Who are you voting for, for President?

[quiktaco]

So it looks as the the Democratic Judge through out the court case of Berg v Obama, saying it was frivolous, about a week ago.   

Is it just me, or is it really not all that frivolous to know that the one who is elected to be president is even a citizen or not.

That was the biggest lawsuit.  He said that he's appealing it up to the supreme court if that happens though.  He's a very prominent Democrat Attorney, and said he won't stop until it's proven or dis proven.  If he is, then he's fine with it, and will stop the pursuit.

[jserio]

i don't see what the big deal is. honestly. why can't obama offer up undisputable proof of his citizenship? if for no other reason than to just shut people up and unify the country?

[quiktaco]

i don't see what the big deal is. honestly. why can't obama offer up undisputable proof of his citizenship? if for no other reason than to just shut people up and unify the country?

Exactly.  What is there to hide.  I'd be a little more comfortable with him leading us, if I knew that he was a natural born citizen.

It will have to come out at some point, because too many people want to know...and it's the law also.  All of his records from school and everything are sealed.  It's suspected that he attended college on foreign aid, and that would prove he's not a citizen.  No information can be obtained about him.  His life is one big secret, except for the pieces that he tells about (which are or are not true...ei - Uncle in Auschwitz)

[quiktaco]

Per the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (a state agency that happens to detail the difference):

    In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.

The document that was submitted was either a real 'Certification of Live Birth' or a fake one.  Either way, it does not qualify as a real Birth Certificate that would hold up for anything.  I know I've had to show my birth certificate on multiple occasions.  Seems weird why he would keep it from people, unless there was something that he didn't want us to see.

[jserio]

we all have secrets. and i can understand the want/desire to keep his life as private as possible. but he should have thought about that before running for president. he should have known the media and everyone else would want to completely dissect every asspect of his life, both persoanal and political.

[quiktaco]

we all have secrets. and i can understand the want/desire to keep his life as private as possible. but he should have thought about that before running for president. he should have known the media and everyone else would want to completely dissect every asspect of his life, both persoanal and political.

Yep.

You'd think the government would have to check on all those technicalities.  Like the Birth Certificate, to verify age, Natural Born Citizen, and anything else that's required to be in the office.  Even if the guy is Uncle Sam himself, and is 250 years old, the government should look at the Birth records to verify he's born here, and that he's over 35.

[A Non eMouse]

but he was still a socialist

While Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich came from a political party called the "National Socialist German Workers' Party", they were Fascists, not Socialists.  Fascism sees the individual as less than and subservient to the state.  Socialism sees the individual as a small part of the collective people, which altogether ARE the state.  In a true Socialist society, there is no government because the people are themselves the government and the state itself and serve the needs of the People in order to serve the needs of the State.  In a Fascist society, the people to serve the needs of the government and the State in order to serve the needs of the people.  Socialism is People First, while Fascism is State First.

Fascism is Extreme Nationalism.  Socialism is Extreme Liberalism.

Communism is Socialism.  Fascism is opposed to communism and communism is opposed to fascism.  Fascism sees the struggle of nation and race as fundamental in society, in opposition to communism's perception of class struggle.  Marx was Socilism.  Mussolini was Fascism.  Fascism is Extreme Right.  Communism is Extreme Left.  Both are totalitarian, however, that is where the similarities end.

I'm really mad about the bail out.  It was a very extremely Socialistic thing that he and the liberal congress did.

The "Liberal Congress" voted NO the first time.  The second time, Half the Republicans voted Yes.  Then the Senate passed it.  70% of Republican and 78% of Democrat Senators voted Yes.  George W. Bush hailed the Senate's vote to pass the bill. 

So, who's to blame?  Everyone.  The Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate AND the Republican President.  They ALL wanted it.  (I think out of fear of what voting No would do to their careers if they were wrong).

I just don't get why America voted for someone who IS Socialist

Roosevelt??

I'm fine getting rid of Government run Social Security, Fannie Mea, Unions, public schools, welfare, unemployment...and tons of other things as well.  Federal Taxes are a necessary evil.  They pay for the defence department that keeps this nation free.  Unfortunately they also pay things like welfare, which keep the poor, poor.  Why do the rich have to fund everything?  Straight tax.  That's fair.  Static percent that varies based on need.  But it doesn't change for pay scale.  Everyone pays 20%, then the poor would be paying their fair share.  Why do they get to get by for free?  If they don't make much, then they don't pay much.  If you make 100k, then you pay 20k in taxes...that's a ton more than a poor person making 20k a year which only pays what, 4k.

Income tax is VERY socialist.  It's "Spreading the Wealth" around.  If you see Income Tax as necessary, then you see Socialism as necessary.  If you support "everyone paying" then you're a socialist.

