BoatBanter.com

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)
-   General (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/)
-   -   Very Refreshing (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/163200-very-refreshing.html)

Mucho Loco February 2nd 15 02:24 PM

Very Refreshing
 
On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 09:16:10 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/2/2015 8:58 AM, Mucho Loco wrote:
On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 08:41:30 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/2/2015 7:43 AM, Mucho Loco wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 23:22:03 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/1/2015 11:13 PM, Tim wrote:
On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 7:53:26 PM UTC-8, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2015 10:33 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 19:15:13 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Tim, that's a wonderful historical statement, true for it's time. It's
more of a tradition now though. I don't care how many guns are
privately owned, there's no way they could be used to fend off the US
military if our government somehow decided to become "tyrannical".
Heck, they can't agree on how many sugars to put in a coffee.


Considering the number of conservative southerners and westerners who
are actually the ones to join the military, why would you think they
would fight the citizens if the government became tyrannical?
You would be more likely to have a military coup.


I agree a few thousand guys in a compound somewhere will not stand
much of a chance but a million well armed guys could cause some
serious problems. Particularity if the military was less than
enthusiastic in quelling them.
Our military is yet to win a single "asymmetric" war even when they
were motivated to do it..


I think your hypotheticals originate in la-la land. By it's nature and
governmental structure it is impossible to even imagine a military
"coup" in the USA today and we aren't going to have another Civil War.


Richard, a coup is one thing, disarmament of the free citizen is another. an overthrow would be hard to pull off, and a disarmament would be even harder. I dont' think it would be that easy for US soldiers to willingly fire on US citizens. especially on such a basis. Few kids are gonna fire on people from their home town regardless of who wrote the orders.

Not really sure, but round where I live, If disarmament of the public came push and shove, I'd say things might get pretty bloody. On both sides.



Who's talking "disarmament"?

Personally (and no offense) I think the people shouting the most about
gun ownership to protect themselves against their government in the USA
have been drinking too much NRA juice.


Or listening to Bloomberg, et al.



I am talking about those who hang on the "necessary militia" stuff and
are fearful that the government will someday conspire and use the
military against it's citizens to justify *no* reasonable gun control
laws. Those concerns were true when written but not relevant today.
We have better ways to resolve differences and they've worked fine
so far. Most people can have any firearm they want (within reason)
for their sporting, competition or self defense reasons.


So Bloomberg, et al, are just ****in' in the wind?



What success has Bloomberg, et al, have to show for themselves? It
takes votes and they can't get any.


Look at the ridiculous laws in Maryland and your home state, for example. You think
Bloomberg, et al, had nothing to do with those?
--

Guns don't cause problems. The behavior
of certain gun owners causes problems.

Mr. Luddite February 2nd 15 02:28 PM

Very Refreshing
 
On 2/2/2015 9:24 AM, Mucho Loco wrote:
On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 09:16:10 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/2/2015 8:58 AM, Mucho Loco wrote:
On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 08:41:30 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/2/2015 7:43 AM, Mucho Loco wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 23:22:03 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/1/2015 11:13 PM, Tim wrote:
On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 7:53:26 PM UTC-8, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2015 10:33 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 19:15:13 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Tim, that's a wonderful historical statement, true for it's time. It's
more of a tradition now though. I don't care how many guns are
privately owned, there's no way they could be used to fend off the US
military if our government somehow decided to become "tyrannical".
Heck, they can't agree on how many sugars to put in a coffee.


Considering the number of conservative southerners and westerners who
are actually the ones to join the military, why would you think they
would fight the citizens if the government became tyrannical?
You would be more likely to have a military coup.


I agree a few thousand guys in a compound somewhere will not stand
much of a chance but a million well armed guys could cause some
serious problems. Particularity if the military was less than
enthusiastic in quelling them.
Our military is yet to win a single "asymmetric" war even when they
were motivated to do it..


I think your hypotheticals originate in la-la land. By it's nature and
governmental structure it is impossible to even imagine a military
"coup" in the USA today and we aren't going to have another Civil War.


Richard, a coup is one thing, disarmament of the free citizen is another. an overthrow would be hard to pull off, and a disarmament would be even harder. I dont' think it would be that easy for US soldiers to willingly fire on US citizens. especially on such a basis. Few kids are gonna fire on people from their home town regardless of who wrote the orders.

Not really sure, but round where I live, If disarmament of the public came push and shove, I'd say things might get pretty bloody. On both sides.



Who's talking "disarmament"?

Personally (and no offense) I think the people shouting the most about
gun ownership to protect themselves against their government in the USA
have been drinking too much NRA juice.


Or listening to Bloomberg, et al.



