Gun Registration?

[zen leecher aka Bill W]

While I agree that INSIDE the gun show this is the case, its the backdoor and parking lot dealings that are the issue Zen.

E

How do you intend to legislate against private sales????? I have issues with you trying to come up with a SANE law on this. It ain't gonna happen and anyone who thinks they can solve this one is a looney.

I also think the sales you are talking about are already illegal and one more law that makes them more illegal isn't going to make a tinker's damn. Enforcement will.

Also, how many "gun shows" have you gone to? I bet I've been to more than you. They call for a background check to be able to buy any firearm. Go to one, list which one it is and where it was held, (as long as it's not in the trunk of someone's car in a back lot) and let us know what the requirements are to purchase a firearm. I think you'll find that WA State doesn't have any loopholes. If you find one, tell us where it is and what the loophole is, without generalizing. Otherwise...without details it's just rhetoric.

[Gisteppo]

So do we throw our hands up and just let the situation propagate, telling everyone "well, it's sure tough, so I guess we won't try anything at all..."?

By assigning the weapon's serial number to a person, and tracking that serial number when it changes hands (think registrations on your car), you create the necessary chain. I don't see a reason to stop private sales, I see a reason to give people pause as to whom they might be selling said weapon. This will reduce (not eliminate, reduce) the number of guns available to convicted felons.


E

[Gisteppo]

You are quick to edit your posts, so Ill separate the gun show items out.

It isn't the gun show sale, its the shadow deal. I have been to enough gun shows to know its less regulated than a standard gun dealer, but only by a small amount. Where the concern lies is the gentleman that says "hey, I don't have my paperwork here to buy, but here is my number, call me after the show and lets deal". Money talks to certain unscrupulous dealers, who will sell guns at a premium to a felon of 50% or more. If someone wants a gun badly enough, they will pay the extra dollars to incentivise a dealer who is willing to do it.

E

[swedefish4life1]

Will keep this simple pounding words on issues is great for policy and politics:cyclopsan does it really ever change lasting results and if you have roared and lived many sides to any ditch it becomes very simple on much of the above and kept me alive for many many years and many cupcakes have came to feed but the bottom line is this

((Keep the Risk Far above any of the Rewards)):cheers: and never fear to be a Punisher
If its yours to save from a mail box to a loved one.

Fear is real emotion Trust me and the taste of punishment done by a pro will last a lifetime not days.

Make it heard far and wide you tread in are local waters, lands for crimes, drugs and worse the Risk will never equal the Rewards:-$

Link with your neighbors as a support group as well, Watchers help then they call me

Or write a bunch of more words:cyclopsan
I always just liked and lets keep it simple for the slow learners which I am](*,)

((LETS DANCE))

[Anglinarcher]

.............................
By using that argument about not trusting the police, you fall into the same trap that any commie leftist does when they say all gun owners are bad. Be careful you don't set two standards with the same words.

E

But that is the point. The leftist commies and extreme socialist are what took the guns out of the hands of the British, and gave the criminals card blanche' to do whatever they want.

You want me to compromise, but they will not. I am tired of watching the left tear this Country apart. Stop criminals, prevent the Government from becoming like Hitler's Germany, and I'll compromise. Hitler started his reign so much like Obama is that is scares the ............... out of me.

People, hit those history books, and not just the modern revisionist history books.

[Anglinarcher]

So do we throw our hands up and just let the situation propagate, telling everyone "well, it's sure tough, so I guess we won't try anything at all..."?

By assigning the weapon's serial number to a person, and tracking that serial number when it changes hands (think registrations on your car), you create the necessary chain. I don't see a reason to stop private sales, I see a reason to give people pause as to whom they might be selling said weapon. This will reduce (not eliminate, reduce) the number of guns available to convicted felons.


E

Was this intended as an inside joke?

"Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply. Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed. Kinda like cars."

Better go back and read my article on British events. You did read it before, didn't you?

Guns will always be available to felons, but will they always be available to those who are not?

[Anglinarcher]

....................
I trust the majority of police that we are served by. In this thread everyone has made sure to make a distinction that its the few bad apples that own guns and use them harmfully that taint the whole of gun ownership. Using that same logic, I have to say that most police take their jobs seriously and do a good job of it. ...............

E

One last issue for today, I am impressed that you trust the majority of the police. I still do as well, and I know several.

But, I had an uncle that was with the sheriff office in another state, and he was as clean as distilled water, until he though he could get away with something.

