On 1/30/15 11:55 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 06:26:54 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/29/15 11:38 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
A democtratic politician who can rise above party ideology to do
what's right for the country:

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2015/01/29/mccaskill-issues-statement-the-keystone-pipeline-a-commonsense-approach/


Yup...the Koch Brothers bought her, too.

The way you folks throw the Koch brothers around you would think they
were the #1 bribers of politicians. In fact both Kochs put together
gave about 20% of what Bloomberg gave to federal candidates, parties,
political action committees, 527 organizations, and Carey committees.
Bloomberg is still a piker compares to Tom Steyer who gave about 3
times that and he is a major opponent to the pipeline. Steyer's money
is probably how you heard the pipeline was being built in the first
place. People act like this is the first oil pipeline ever built in
this country and it is some new, untested technology.
The real motive for pipeline opponents is the simple fact that they
hate the idea of burning fossil fuels and they have invented the other
issues to disguise that.
It is also ironic that Harry is so quick to get in line behind a
couple banksters like Steyer and Bloomberg.



Bloomberg isn't spending his money to promote voter suppression,
backwards, overly religious candidates, and regressive legislation as
the Kochs are.

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

On 1/30/15 12:52 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 12:01:19 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/30/15 11:55 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 06:26:54 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/29/15 11:38 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
A democtratic politician who can rise above party ideology to do
what's right for the country:

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2015/01/29/mccaskill-issues-statement-the-keystone-pipeline-a-commonsense-approach/


Yup...the Koch Brothers bought her, too.

The way you folks throw the Koch brothers around you would think they
were the #1 bribers of politicians. In fact both Kochs put together
gave about 20% of what Bloomberg gave to federal candidates, parties,
political action committees, 527 organizations, and Carey committees.
Bloomberg is still a piker compares to Tom Steyer who gave about 3
times that and he is a major opponent to the pipeline. Steyer's money
is probably how you heard the pipeline was being built in the first
place. People act like this is the first oil pipeline ever built in
this country and it is some new, untested technology.
The real motive for pipeline opponents is the simple fact that they
hate the idea of burning fossil fuels and they have invented the other
issues to disguise that.
It is also ironic that Harry is so quick to get in line behind a
couple banksters like Steyer and Bloomberg.



Bloomberg isn't spending his money to promote voter suppression,
backwards, overly religious candidates, and regressive legislation as
the Kochs are.

No, he wants to take your assault rifles away from you.


As I have stated here many times, I do not expect politicians and others
in the political arena, as Bloomberg still is, to agree with my
positions on every important issue. I support most of Bloomberg's
efforts to tighten up firearms laws on illegal possession, and on many
other issues, such as:

embryonic stem cell research
abortion rights
climate change
immigration



--
Proud to be a Liberal.

On 1/30/15 2:32 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 13:10:06 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/30/15 12:52 PM, wrote:

Bloomberg isn't spending his money to promote voter suppression,
backwards, overly religious candidates, and regressive legislation as
the Kochs are.

No, he wants to take your assault rifles away from you.

I support most of Bloomberg's
efforts to tighten up firearms laws on illegal possession,

One of them is eliminating civilian ownership of guns like your ARs.


So? If it came to pass, I'd do what was required. I'm a gun hobbyist,
not a crazed NRA gun nutsie.

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

On 1/30/15 11:32 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 14:55:59 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/30/15 2:32 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 13:10:06 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/30/15 12:52 PM, wrote:

Bloomberg isn't spending his money to promote voter suppression,
backwards, overly religious candidates, and regressive legislation as
the Kochs are.

No, he wants to take your assault rifles away from you.

I support most of Bloomberg's
efforts to tighten up firearms laws on illegal possession,

One of them is eliminating civilian ownership of guns like your ARs.


So? If it came to pass, I'd do what was required. I'm a gun hobbyist,
not a crazed NRA gun nutsie.

So you would just turn it in and take the $50 the government said was
just compensation?


I'm certainly *not* going to try to hold off federal or local law
enforcement agents...I'll leave that to Wayne, who said here he would in
order to retain possession of his firearms.

I'd rather give them up and then go to the beach. Firearms are a hobby
for me.

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 3:59:07 AM UTC-8, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/30/15 11:32 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 14:55:59 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/30/15 2:32 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 13:10:06 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/30/15 12:52 PM, wrote:

Bloomberg isn't spending his money to promote voter suppression,
backwards, overly religious candidates, and regressive legislation as
the Kochs are.

No, he wants to take your assault rifles away from you.

I support most of Bloomberg's
efforts to tighten up firearms laws on illegal possession,

One of them is eliminating civilian ownership of guns like your ARs.


So? If it came to pass, I'd do what was required. I'm a gun hobbyist,
not a crazed NRA gun nutsie.

So you would just turn it in and take the $50 the government said was
just compensation?


I'm certainly *not* going to try to hold off federal or local law
enforcement agents...I'll leave that to Wayne, who said here he would in
order to retain possession of his firearms.