Federal funding IS socialism.  Many Mid-western and Southern states would simply fold from lack of Federal help.  New Orleans and parts of Florida would never rebuild without Federal help.  Any major natural disaster would simply erase that city from the map without Federal funding.

If you really think about what our nation would look like without the Socialist programs of public schools, roads, Unions (aka the people that gave us the 5 day, 40 hour work week), and so on, you will realize first that the disparity between rich and poor would be worse.  Next, certain parts of the country would have the majority of their people living in 3rd World conditions without electricity, clean water, medical care, etc.

It's still not over...there's still something like 11 lawsuits that are still pending against his citizenship.  It's still not been proven that he is eligible.

He was born in the US...  He's over 35 years old...  He has a Social Security Number...  McCain conceded the victory to Obama...  He's qualified for the position and the Presidential Race is over.

If everyone was to focus all their frustration, hate, and anger at the problems currently drowning our country, we could be greater than we've ever been.  Our Dollar is weak.  Our economy is failing (or already failed).  We're hopelessly addicted to Middle-Eastern Crack (imported oil).  We're desperately trying to destroy our planet (more oil/coal + more garbage and waste + less nature).  We're promoting the degeneration of the moral fabric of our society (Paris Hilton).

We're so caught up in arguing about intentionally polarizing political topics that we're too blind to see they will never change.

1)  The government will NEVER take away our guns until the American people repeal the 2nd amendment...  And that will not happen in our lifetimes.  Guns are the 2nd most important thing to our country.  1st is Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech, Freedom to assemble...  2nd is GUNS.  No Democrat will take them away.  All the Clinton "bans" did was make gun dealers richer, 'cause they could charge more for AK47s.  Get over the Guns, they are going NOWHERE.

2)  Abortions are terrible.  Nobody is PRO abortion.  Abortions will NOT go away.  They've been a fact of life since before recorded history.  Ancient man would hit a woman in the belly with a rock, then leave her somewhere to either die or have a miscarriage.  When abortions are illegal, they don't stop happening, they simply become more deadly and dangerous.  Overturning Roe V Wade won't change anything. Even if it was overturned, women would continue to get abortions, and Roe V Wade would eventually be reinstated.

3)  The government will NEVER take away our religions until the American people repeal the 1st amendment.  And that will not happen in our lifetimes.  Religion is the 1st most important thing to our country.  That being said, the government should stay OUT of religion.  Having government in religion only serves to corrupt both.  That being said, religion should stay OUT of government.  Having religion in government only serves to corrupt both.

If you vote on these three issues, you are falling for the political smoke and mirrors.  These three things will NEVER change.  Nobody wants it.  Lefties rally against guns to rile up the base.  Righties rally against abortions to rile up the base.  Both sides rally FOR religion.  Both sides are outspokenly religious.


Next...  W. is not at fault for what happened to our country.  But, he and his administration are at fault for doing nothing to stop it (or too little or too late).  What president can be blamed for 9/11?  The administrations of Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush are ALL at fault.  Who can be blamed for our economic problems?  The administrations of Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush are ALL at fault.  What president can be blamed for the overreaching power of the Executive Branch?  The administrations of Johnson, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush are ALL at fault.  You know who else is to blame for all this?  Every Congressman and Senator...  And who else?  Every American Citizen that sat by and did nothing as these politicians screwed us all.  (Yes, I'm totally to blame).


So, let's stop fighting over stupid crap and give each other a hand up.  Let's stop trying to find new adversaries and pointing out our differences.  What we need now is Americans helping Americans.

[quiktaco]

1)  The government will NEVER take away our guns until the American people repeal the 2nd amendment...  And that will not happen in our lifetimes.  Guns are the 2nd most important thing to our country.  1st is Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech, Freedom to assemble...  2nd is GUNS.  No Democrat will take them away.  All the Clinton "bans" did was make gun dealers richer, 'cause they could charge more for AK47s.  Get over the Guns, they are going NOWHERE.

2)  Abortions are terrible.  Nobody is PRO abortion.  Abortions will NOT go away.  They've been a fact of life since before recorded history.  Ancient man would hit a woman in the belly with a rock, then leave her somewhere to either die or have a miscarriage.  When abortions are illegal, they don't stop happening, they simply become more deadly and dangerous.  Overturning Roe V Wade won't change anything. Even if it was overturned, women would continue to get abortions, and Roe V Wade would eventually be reinstated.

3)  The government will NEVER take away our religions until the American people repeal the 1st amendment.  And that will not happen in our lifetimes.  Religion is the 1st most important thing to our country.  That being said, the government should stay OUT of religion.  Having government in religion only serves to corrupt both.  That being said, religion should stay OUT of government.  Having religion in government only serves to corrupt both.

Wow, there's a lot there.  So I'll mostly respond to your 3 points.

Ok, I'll give you the Hitler thing.  Didn't know that, if what you say is true.  I'm not up on the details of his regime.