The police are like politicians, they can be trusted only as long as they know that they are not above the law.

[Gisteppo]

Good gravy AA, are we a little stirred up today? You are being a bit more fervent than usual.

Did I read it, yes. Was that a double entente, yes. Though you would see where the Brits have taken it to a much further extent. The House of Commons has more argument and far less consensus than our beloved Congress. I believe that we would use registration in a different way, because of said gun lobbies.

The leftist commies and extreme socialist are what took the guns out of the hands of the British, and gave the criminals card blanche' to do whatever they want.

The government is made up of representation of the people. Their government did what the people asked. You might take a few minutes and look at gun crime statistics there as an interesting sidebar, as well as per-capita murder rates.

I am tired of watching the left tear this Country apart. Stop criminals, prevent the Government from becoming like Hitler's Germany, and I'll compromise. Hitler started his reign so much like Obama is that is scares the ............... out of me.

Please start a new thread on this hitler thing. I think this is asinine, and I want to know why you would say it.

Guns will always be available to felons, but will they always be available to those who are not?

There is a large gap between registration and availability legally.

But, I had an uncle that was with the sheriff office in another state, and he was as clean as distilled water, until he though he could get away with something.

So do we use this cynicism and discard what law enforcement is left in the country?

It feels good to say these things, but it doesn't propose a way to solve any issue. I personally can't stand bailing out AIG, as they are criminals, but saying that Obama is to blame (remember the first 700 billion came under Bush) or Bush is to blame (the rest of the package came under Obama), solves nothing.

E

[zen leecher aka Bill W]

You are quick to edit your posts, so Ill separate the gun show items out.

It isn't the gun show sale, its the shadow deal. I have been to enough gun shows to know its less regulated than a standard gun dealer, but only by a small amount. Where the concern lies is the gentleman that says "hey, I don't have my paperwork here to buy, but here is my number, call me after the show and lets deal". Money talks to certain unscrupulous dealers, who will sell guns at a premium to a felon of 50% or more. If someone wants a gun badly enough, they will pay the extra dollars to incentivise a dealer who is willing to do it.

E

I still haven't seen any facts cited about unregulated gun shows. Don't say I've been to enough. When and where.

I am a part time member of the WAC ones held at Puyallup and Monroe. The hard and fast rules are "no sales to anyone who's not a member". To be a member one has to pass a background check or hold a CWP (which also requires a background check). Members are NOT ALLOWED to make sales out side the gun show area. If they do...they get booted out of WAC and that removes lots of potential clients. My membership is not current for this year.

[Anglinarcher]

Good gravy AA, are we a little stirred up today? You are being a bit more fervent than usual.

Did I read it, yes. Was that a double entente, yes. Though you would see where the Brits have taken it to a much further extent. The House of Commons has more argument and far less consensus than our beloved Congress. I believe that we would use registration in a different way, because of said gun lobbies.

The leftist commies and extreme socialist are what took the guns out of the hands of the British, and gave the criminals card blanche' to do whatever they want.

The government is made up of representation of the people. Their government did what the people asked. You might take a few minutes and look at gun crime statistics there as an interesting sidebar, as well as per-capita murder rates.

I am tired of watching the left tear this Country apart. Stop criminals, prevent the Government from becoming like Hitler's Germany, and I'll compromise. Hitler started his reign so much like Obama is that is scares the ............... out of me.

Please start a new thread on this hitler thing. I think this is asinine, and I want to know why you would say it.

Guns will always be available to felons, but will they always be available to those who are not?

There is a large gap between registration and availability legally.

But, I had an uncle that was with the sheriff office in another state, and he was as clean as distilled water, until he though he could get away with something.

So do we use this cynicism and discard what law enforcement is left in the country?

It feels good to say these things, but it doesn't propose a way to solve any issue. I personally can't stand bailing out AIG, as they are criminals, but saying that Obama is to blame (remember the first 700 billion came under Bush) or Bush is to blame (the rest of the package came under Obama), solves nothing.

E

Yes, I was/am stirred up more the normal. This topic gets under my skin. Per Marc's request, I will try to tone back, but not tone out.

I hope that your analysis of our Legislative branch is correct, but I fear that the lack of argument you discussed, and the control of the legislative and presidential branches by one party, is the mechanism for expediting the gun control change, not the method of inhibiting it. It could easily out race any and all lobbyist efforts we have. Isn't it strange to expect lobbyist to be the moderating factor in US politics?

