurance for them. I do gladly have workers comp for everyone, (except myself). Shouldn't my bankers pay for my workers comp, since I'm really working for them?


You gladly have workers comp for them? That's rich. True, workers comp requirements removed the risk of getting injured on the job and then finding that your employer not only refuses to pay your medical expenses but has shut its doors or forced you to sue your own company with the blind hope that your paycheck will be there next payday. Part 1 of the law.

Workers comp is a godsend to the employer because it caps exposure for physical injury suffered on the job. Essentially, all an employer needs to do is pay the premiums, act reasonably and any injured employee is usually prevented from filing a lawsuit if they accept a dime under part 2 of the law.

Workers comp premiums cost you around $2.10 per hour worked. So, for getting an employee to agree not to sue for recovery of medical costs you pay less than $10 per day. That's quite a deal for a rolling waiver!

_________________
Support Your Sport. Join US Windsurfing!
www.USWindsurfing.org

www.konaone.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stevenbard



Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 4344

PostPosted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 11:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This video should shock anyone concerned about personal freedom. It really will render our weapons useless.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/ec7ee5f2-65ad-11e3-8451-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2nbgMSlvs

And with the NSA and Meta Data, they will be able to follow us, shoot us, disable us, or kill us with this thing or drone technology.

My point is that if the government were to get out of hand, there would be no George Washington to rescue us with these kinds of technologies.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 14629

PostPosted: Mon Dec 16, 2013 10:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevenbard wrote:
if the government were to get out of hand, there would be no George Washington to rescue us

I don't see any video at that intrusive website, but a FAR more likely risk to most of Obama's subjects is confiscation or part or all of our life's savings. Part, as in a significant one-time levy. All, as in mandatory confiscation of all savings at age 65 and replacement by a government annuity. As you all know by now, both are being discussed within the administration and by certain segments of the congress. Both Hillary and Obama have openly discussed this degree, arguably even one or both of these specific acts, of mandatory wealth redistribution, and IMO neither will balk at using anything from "The Chiiiilllldren" to war with Iran or North Korea as an excuse to pull the pin on one or both of those grenades.

As one lifelong global war historian puts it (don't expect me to debate these simplistic observations; I couldn't write a short chapter on world history off the top of my head):

<<<in Europe and Washington, our leaders are becoming more and more dictatorial, more fascist, more authoritarian because big Western socialist governments are dying and our leaders know it. So they are acting like caged animals and fighting back the only way they know how: By attacking their own citizens. This is how Rome died. This is how the Byzantine empire fell. It's how the maritime merchant-based Venetian times ended. And many other civilizations throughout history that have often been at the core of the global economy. They do not die by hyperinflation, as so many seem to think. They do not die by severe deflation either. Instead, they die by leaders turning against their own people to hunt down every penny of wealth they can find to tax and confiscate [and printing fiat money to manage war or other debt, as we've discussed here before] all in the name of saving the government.>>>

Certainly a drone up our butt is worse than watching a government take our nest egg, but the much higher likelihood of the latter makes it a bigger, maybe far bigger, risk.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pueno



Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2768

PostPosted: Mon Dec 16, 2013 10:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

isobars wrote:
All, as in mandatory confiscation of all savings at age 65 and replacement by a government annuity. As you all know by now, both are being discussed within the administration and by certain segments of the congress. Both Hillary and Obama have openly discussed this degree, arguably even one or both of these specific acts, of mandatory wealth redistribution, and IMO neither will balk at using anything from "The Chiiiilllldren" to war with Iran or North Korea as an excuse to pull the pin on one or both of those grenades.

It's interesting that in your diatribe against Obama (whadda surprise), you've completely overlooked that George W. Bush wanted to privatize social security -- that it, give it to banks to "invest" on our behalf.

What would have happened to those investments when he and Cheney trashed the economy in early '08, Mikey?

And, of course, Paul Ryan wants to turn Medicare into a "voucher program" -- that is, take our life-long payments to the government for senior health care and somehow turn those into profits for corporations.

You have a very narrow way of seeing the world, Mikey. The first hundred things on your list somehow involve Obama hate.

You're a funny guy. I really enjoy watching your angst and anger. Laughing Laughing Laughing
.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stevenbard



Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 4344

PostPosted: Wed Dec 18, 2013 12:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Since the stock market has doubled over the last 5 years, we'd all be collecting our Cadillac's and $100k annual pensions at 65 if Bush had had his way.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 109, 110, 111 ... 162, 163, 164  Next
Page 110 of 164

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group