Yes, I agree that income tax and other taxes are Socialistic.  I'm not opposed to all socialistic things.  Like I said, it's these federal taxes that pay to defend our country.  They just go to too many other things that are crap as well.

You say with certainty that he was born in the US, but that's not proven.  His Grandmother in Kenya says he was born in Kenya.  He says he was born in one hospital in Hawaii, and his sister says a different Hospital.  The certification of birth doesn't fly.  You have to have a Certificate of birth...there is a difference.  You try to go on a cruise to Mexico or where ever with a certification of birth and they'll turn you away.  And even if he were born here.  When he lived in Indonesia, you had to be a citizen there to attend school at that time.  So that would mean he'd loose his US citizenship, so he could at most be a 'Naturalized Citizen' upon return, and going through the correct proceedings.

So onto your bulleton points.

1. The problem with this is that the Liberals, especially Obama and Biden are trying really hard to take them away.  Biden recently proposed a bill that would make anything over a 6 round gun illegal.  That means that only smaller revolvers would be legal.  Both also tried to do away with cheaper handguns.  They both want to make center firing ammo illegal, because they consider it 'armor piercing', which is incorrect.  They already brought down the amount of ammo to 10 rounds I think.  So that rules out larger clips.  Obama wants to impose a tax that is 300% higher than the current rate.  Say you buy a 500 dollar gun right now, you'd pay 55 dollars in tax.  With his plan, you'd pay over 300 dollars in tax.  They are trying to get rid of them by restrictions and taxation...making it too hard to optain and too expensive to buy.

2.  I disagree.  I believe that there are many people that are pro-abortion.  They have sex with whoever, and will just abort the pregnancy if they get pregnant.  It shows that it's ok for teens to have sex because there is no risk of a baby.  I agree that getting rid of them would make it more dangerous for a woman to have one, but is that any reason for allowing the killing of a child?

3.  Obama and Biden don't like the 1st amendment.  They are constantly trying to erode at it.  If anyone speaks ill of someone else, then he's all over that.  Them and the ACLU will be all over a teacher if they teach the 'theory' of Creation in school, but say nothing about the theory of evolution when it is taught.  This isn't a fair separation.  If one theory is out, then all theories are out.  If one is in, then all are in...so that means that Hinduism, Judaism, Muslim, and everything will have to be taught.  Not just the flawed and incorrect theory of evolution.

I agree that religion should stay out of government and vice versa, however, where do you draw the line.  The only reason why we all think murder is wrong is because of religion.  It's not because of our 'evolutionary instincts'.  The framework of this government was built on Christian morals and values.  I don't think it will ever, or could ever be totally separate.

These three issues need to be involved in the decision, because they very easily can change, and have changed over the passed decades.  Yes there are other issues that need to be considered, but these issues can not be ignored either.

[frankieG]

qt you do more frivolous posting than i have ever seen.   over and over and over and over...god give it a rest

[quiktaco]

qt you do more frivolous posting than i have ever seen.   over and over and over and over...god give it a rest

Frivolous posting is all relative Frankie.  It goes both ways.

[A Non eMouse]

So onto your bulleton points.

I'll reply the same.

1)  Democrats try to limit guns and ammo because they're rallying their base and they know there's NO WAY they can get rid of guns.  Americans don't want it.  If we did, we'd repeal the 2nd Amendment.  When Democrats propose a gun/ammo control, really look at it...  The ones that limit Armor Piercing Rounds make two groups of people happy, Liberals and Cops.  They also make two groups of people angry, Gun Nuts and Criminals.  No one needs Armor Piercing Rounds and if taking them away saves a few cop lives, then I'm OK with having a few pissed off Gun Nuts.

The other limitations are just flexing.  The Democrat base will say, "Yay!  My candidate tried really hard to get rid of guns" but it's BS.  The harsh limitations won't pass and the politicians know it.  On the rare occasion that they do, they won't stay.  Clinton's ban on AK47s was short lived and all it did was allow gun dealers to charge more for their AK47s.  If I were a gun dealer, I would totally support a temporary ban on something...  I would order thousands of the thing, wait a year, and then it for five times its original value.  The Democrats can't take away guns because the American people don't want it.  Suburban Moms and inner-city cops want it badly, but the rest of America doesn't.

Seriously, if we all just realized that guns won't go away until the 2nd Amendment is repealed, we could spend that wasted energy on something worthwhile.


2)  You're buying into the propaganda of the Pro-Life groups.  OK, there may be a rare few psychopaths that get a charge out of the thought of an abortion, but they are a terrible thing to go through.  No one LIKES it or is PRO abortion.  Like your opinion on Taxes, people see Legal Abortion as a necessary evil, because illegal abortion is so much more horrific and uncontrollable.  Legal abortions can be controlled; The terms can be set.  Late-term abortions (aka infanticide) can be kept illegal and prosecuted.  Early-term abortions can be safe and save the life of the mother and/or prevent a miserable life of a child.  I don't know the statistics on how many criminals were unwanted children, but I have to imagine it's high.