I have seen the statics given by both sides on the number of gun crimes in most 1st world countries. One thing I learned in college is that statics can be made to say anything you want, just by excluding "extraneous data" the research sees fit to exclude. So, when the proponents say one thing, and the opponents say another, which do you believe? I chose to consider each suspect.

If you think the "Hitler thing" is "asinine", then I propose that you have not studied history sufficiently to have an objective attitude. Hitler's Nazi party bragged in their media about how safe there country would be after they banned and confiscated the weapons of the people. Pretty safe in the end, wouldn't you think - especially for the Jews?

I agree, "There is a large gap between registration and availability legally". What we don't agree about is how fast the gap can close. I see a freight train speeding down the tracks, and I advise we either stop it or get out of the way - the gap is closing fast.

"...Do we use this cynicism and discard what law enforcement is left in the country?" No, we support law enforcement, but we don't become too dependent or trusting of it. The communist of Russia and the Nazis of Germany gave away personal responsibility and self protection for the promise of safety, and in turn, they gave up freedom. Always look upon authority with a skeptical eye, but support authority when it truly is performing for the public good.

And finally, we agree regarding AIG, Bush, and Obama. In this case, probably more so about Bush and Obama. Both are, in my humble opinion, fools regarding the bail out. Economist are divided, but even economist following the great depression indicated the "new deal" slowed the recovery of the US economy. I am in the minority regarding this issue, but I am in a growing minority. The elections of 2010 could be very interesting. I personally intend to speak out, and be heard, and perhaps, in some small way, my voice will cause others to review their knowledge and beliefs so that their vote in 2010 will be more educated.

__ PS, I hope this is "toned down" sufficiently. I would fee bad if the thread was locked on my account.

[Gisteppo]

Members are NOT ALLOWED to make sales out side the gun show area. If they do...they get booted out of WAC and that removes lots of potential clients.

We agree completely on this. WAC is not a law enforcement agency, thus the only sway it holds is to disallow the seller to come into the next sanctioned show. There is still no legal tracking of said sellers by LEO's.

The gun shows I went to were when I lived in Oregon a decade ago, with family. Portland, Bend, Salem around 1994-1999.

E

[Gisteppo]

I thought it was interesting you were becoming as emotionally involved as you were, somewhat contrary to how I've come to know you on here. While I can appreciate the idea behind Marc's request, you can throw anything you want at me anytime, Id like to think my shoulders are big enough to handle it.

I hope that your analysis of our Legislative branch is correct, but I fear that the lack of argument you discussed, and the control of the legislative and presidential branches by one party, is the mechanism for expediting the gun control change, not the method of inhibiting it. It could easily out race any and all lobbyist efforts we have. Isn't it strange to expect lobbyist to be the moderating factor in US politics?

Buddy, you and I are in agreement here. We saw what happened from 2000-2006 when one party ran the show, and I agree that it shouldn't be that way now, but unfortunately when the pendulum swings, it swings equal distances, regardless of what some of us want. Unfortunately you are all too right on the lobbyist issue. Opinion is so rarely the basis in law, money seems to supercede.

"...Do we use this cynicism and discard what law enforcement is left in the country?" No, we support law enforcement, but we don't become too dependent or trusting of it. The communist of Russia and the Nazis of Germany gave away personal responsibility and self protection for the promise of safety, and in turn, they gave up freedom.

I don't think anyone here or in the country will get too trusting of policing. Living as close as we do to Mexico, we get frequent reminders of what Federales can do when too much independence comes to the hands of police. Nazi Germany had much more to do with the socioeconomic situation of a small country and a poor populace. USSR's situation was a completely different one, subject to the populace attempting communism, where speech must be regulated and laws to control the masses are imperative to the government being able to do what it was supposed to do. We are a wealthy Democracy, with a massive GDP, and a populace that likes its freedom. They are analogies, but the situations differ so massively that I don't think they apply.

A closer analogy of Hitler would be a government that works solely for corporations, doing their bidding and manipulating under the heads of said corporations. Manipulating laws to reduce worker's pay, increase hours, and drive taxes in a way that benefits the corporations but not the people. This is the fundamental rule of Fascism. I think we headed down that path, but luckily it ended. I don't like whats going on right now with the government getting too involved in businesses, but it falls back to the pendulum.