I'd rather give them up and then go to the beach. Firearms are a hobby
for me.

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

I agree with Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government... The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed"
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

On 2/1/15 6:48 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 3:59:07 AM UTC-8, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/30/15 11:32 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 14:55:59 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/30/15 2:32 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 13:10:06 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/30/15 12:52 PM, wrote:

Bloomberg isn't spending his money to promote voter suppression,
backwards, overly religious candidates, and regressive legislation as
the Kochs are.

No, he wants to take your assault rifles away from you.

I support most of Bloomberg's
efforts to tighten up firearms laws on illegal possession,

One of them is eliminating civilian ownership of guns like your ARs.


So? If it came to pass, I'd do what was required. I'm a gun hobbyist,
not a crazed NRA gun nutsie.

So you would just turn it in and take the $50 the government said was
just compensation?


I'm certainly *not* going to try to hold off federal or local law
enforcement agents...I'll leave that to Wayne, who said here he would in
order to retain possession of his firearms.

I'd rather give them up and then go to the beach. Firearms are a hobby
for me.

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

I agree with Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government... The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed"
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)


Good. You and Wayne hold off the police/military forces as long as you
can while I enjoy the beach.

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 2/1/15 6:48 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 3:59:07 AM UTC-8, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/30/15 11:32 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 14:55:59 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/30/15 2:32 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 13:10:06 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/30/15 12:52 PM, wrote:

Bloomberg isn't spending his money to promote voter suppression,
backwards, overly religious candidates, and regressive legislation as
the Kochs are.

No, he wants to take your assault rifles away from you.

I support most of Bloomberg's
efforts to tighten up firearms laws on illegal possession,

One of them is eliminating civilian ownership of guns like your ARs.


So? If it came to pass, I'd do what was required. I'm a gun hobbyist,
not a crazed NRA gun nutsie.

So you would just turn it in and take the $50 the government said was
just compensation?


I'm certainly *not* going to try to hold off federal or local law
enforcement agents...I'll leave that to Wayne, who said here he would in
order to retain possession of his firearms.

I'd rather give them up and then go to the beach. Firearms are a hobby
for me.

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

I agree with Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and
bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in
Government... The constitutions of most of our States assert that all
power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to
be at all times armed"
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)


Good. You and Wayne hold off the police/military forces as long as you
can while I enjoy the beach.


Do not have to shoot the lower level people.

On 2/1/2015 6:48 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 3:59:07 AM UTC-8, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/30/15 11:32 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 14:55:59 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/30/15 2:32 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 13:10:06 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/30/15 12:52 PM, wrote:

Bloomberg isn't spending his money to promote voter suppression,
backwards, overly religious candidates, and regressive legislation as
the Kochs are.

No, he wants to take your assault rifles away from you.

I support most of Bloomberg's
efforts to tighten up firearms laws on illegal possession,

One of them is eliminating civilian ownership of guns like your ARs.


So? If it came to pass, I'd do what was required. I'm a gun hobbyist,
not a crazed NRA gun nutsie.

So you would just turn it in and take the $50 the government said was
just compensation?


I'm certainly *not* going to try to hold off federal or local law
enforcement agents...I'll leave that to Wayne, who said here he would in
order to retain possession of his firearms.

I'd rather give them up and then go to the beach. Firearms are a hobby
for me.

--
Proud to be a Liberal.



I agree with Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government... The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed"
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)


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.

On 2/1/15 7:15 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2015 6:48 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 3:59:07 AM UTC-8, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/30/15 11:32 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 14:55:59 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/30/15 2:32 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 13:10:06 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/30/15 12:52 PM, wrote:

Bloomberg isn't spending his money to promote voter suppression,
backwards, overly religious candidates, and regressive
legislation as
the Kochs are.

No, he wants to take your assault rifles away from you.

I support most of Bloomberg's
efforts to tighten up firearms laws on illegal possession,

One of them is eliminating civilian ownership of guns like your ARs.


So? If it came to pass, I'd do what was required. I'm a gun hobbyist,
not a crazed NRA gun nutsie.

So you would just turn it in and take the $50 the government said was
just compensation?


I'm certainly *not* going to try to hold off federal or local law
enforcement agents...I'll leave that to Wayne, who said here he would in
order to retain possession of his firearms.

I'd rather give them up and then go to the beach. Firearms are a hobby
for me.

--
Proud to be a Liberal.



I agree with Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and
bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny
in Government... The constitutions of most of our States assert that
all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and
duty to be at all times armed"
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)


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.





In most reasonably populated counties, the gun guys couldn't fend off
the sheriff's department.

Even in my "heavily gun controlled state," the Staties aren't interested
with my plan to build a semi-auto rifle in a caliber heavier than .223/5.56.


--
Proud to be a Liberal.

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..

Because it worked out so well for the South the last time southerners took
on the Union army.
--
Sent from my iPhone 6+