Again, if we could all agree that while abortions are terrible, legal ones are a necessary evil, we could move on and focus our energy on helping each other.


3)  The Evolution and Creationism battle is a specific one that I'm not prepared to fight on a motorcycle message board.  I don't want to spur a discussion, but I do have to point out, for correctness, that micro-evolution is not a theory.  While Macro-Evolution remains controversial, micro-evolution is an indisputable, observed fact that has been accepted by all but the most extreme "flat-world" type organizations.  And...  While I don't have kids or ever plan on having kids (so my opinion on schools matters little), I'm fine with everything being taught together.  Macro-Evolution as the scientific reason, Creationism (in its thousands of forms) as the various religious reasons.  I find the ancient religions to have the best stories...  Specifically, ones involving animals and lots of fighting between the various gods.

The first Amendment is the foundation of this country.  Anyone that's against it should be asked to leave.  Tipper Gore was against the 1st Amendment and while, in retrospect, I think G.W. Bush was the worst president of my life, I'm very happy that Tipper Gore was not allowed the potential influence of being the First Lady.  Anyone that wants to sensor books, music, or art is a totalitarian (of whatever political slant) and should not be allowed one tiny measure of power.  Our union is not so fragile that "offensive" art or words could tear it apart, therefore censorship, not art, should be treated as the Enemy of the State.  Keeping Government away from Religion and Religion away from Government is a brilliant plan for both Religion and Government.  Greed and Religion have been responsible for corrupting governments and government officials throughout time.


I totally can't agree that these things can change easily...  I don't see any of these three points changing at all.  (As far as religion being recently stripped from government, it's not taking away ANY religion.  People are just putting it back the way it was before the McCarthyism Red Scare where Atheism was equated with Communism.  Did you know it was a small Catholic Fraternity from New York that fought so hard to add "Under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1950s?)  The first Amendment will always protect Religion, but it also protects the lack of religion.  The first is freedom OF religion and it's freedom FROM religion.  It protects your religion from being made illegal and it protects you from having someone other religion forced on you (what happened with "Bloody" Mary I of England).  Marry Christmas isn't offensive and neither is Happy Holidays.  Halloween was once a Pagan holiday called Samhain (said like Souw-In).  Now X-Mas, Halloween, and every other holiday has been banned from schools.  Does that mean Birthdays have to go too?  Our schools will be Jehovah Witnesses?

Again...   If we could agree that freedom FROM religion is as important as freedom OF religion, we could all get over it and start to get along.

qt you do more frivolous posting than i have ever seen.   over and over and over and over...god give it a rest

That's your reply frankieG?  Why would you reply with nothing to say?  You're just name-calling.  I don't know you well, but you seem a like a "shower," or perhaps the French word for shower would work better.

[quiktaco]

First off, I'd like to say that I have a lot of respect for you eMouse.  You're one of the only people that have brought forward a good debate, with good backing.  You bring evidence, and statistics that can be checked out.  You don't attack or name call.  I just wanted to say thanks for having a civil debate, where we can discuss these types of issues.

1)  Democrats try to limit guns and ammo because they're rallying their base and they know there's NO WAY they can get rid of guns.  Americans don't want it.  If we did, we'd repeal the 2nd Amendment.  When Democrats propose a gun/ammo control, really look at it...  The ones that limit Armor Piercing Rounds make two groups of people happy, Liberals and Cops.  They also make two groups of people angry, Gun Nuts and Criminals.  No one needs Armor Piercing Rounds and if taking them away saves a few cop lives, then I'm OK with having a few pissed off Gun Nuts.

The other limitations are just flexing.  The Democrat base will say, "Yay!  My candidate tried really hard to get rid of guns" but it's BS.  The harsh limitations won't pass and the politicians know it.  On the rare occasion that they do, they won't stay.  Clinton's ban on AK47s was short lived and all it did was allow gun dealers to charge more for their AK47s.  If I were a gun dealer, I would totally support a temporary ban on something...  I would order thousands of the thing, wait a year, and then it for five times its original value.  The Democrats can't take away guns because the American people don't want it.  Suburban Moms and inner-city cops want it badly, but the rest of America doesn't.

Seriously, if we all just realized that guns won't go away until the 2nd Amendment is repealed, we could spend that wasted energy on something worthwhile.