If you think the "Hitler thing" is "asinine", then I propose that you have not studied history sufficiently to have an objective attitude. Hitler's Nazi party bragged in their media about how safe there country would be after they banned and confiscated the weapons of the people. Pretty safe in the end, wouldn't you think - especially for the Jews?

If I thought A) we were anywhere near the weapons confiscation phase and B) that the gun lobby would even soften their positions in the slightest, then I might consider giving you at least the slightest ground on the Hitler comment. In reality, not only would the lobby say no, but the people would as well.

I have given this gun control thing a tremendous amount of thought and sparked many conversations with several of my far more conservative than yourself friends. The debate here started small, and I threw out an idea that metastasized into this thread's diatribe. I think it was lost, then found, then lost again because of the many tangents we have gone off on. In light of that, I think we can return to the realities instead of my hypothetical, as I can see that it has seriously undermined what is really happening in the political realm.

As it stands, Obama's election has resulted in a run on ammunition. No laws have been passed which changed legality of construction. Anecdotally the lead trade was hindered because so many bullet companies were using Chinese lead, and a tariff was placed, which reduced lead inflow into the US. Some say it was a gun control issue by Obama. It is, in fact, more of a trade equality issue, one in which so much of our money leaves this country when we have lead available via recycled and mined means that would employ people here in our own back yard.

Yes, some legislation was passed in Chicago. Show me a single, solitary shred of legislation passed in the country.....

E

[Anglinarcher]

I thought it was interesting you were becoming as emotionally involved as you were, somewhat contrary to how I've come to know you on here. While I can appreciate the idea behind Marc's request, you can throw anything you want at me anytime, Id like to think my shoulders are big enough to handle it.

This issue has been known to get me worked up. I told Marc that I respected you, and that on other threads we were quite friendly, and that I felt that this was important enough to let some sparks fly if necessary. This is after all an Off Topic posting area. Nevertheless, I call you friend, and I feel it as important to be able to bounce my ideas off you wall as it is for you to bounce yours off mine.

Buddy, you and I are in agreement here. We saw what happened from 2000-2006 when one party ran the show, and I agree that it shouldn't be that way now, but unfortunately when the pendulum swings, it swings equal distances, regardless of what some of us want. Unfortunately you are all too right on the lobbyist issue. Opinion is so rarely the basis in law, money seems to supersede.

This country has had periods in history where one party ruled, and it has never every been good for us. When "our" favorite party is in power, we think all is well. Oooops, not so. Opposition in all things my friend, opposition in all things. That is what keeps the pendulum swinging. While I think you are too cynical about money superseding opinion in law, I believe you make an interesting point. Consider that money does not always come from big business, but from well organized media campaigns as well, and we are in total agreement above.

I don't think anyone here or in the country will get too trusting of policing. Living as close as we do to Mexico, we get frequent reminders of what Federales can do when too much independence comes to the hands of police. Nazi Germany had much more to do with the socioeconomic situation of a small country and a poor populace. USSR's situation was a completely different one, subject to the populace attempting communism, where speech must be regulated and laws to control the masses are imperative to the government being able to do what it was supposed to do. We are a wealthy Democracy, with a massive GDP, and a populace that likes its freedom. They are analogies, but the situations differ so massively that I don't think they apply.

This time we don't completely agree, in fact there is more difference then common ground on this one. I agree that the socioeconomic problems are what allowed Nazi Germany to develop. In many respects, a different set of cards was dealt to the Russian People, but it was also socioeconomic problems that allowed communism to develop there as well. In both cases, oppression and poverty were the common ground. The Germans were oppressed by the WW I allies after the war, and the oppression resulted in extreme poverty, and shame. The Russians were oppressed by the Czar, and while the Czar had wealth and glamor, the people were also in extreme poverty. Compare to today, a people becoming more and more demanding of entailments in the US, less and less willing to earn their rewards. A party and press that feeds on this and tells us that Big Business is the blame, that CEOs making huge bonus are at fault, all the time covering the fact that the loan crisis is what got us into this mess, and that it was the current ruling party that set laws in motion to encourage these banks to make loans that were not favorable to good business.

So, what is common with us and the aforementioned gun confiscators? A perception that we are oppressed (by big business this time and by that bad old Bush), a perception that we are poor (lead by entailment seekers and the same party and by the now willing accomplice, the press). Toss us into another depression and the stage is set. History has shown us the path, we are on it, do we jump off or go for a ride?