I am talking about those who hang on the "necessary militia" stuff and
are fearful that the government will someday conspire and use the
military against it's citizens to justify *no* reasonable gun control
laws. Those concerns were true when written but not relevant today.
We have better ways to resolve differences and they've worked fine
so far. Most people can have any firearm they want (within reason)
for their sporting, competition or self defense reasons.


So Bloomberg, et al, are just ****in' in the wind?



What success has Bloomberg, et al, have to show for themselves? It
takes votes and they can't get any.


Look at the ridiculous laws in Maryland and your home state, for example. You think
Bloomberg, et al, had nothing to do with those?



I have no problem with the gun control laws here or in Maryland (for
what I know about them). My only complaint here is the conflict between
the certification agency and the Attorney General. They need to be on
the same page.

I can understand why you feel the way you do. I've read the gun laws in
Virginia. Basically, there aren't any.



Mucho Loco February 2nd 15 02:51 PM

Very Refreshing
 
On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 09:28:56 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/2/2015 9:24 AM, Mucho Loco wrote:
On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 09:16:10 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/2/2015 8:58 AM, Mucho Loco wrote:
On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 08:41:30 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/2/2015 7:43 AM, Mucho Loco wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 23:22:03 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/1/2015 11:13 PM, Tim wrote:
On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 7:53:26 PM UTC-8, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2015 10:33 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 19:15:13 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Tim, that's a wonderful historical statement, true for it's time. It's
more of a tradition now though. I don't care how many guns are
privately owned, there's no way they could be used to fend off the US
military if our government somehow decided to become "tyrannical".
Heck, they can't agree on how many sugars to put in a coffee.


Considering the number of conservative southerners and westerners who
are actually the ones to join the military, why would you think they
would fight the citizens if the government became tyrannical?
You would be more likely to have a military coup.


I agree a few thousand guys in a compound somewhere will not stand
much of a chance but a million well armed guys could cause some
serious problems. Particularity if the military was less than
enthusiastic in quelling them.
Our military is yet to win a single "asymmetric" war even when they
were motivated to do it..


I think your hypotheticals originate in la-la land. By it's nature and
governmental structure it is impossible to even imagine a military
"coup" in the USA today and we aren't going to have another Civil War.


Richard, a coup is one thing, disarmament of the free citizen is another. an overthrow would be hard to pull off, and a disarmament would be even harder. I dont' think it would be that easy for US soldiers to willingly fire on US citizens. especially on such a basis. Few kids are gonna fire on people from their home town regardless of who wrote the orders.

Not really sure, but round where I live, If disarmament of the public came push and shove, I'd say things might get pretty bloody. On both sides.



Who's talking "disarmament"?

Personally (and no offense) I think the people shouting the most about
gun ownership to protect themselves against their government in the USA
have been drinking too much NRA juice.


Or listening to Bloomberg, et al.



I am talking about those who hang on the "necessary militia" stuff and
are fearful that the government will someday conspire and use the
military against it's citizens to justify *no* reasonable gun control
laws. Those concerns were true when written but not relevant today.
We have better ways to resolve differences and they've worked fine
so far. Most people can have any firearm they want (within reason)
for their sporting, competition or self defense reasons.


So Bloomberg, et al, are just ****in' in the wind?



What success has Bloomberg, et al, have to show for themselves? It
takes votes and they can't get any.


Look at the ridiculous laws in Maryland and your home state, for example. You think
Bloomberg, et al, had nothing to do with those?



I have no problem with the gun control laws here or in Maryland (for
what I know about them). My only complaint here is the conflict between
the certification agency and the Attorney General. They need to be on
the same page.

I can understand why you feel the way you do. I've read the gun laws in
Virginia. Basically, there aren't any.


Damn, I wonder why I've been paying the fees and completing the paperwork? Then
again, maybe Virginia is smart enough not to make a bunch of stupid laws a la
Maryland, Washington DC, Chicago, et al.

Besides, if what Harry says is true the hordes of folks coming from those places to
buy guns (out of trunks) is good for tourism.
--

Guns don't cause problems. The behavior
of certain gun owners causes problems.

Wayne.B February 2nd 15 03:25 PM

Very Refreshing
 
On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 07:07:28 -0500, wrote:

Isn't it amazing how easy it is to push Americans to vote for
Republicans against their own interests when the only thing the GOP has
to offer is fear and hate?


Yeah Fear of an over reaching government and hate of wasteful
spending.


===

Well said. Vast government over reach is what I'm seeing.

Keyser Söze February 2nd 15 04:33 PM

Very Refreshing
 
On 2/2/15 9:28 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/2/2015 9:24 AM, Mucho Loco wrote:
On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 09:16:10 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/2/2015 8:58 AM, Mucho Loco wrote:
On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 08:41:30 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/2/2015 7:43 AM, Mucho Loco wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 23:22:03 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/1/2015 11:13 PM, Tim wrote:
On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 7:53:26 PM UTC-8, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2015 10:33 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 19:15:13 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:


Tim, that's a wonderful historical statement, true for it's
time. It's
more of a tradition now though. I don't care how many guns are
privately owned, there's no way they could be used to fend
off the US
military if our government somehow decided to become
"tyrannical".
Heck, they can't agree on how many sugars to put in a coffee.