I do see your point, and I agree that a lot of it is just to rally the base.  However, the things that pass don't always get repealed, and they shouldn't have been passed in the first place.  If you look at the limitations that have been placed on guns throughout, say, the last 50 years, the democrats have chipped away, very slowly, allowing less and less.  It doesn't seem like much, but it is over time.    Take the Clinton bad on 10 round magazines.  Or the ban on .50 caliber ammo.  These things don't seem like too much, or something that can't be gone around, but it just gets worse and worse.  The second amendment is specifically written to allow us to have a way to defend ourselves from a corrupt/bad government.  It's not there for hunting rights...if that were the case, then the 3rd amendment should have something to do with NASCAR or Volleyball.  Limiting clip size to 10 rounds, decreases the ability to defend against a government.  Limiting the kind of rounds, like the .50 caliber, does the same.  Obama wants to restrict the amount of rounds to 6 rounds.  Why couldn't he get this passed if Clinton got 10 passed.  That will severely limit the ability to defend from a government.  All restrictions should be lifted on guns.  The people that are allowed to have them, shouldn't be limited on what it can or can't do.  What needs to happen is cracking down on the people that aren't supposed to have them.  Also, the thing about armor piercing rounds...that limits defense too, but it's not just that.  They wanted to ban all center fire (pretty much all) ammo, because they claim it's that kind of ammo that is armor piercing.

In conclusion, the erosion of gun ownership is being degraded, and will eventually make so many restrictions and excessive price that they will be almost as if they were banned.

2)  You're buying into the propaganda of the Pro-Life groups.  OK, there may be a rare few psychopaths that get a charge out of the thought of an abortion, but they are a terrible thing to go through.  No one LIKES it or is PRO abortion.  Like your opinion on Taxes, people see Legal Abortion as a necessary evil, because illegal abortion is so much more horrific and uncontrollable.  Legal abortions can be controlled; The terms can be set.  Late-term abortions (aka infanticide) can be kept illegal and prosecuted.  Early-term abortions can be safe and save the life of the mother and/or prevent a miserable life of a child.  I don't know the statistics on how many criminals were unwanted children, but I have to imagine it's high.

Again, if we could all agree that while abortions are terrible, legal ones are a necessary evil, we could move on and focus our energy on helping each other.

The difference between us here, is that I see abortion as wrong, and you don't.  For you, it's about a safer way for the mom to do it, versus her doing it herself.  I see all abortions as wrong.  Early, or late term.

Maybe I'm speaking incorrectly; what I mean is that people know that they can just get an abortion if they get pregnant.  It may not be ideal, but there is a way to get away from that situation.  Therefor, it frees up the young girls to have sex.  People may not be 'pro-abortion', but they are sure glad it's there for when they get pregnant.

I don't think we can go anywhere on this issue, because you feel it's fine to do if the mom wants to.  I feel it's murder.

3)  The Evolution and Creationism battle is a specific one that I'm not prepared to fight on a motorcycle message board.  I don't want to spur a discussion, but I do have to point out, for correctness, that micro-evolution is not a theory.  While Macro-Evolution remains controversial, micro-evolution is an indisputable, observed fact that has been accepted by all but the most extreme "flat-world" type organizations.  And...  While I don't have kids or ever plan on having kids (so my opinion on schools matters little), I'm fine with everything being taught together.  Macro-Evolution as the scientific reason, Creationism (in its thousands of forms) as the various religious reasons.  I find the ancient religions to have the best stories...  Specifically, ones involving animals and lots of fighting between the various gods.

The first Amendment is the foundation of this country.  Anyone that's against it should be asked to leave.  Tipper Gore was against the 1st Amendment and while, in retrospect, I think G.W. Bush was the worst president of my life, I'm very happy that Tipper Gore was not allowed the potential influence of being the First Lady.  Anyone that wants to sensor books, music, or art is a totalitarian (of whatever political slant) and should not be allowed one tiny measure of power.  Our union is not so fragile that "offensive" art or words could tear it apart, therefore censorship, not art, should be treated as the Enemy of the State.  Keeping Government away from Religion and Religion away from Government is a brilliant plan for both Religion and Government.  Greed and Religion have been responsible for corrupting governments and government officials throughout time.

I don't know about 'micro-evolution' so I can't really comment, but I do know that viruses, and bacteria don't evolve.  There's no evidence of this, because microscopic organisms don't leave behind any remains to examine.  These organisms may mutate in a short amount of time, but they are not changing what they are.  They aren't growing appendages that will someday turn into wings.

There's a good book (a little monotonous, but informative) about the 'links' that are missing.  It explains a lot about the minuscule links that would have to occur, and occur in certain order for something to be able to change.  It's called 'Billions of Missing Links'.   The book also talks about the vast amount of things that have been discovered that Darwin didn't know.  Also, did you know that Darwin didn't even believe these theories?  You can't take what is put forward in evolutionist books (or school books for that matter) as the whole story.  Evolutionists, since there were evolutionists, have discounted more evidence that is against it, than they have included that support it.  They are fitting together this puzzle that they have in their heads, but they want it to look a different way than the picture on the box.

