| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#112
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
#113
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#114
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#115
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#116
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Very Refreshing
|
|
#117
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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." |
|
#118
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Very Refreshing
|
|
#119
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Very Refreshing
|
|
#120
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Hal Turner pulls no punches! (most refreshing!) | General | |||
| ahh refreshing | ASA | |||
Linear Mode