Considering the number of conservative southerners and
westerners who
are actually the ones to join the military, why would you
think they
would fight the citizens if the government became tyrannical?
You would be more likely to have a military coup.


I agree a few thousand guys in a compound somewhere will not
stand
much of a chance but a million well armed guys could cause some
serious problems. Particularity if the military was less than
enthusiastic in quelling them.
Our military is yet to win a single "asymmetric" war even when
they
were motivated to do it..


I think your hypotheticals originate in la-la land. By it's
nature and
governmental structure it is impossible to even imagine a military
"coup" in the USA today and we aren't going to have another
Civil War.


Richard, a coup is one thing, disarmament of the free citizen is
another. an overthrow would be hard to pull off, and a
disarmament would be even harder. I dont' think it would be
that easy for US soldiers to willingly fire on US citizens.
especially on such a basis. Few kids are gonna fire on people
from their home town regardless of who wrote the orders.

Not really sure, but round where I live, If disarmament of the
public came push and shove, I'd say things might get pretty
bloody. On both sides.



Who's talking "disarmament"?

Personally (and no offense) I think the people shouting the most
about
gun ownership to protect themselves against their government in
the USA
have been drinking too much NRA juice.


Or listening to Bloomberg, et al.



I am talking about those who hang on the "necessary militia" stuff and
are fearful that the government will someday conspire and use the
military against it's citizens to justify *no* reasonable gun control
laws. Those concerns were true when written but not relevant today.
We have better ways to resolve differences and they've worked fine
so far. Most people can have any firearm they want (within reason)
for their sporting, competition or self defense reasons.


So Bloomberg, et al, are just ****in' in the wind?



What success has Bloomberg, et al, have to show for themselves? It
takes votes and they can't get any.


Look at the ridiculous laws in Maryland and your home state, for
example. You think
Bloomberg, et al, had nothing to do with those?



I have no problem with the gun control laws here or in Maryland (for
what I know about them). My only complaint here is the conflict between
the certification agency and the Attorney General. They need to be on
the same page.

I can understand why you feel the way you do. I've read the gun laws in
Virginia. Basically, there aren't any.



I don't have any issues with the Maryland gun laws. I've never been
unable to buy any firearm I wanted, and usually for a handgun, I get the
"no reason not to approve" response from the state in three or four days.

The federal regs to get a tax stamp for a silencer are an entirely
different matter. I went the "trust" route and have two co-trustees, so
three different notaries were involved. Armed with the 15-page trust, I
went to my dealer and he collected the sales price for the silencer and
the $200 that goes to the feds for a stamp that took about four months
to get. During that period, the silencer sat in the dealer's safe. The
"trust" route, I have been told, is a bit faster than going through the
local sheriff and filing a different set of paperwork.

The process certainly helps me understand why some guys buy an adaptor
and screw on an oil filter as a suppressor. :)

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

Keyser Söze February 2nd 15 04:42 PM

Very Refreshing
 
On 2/2/15 11:39 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 08:41:30 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Most people can have any firearm they want (within reason)
for their sporting, competition or self defense reasons.


That depends on where you live. HCI/Brady is trying to get New Jersey
to enforce a law that would only allow ONE type of pistol to be sold
in the state. (Armatix IP1 .22rf) There are a number of democratic
lawmakers who agree. It is the only gun in current production that
comes close to meeting their criteria.


"Enforce"?

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

Justan Olphart February 2nd 15 04:43 PM

Very Refreshing
 
On 2/2/2015 9:28 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/2/2015 9:24 AM, Mucho Loco wrote:
On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 09:16:10 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/2/2015 8:58 AM, Mucho Loco wrote:
On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 08:41:30 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/2/2015 7:43 AM, Mucho Loco wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 23:22:03 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/1/2015 11:13 PM, Tim wrote:
On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 7:53:26 PM UTC-8, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2015 10:33 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 19:15:13 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:


Tim, that's a wonderful historical statement, true for it's
time. It's
more of a tradition now though. I don't care how many guns are
privately owned, there's no way they could be used to fend
off the US
military if our government somehow decided to become
"tyrannical".
Heck, they can't agree on how many sugars to put in a coffee.


Considering the number of conservative southerners and
westerners who
are actually the ones to join the military, why would you
think they
would fight the citizens if the government became tyrannical?
You would be more likely to have a military coup.