I totally can't agree that these things can change easily...  I don't see any of these three points changing at all.  (As far as religion being recently stripped from government, it's not taking away ANY religion.  People are just putting it back the way it was before the McCarthyism Red Scare where Atheism was equated with Communism.  Did you know it was a small Catholic Fraternity from New York that fought so hard to add "Under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1950s?)  The first Amendment will always protect Religion, but it also protects the lack of religion.  The first is freedom OF religion and it's freedom FROM religion.  It protects your religion from being made illegal and it protects you from having someone other religion forced on you (what happened with "Bloody" Mary I of England).  Marry Christmas isn't offensive and neither is Happy Holidays.  Halloween was once a Pagan holiday called Samhain (said like Souw-In).  Now X-Mas, Halloween, and every other holiday has been banned from schools.  Does that mean Birthdays have to go too?  Our schools will be Jehovah Witnesses?

Again...   If we could agree that freedom FROM religion is as important as freedom OF religion, we could all get over it and start to get along.

I do agree with you here.  It should be separated more.  However, the ACLU tries to go beyond that, and take it out of our personal lives as much as possible.  I know this is something that they'll never succeed at, but they do chisel away at it.

Like I said before, these issues can't be overlooked, because these things are our most important freedoms in this country.  If any of these were gone, or limited, then we would not have the freedom that this country was built for.

'Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency.'

[jserio]

i'd shop there. 

[A Non eMouse]

First off, I'd like to say that I have a lot of respect for you eMouse.  You're one of the only people that have brought forward a good debate, with good backing.  You bring evidence, and statistics that can be checked out.  You don't attack or name call.  I just wanted to say thanks for having a civil debate, where we can discuss these types of issues.

Hey thanks, you too.  But, I'm not above name calling...

I'm really not trying to argue or debate the points.  My views on Guns, God, and Abortion are unimportant.  I'm really trying to show that we're all being distracted by them.

In conclusion, the erosion of gun ownership is being degraded, and will eventually make so many restrictions and excessive price that they will be almost as if they were banned.

Like the limit of 10 0r 8 rounds.  The limit didn't make the 12 round clips illegal, it made selling NEW 12 round clips illegal.  The liberal moms and cops were happy and the gun owners had to pay more for a 12 round clip, which made gun shops unhappy.  But, the clips didn't go away.  Neither did the .50 Desert Eagle or its ammo.  The AK47 didn't go anywhere either...  And as soon as Clinton's gun law expired, it all went back to normal and nobody noticed anything.  These restrictions might make it harder to get a specific thing or make that thing more expensive, but first everyone is warned that the ban is coming and the thing doesn't become illegal to own, only illegal to buy a NEW one.  Gun shows and Nevada are the ways around every gun law there is, except for the waiting period.

One side wants NO GUNS AT ALL, but they will NEVER get it.  So, they ban this and restrict that, but nothing actually changes.  The other side wants NO RESTRICTIONS, except for restrictions on felons and non-citizens.  That ain't gonna happen either.  It's actually very similar to the way the Movie Ratings work.  There's a documentary called "This film is not yet rated" about it.  In the doc, the "Team America" Southpark guys talk about how they approach the ratings system.  They include a few things they're totally willing to cut out that are so vial that they KNOW the sensors will demand it be removed...  So, they remove it and everyone is happy.  The sensors feel like they've protected our fragile union from chaos and the movie is released the way the film maker wanted it.

Do you see what I mean?  The fight from both sides is silly.  There's this little line that gets pushed back and forth but does nothing.  I'm not saying people should stop fighting for the 2nd Amendment, I'm saying that both sides need to get over it and realize that guns are going NOWHERE unless we repeal the 2nd Amendment.

I don't think we can go anywhere on this issue, because you feel it's fine to do if the mom wants to.  I feel it's murder.

No, I don't think it's fine.  I think it's terrible.  The only thing worse would be if it was illegal, which it never will be.

This issue is the same...  Both sides know it's terrible and that it will NEVER stop (even if illegal), but one side won't admit it's terrible and the other side won't admit that the only thing worse would be if it were illegal.

I don't know about 'micro-evolution' so I can't really comment, but I do know that viruses, and bacteria don't evolve.  There's no evidence of this, because microscopic organisms don't leave behind any remains to examine.  These organisms may mutate in a short amount of time, but they are not changing what they are.  They aren't growing appendages that will someday turn into wings.

The "mutate in a short amount of time" you speak of is called "Micro-Evolution" or "Survival of the Fittest."  If something can't survive, it won't multiply.  An attribute that makes something more prone to survival will eventually flourish because the being possessing the attribute will readily multiply.  Micro-Evolution is observed and indisputable.  Viruses do evolve, it's been observed and it called micro-evolution.  Macro-Evolution is the theory that extends mirco-evolution to the point of species eventually changing into "something else" through extensive micro-evolutionary changes over millions of years.

One side is denying "evolution," but they refer to the theory of Macro-Evolution, while the other side thinks their insane because "evolution" is observable and proven, in "Micro-Evolution."  To deny micro-evolution is to deny all observable science, like gravity, the rotation of the solar system, and so on.  This is why people are so completely reactionary on this topic.

Did you know that the theory of Macro-Evolution is older than Christianity?  It is known to have been theorized in Ionia some 1000 years before Constantine commissioned the Bible.

However, the ACLU tries to go beyond that, and take it out of our personal lives as much as possible.  I know this is something that they'll never succeed at, but they do chisel away at it.

Like I said before, these issues can't be overlooked, because these things are our most important freedoms in this country.  If any of these were gone, or limited, then we would not have the freedom that this country was built for.

Anyone that attacks our personal freedom of religion should be asked to leave this country.  But, both sides of the religion argument need to admit that freedom FROM religion is just as important as freedom OF religion.  One can't be free to practice their own religion if someone else's religion is sanctioned by the government and forced on everyone.

I don't think we should "overlook" these issues, I think we should stop being distracted by them.  The 1st and 2nd Amendment aren't going away...

I don't want to change your mind on the topics, I just want everyone to take an extra minute to think about what they're arguing.  Both sides of these three topics are wasting tons of time, money, and energy fighting for things that American doesn't want to change.

- If Liberal Moms and Cops would stop trying to sneak away the 2nd Amendment, then Gun Nuts would stop showing up at school shootings to have pro-gun rallies (a disgusting habit).
- If everyone would finally admit that we all actually agree that, while horrible, abortion is only made more horrifying by making it illegal, then maybe the "God wants me to kill you" wack-jobs would stop committing murder "in the name of god."
- If everyone would finally agree that freedom OF religion can't happen unless we have freedom FROM religion, then we could all stop fighting about it.  Remove all religious stuff from government stuff (and vice versa) and stop being offended if someone says Marry Christmas or Happy Holidays.  The outspoken enemies of the USA are not Atheists.

[quiktaco]

I see, and totally agree with the point you are making. (Although I don't really agree with some of your views on subjects.)

On the other hand, you say that these things, will never go away, and that may be true, but these things have been restricted significantly in many ways.  Take Automatic guns for example.  If I were to defend my freedom from a corrupt government, that's the type of gun I'd want.  You can't get those anymore.

These things you say will never be taken away, ARE being taken away, and it's happening right before our eyes.  With a small ban here and a small tax there, that barely gets noticed, but adds up to the destruction of that freedom.

[quiktaco]

"My first priority will be to reinstate the assault weapons ban as soon as I take office. Within 90 days, we will go back after kitchen table dealers, and work to end the gun show and internet sales loopholes. In the first year, I intend to work with Congress on a national no carry law, 1 gun a month purchase limits, and bans on all semi-automatic guns."

--Barack Obama, VPC Fund Raiser, 2007


This is what I'm talking about.  If these things go through, and (against what liberals think) Obama does start to destroy this country, then there is no way for the country, as individuals, to stand up and defend ourselves against a takeover.

Not to mention, the Carry Concealed Weapons permit is a lot of what keeps criminals from mugging people on the street.  If the law abiding citizens have no defense, then it's free reign.

And this brings up your point about gun shows being a loop whole.

Ban on collapsible stocks and bayo lugs are already happening.

Rather than ban all handguns outright, they come at it from the flanks, making requirements (like child locks) that "sound" reasonable but would shut the industry down from a design standpoint, such as the 1911 platform in all it's variations.  One of the most popular personal defense weapons.

"I don't intend to take your guns away, I just intend to stop you from buying any more, or from carrying them." - Obama

These things are out there, and they are happening.  I'm not a gun-nut either.  I just want the right to have whatever gun I want.  I'm truly expecting these next few months to be the biggest gun buying time in history though.


Here's the A list, and the B list of what the Democrats are trying to ban.  If even half of these were passed, then the only guns left would be Single shot muskets.

A List*: AR's, AK's, collapsible stocks, compensators, flash suppressors, .410 pistols, semi shotguns, semi rifles, hi cap mags, calibers over .30, semi pistols over 7 shots, pistol grips, LE models, Home FFL Licenses, concealed carry pistols and revolvers, rails, detachable mag bolt action pistols and rifles, "high speed" (kinetic) loads such as .17 mag and 5-7, "high caliber" pistols and revolvers (44 mag, 50 Smith, .357 Sig, 45 Long Colt, .410, etc.), pistol grip pump shotguns, lever shotguns, thumbhole rifles, rifles with pistol grip fore-ends, pistol grip shotgun fore-ends, all shotguns over 4 rounds, all detachable mags, any firearm with a non-manual safety, any firearm without an integral "child lock", private gun sales without a 4473, gun show sales, internet sales...

B List: Bolt action high caliber rifles, derringers, revolvers over .38, revolvers over 6 shots, all semi-auto pistols, non-revolver concealed carry, over- .30 concealed carry, all rifles over 3 rounds,...