I agree a few thousand guys in a compound somewhere will not
stand
much of a chance but a million well armed guys could cause some
serious problems. Particularity if the military was less than
enthusiastic in quelling them.
Our military is yet to win a single "asymmetric" war even when
they
were motivated to do it..


I think your hypotheticals originate in la-la land. By it's
nature and
governmental structure it is impossible to even imagine a military
"coup" in the USA today and we aren't going to have another
Civil War.


Richard, a coup is one thing, disarmament of the free citizen is
another. an overthrow would be hard to pull off, and a
disarmament would be even harder. I dont' think it would be
that easy for US soldiers to willingly fire on US citizens.
especially on such a basis. Few kids are gonna fire on people
from their home town regardless of who wrote the orders.

Not really sure, but round where I live, If disarmament of the
public came push and shove, I'd say things might get pretty
bloody. On both sides.



Who's talking "disarmament"?

Personally (and no offense) I think the people shouting the most
about
gun ownership to protect themselves against their government in
the USA
have been drinking too much NRA juice.


Or listening to Bloomberg, et al.



I am talking about those who hang on the "necessary militia" stuff and
are fearful that the government will someday conspire and use the
military against it's citizens to justify *no* reasonable gun control
laws. Those concerns were true when written but not relevant today.
We have better ways to resolve differences and they've worked fine
so far. Most people can have any firearm they want (within reason)
for their sporting, competition or self defense reasons.


So Bloomberg, et al, are just ****in' in the wind?



What success has Bloomberg, et al, have to show for themselves? It
takes votes and they can't get any.


Look at the ridiculous laws in Maryland and your home state, for
example. You think
Bloomberg, et al, had nothing to do with those?



I have no problem with the gun control laws here or in Maryland (for
what I know about them). My only complaint here is the conflict between
the certification agency and the Attorney General. They need to be on
the same page.

I can understand why you feel the way you do. I've read the gun laws in
Virginia. Basically, there aren't any.


Do you think that conflict might be intentional?

Are home buyers out and about in your area this winter?

--

Respectfully submitted by Justan

Laugh of the day from Krause

"I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here.
I've been "born again" as a nice guy."



Keyser Söze February 2nd 15 04:45 PM

Very Refreshing
 
On 2/2/15 11:41 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 08:48:27 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:


I bought some longer pants so I can stuff a Mosin Nagant down one leg as
my "concealed carry" firearm. :)


Why not just put the M4 upper on your AR so it would go under your
trench coat.
... oh wait, you can't


Actually, I've been trying to decide whether I want to build a complete
..300 Blackout or just put together the upper that will fit onto my AR.
Or build a new rifle with complete "ambi" controls...but I also want a
side charging handle. None of these would present any problems with
Maryland.

Fully auto...great way to completely waste ammo.

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

Mr. Luddite February 2nd 15 05:01 PM

Very Refreshing
 
On 2/2/2015 11:39 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 08:41:30 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Most people can have any firearm they want (within reason)
for their sporting, competition or self defense reasons.


That depends on where you live. HCI/Brady is trying to get New Jersey
to enforce a law that would only allow ONE type of pistol to be sold
in the state. (Armatix IP1 .22rf) There are a number of democratic
lawmakers who agree. It is the only gun in current production that
comes close to meeting their criteria.



Key word is "trying". There are many people who would like to ban guns
altogether but it doesn't mean it's going to happen.

Again, my comment was related to the mantra repeated by many that the
right to bear arms is to prevent government tyranny. The founding
fathers had greedy Kings in their minds. I don't see that
happening today or in the future.

Fast forward a bit to the 1800's. When was the last time you strapped
a holster and gun around your waist to head into town for supplies?

Things change.

I see far more risk in home intruders and possible attacks by terrorist
cells in the USA. Those are reasons enough (besides hobby shooting,
collecting, competition, etc., to be armed.



Wayne.B February 2nd 15 05:42 PM

Very Refreshing
 
On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 11:48:55 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 10:25:20 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 07:07:28 -0500,
wrote:

Isn't it amazing how easy it is to push Americans to vote for
Republicans against their own interests when the only thing the GOP has
to offer is fear and hate?

Yeah Fear of an over reaching government and hate of wasteful
spending.


===

Well said. Vast government over reach is what I'm seeing.


Tried to build a pier huh?


===

No, I fought that battle 10 years ago and won but it took 6 months
when it should have taken 6 days. Frankly the Corps shouldn't have
been involved in that decision at all since the plans met all existing
regs and CC canals are not exactly federal water ways except in their
bloated bureaucratic mind.

Right now an organization that I belong to is trying to make some
relatively minor improvements to some land we own and the red tape,
stalling and delays are unbelievable. The Corps is once again
involved even though the land is many miles from anything that
resembles a waterway or anything else.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:57 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com