I'm going to be buying a 1911 in the next month or so.  Anyone have suggestions on which one they like the best? 

[A Non eMouse]

"My first priority will be to reinstate the assault weapons ban as soon as I take office. Within 90 days, we will go back after kitchen table dealers, and work to end the gun show and internet sales loopholes. In the first year, I intend to work with Congress on a national no carry law, 1 gun a month purchase limits, and bans on all semi-automatic guns."

--Barack Obama, VPC Fund Raiser, 2007

I really believe this is pandering to his base (Liberal Moms).  Even IF the assault ban is reinstated, it did nothing last time and it won't be different than when Clinton was around.  You could still get whatever assault rifle you wanted, you just had to pay a little more for it.  It maked the Liberals happy without taking away the rights of the Gun Nuts.  Now, if Obama REALLY tried to ban carrying and semi-autos, he would FAIL.  It's flexing and threatening to make the Liberals give him money.  He said he would "work with congress" to do it.  Well, you know what?  Congress MUST represent the PEOPLE, and the people don't want it.  It's like saying, "I will work with congress to give everyone in the country a new Ford."  It's total bull, 'cause if it's not worth it to The People, it will never happen. 

Politicians make statements generic and broad enough to give them plausible deniability.  They can say they tried and that's it's someone else's fault.  It's stupid pandering and we should all roll our eyes, sigh, and move on.  Any administration won't actually do most the things promised to the base.  The "Media" and "Congress" will be blamed, but that simply isn't true.  The American people didn't want it, so it didn't happen.  No one can be called a liar, nothing changes, and everyone is happy.

And...  I'm not saying we should stop fighting to save the Amendments, I'm saying we should all admit they're not going to change and move on.  Guns, God, and Abortions won't go away.  Lefties and Righties should meet in the middle and work together to fix the things that are really wrong.  The Right should remind the left that Guns and God are our rights, and admit that abortions are too.  The Left should remind the Right that Atheism and Abortions are our rights, and admit that God is too.  And, while we're at it, leave marriage laws where they should be, the States.  If Kentucky wants to ban same-sex marriage, so what.  If Vermont wants to allow it, so what.  It's not a national issue, it's a state issue.

We're all going to have to work together to kick our addiction to foreign oil.  We're all going to have to work together to fix our broken loan system and subsequently mangled economy.  We're all going to have to help each other to avoid The Great Depression II.  We're all going to have to work together to stop making pollution and global climate change worse.  We're all going to have to stop allowing our government to lie to us about bin Laden's escape and demand his capture, trial, and death.

A house divided can't stand.

[jserio]

plus 1...and i might add... The NRA are one of the, if not the biggest, 2nd ammendment lobbyist in this country.  guns won't leave. why? because the government would have to forcefully take them from us and at that point, you have civil war.  i don't see any body want to be head of this country only to run it straight to the ground over something that we have had as a basic right since our inception as a country. 

[bettingpython]

Quick If you only have one pistol and need it to be dead reliable and last for a long time get a springfield 1911 governmenent, steel frame not the alloy frame champions edition. Get the 5" barrel full size, the 4" commander barrels usually run good too but when you get into the 3 to 3.5 inch barrels you'll have running reliability issues. High quality spare mags you get what you pay for. My wilsons and chip mckormicks are $30 a pop for spare mags but even my wifes factory srpingfield and my factory taurus mags have not been as reliable as the spares I bought.

The price gouging has begun too, cheaper than dirt doubled the price of AR mags and ammo overnight. Watch prices closely.

Spikes tactical jumped the price of stripped lower AR receivers by $65 they went from $115 to $180 ea

We shoot quite a bit about 500 rounds a month between the 2 of us in the pistols. With the single AR were running about 200 rounds a month, working on two more lowers one for a 6.5 grendel build and one for a NFA tactical 10.5" barreled short barrel rifle, Ammo is going to start going up again.

I invested in a reloading set up been shooting roll your owns in the .45's $30 for a hundred on cheap brass cased CCI 230gr ball, that's .32 a round. Im reloading my .45 with 185gr jacketed HP for .12 a round plus a little of my time. Right now I'm paying $42 for a sack of 100 fiocchi relaodable .223. It's going to cost me another hundred to set up for rifle reloading plus supplies but then I am looking at about .08 a round reloaded cost on rifle ammo.

[A Non eMouse]

Take Automatic guns for example.  If I were to defend my freedom from a corrupt government, that's the type of gun I'd want.  You can't get those anymore.

I just found out you CAN get Automatic weapons, just not new ones.  The Automatic Weapon ban was enacted when Reagan was in office and bans the purchase of new automatic weapons or the transfer of automatic weapons registered after May 19, 1986.  I thought they were TOTALLY illegal, but they're not.  Crazy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act