A closer analogy of Hitler would be a government that works solely for corporations, doing their bidding and manipulating under the heads of said corporations. Manipulating laws to reduce worker's pay, increase hours, and drive taxes in a way that benefits the corporations but not the people. This is the fundamental rule of Fascism. I think we headed down that path, but luckily it ended. I don't like whats going on right now with the government getting too involved in businesses, but it falls back to the pendulum.

What is different, what has changed? Obama is demanding that GM reduce workers pay, and capping CEO wages on business that the Government now controls. He is working to give the Government/Presidency the right to take over business that the Government feels are subject to failure. Taxes are going to have to go up for almost every one considering the rate of spending done by the government right now. So, you believe we were on the path to Fascism? What has changed other then your perceived big bad business are replaced by power hungry politicians? If the pendulum is swinging, it is swinging from Fascism to Socialism/Communism.

If I thought A) we were anywhere near the weapons confiscation phase and B) that the gun lobby would even soften their positions in the slightest, then I might consider giving you at least the slightest ground on the Hitler comment. In reality, not only would the lobby say no, but the people would as well.

That is kind of like saying that you know you are falling off a cliff, but if you thought you were anywhere near hitting the ground, you would stop. Sorry, once you fall off that cliff, it is pretty hard to stop that momentum. The gun lobby (again, counting on lobbyist to moderate government - just a strange concept to me) only has power with one party. The Democrats have detested the gun lobby for many years. Take the NRA out of the picture, a group I don't even belong to, and their power is non-existent. So, one party in complete power, with lobbyist having limited influence with this one party, and people that are fired up like they were in Nazi Germany and Czarist Russia, and the recipe is in the oven, how long do we let it cook?

I have given this gun control thing a tremendous amount of thought and sparked many conversations with several of my far more conservative than yourself friends. The debate here started small, and I threw out an idea that metastasized into this thread's diatribe. I think it was lost, then found, then lost again because of the many tangents we have gone off on. In light of that, I think we can return to the realities instead of my hypothetical, as I can see that it has seriously undermined what is really happening in the political realm.

I concur that the intent of this thread has perhaps been lost, but the tangents that we have gone on are the tangents that must be considered. Cancer Metastasizes, and to many of us, the idea of loosing our freedoms is a cancer. For the ideas to have metastasized, then there must indeed have been a cancer. To you, the cancer is a lack of gun control. To me, the cancer is a government out of control, and their desire to control us with gun control. The claim that we need to return to what is really happening in the political realm and not the hypothetical is to toss a red herring at us. It is not hypothetical what has happened in other countries. The names have changed, the path is altered, but the game plan is too similar to what was done in these other countries to simply believe it cannot and won't happen to us. consider the game of domino's. How do you stop the last piece from falling over? One way is to prevent the first piece from falling over. Another way is to remove key pieces in the middle of the set-up. That is what I want to do, remove the key middle pieces.

As it stands, Obama's election has resulted

[Gisteppo]

A party and press that feeds on this and tells us that Big Business is the blame, that CEOs making huge bonus are at fault, all the time covering the fact that the loan crisis is what got us into this mess, and that it was the current ruling party that set laws in motion to encourage these banks to make loans that were not favorable to good business.

I don't see a few blaming the big CEO's, I see people around the country making $14 an hour busting their asses building houses for a living for people that spend 40 hrs a week in an office making decisions that cause companies to fail, only to receive millions in bonuses. Thats just human nature.

The loan crisis can be traced back to Regan's deregulation, which was perpetuated by every president that followed him. Greed fueled by a lack of rules caused it. People that should never have received loans got them, and the market collapsed.

If the pendulum is swinging, it is swinging from Fascism to Socialism/Communism

Yup. You are correct. Though its more socialism than communism, as communism is a very different beast. Im not a fan either, but it has stabilized the economy in a matter of 2 months. I can't find a ton of fault in that, its what happens next that will dictate what history has to say about the decision. As long as power is relinquished back to the businesses, it makes sense.

So, one party in complete power, with lobbyist having limited influence with this one party, and people that are fired up like they were in Nazi Germany and Czarist Russia, and the recipe is in the oven, how long do we let it cook?

We will have to agree on disagreement here. I don't have so little faith in the American populace that they will be railroaded. We are an independent group, and inflammatory statements aren't going to do anything but militarize small factions and incite violence.

To you, the cancer is a lack of gun control.

Wrong.

I find it interesting that while ammo is in short supply, the components to reload are not. I, and my friends, and the stores I frequent, believe the problem is in factory reloading capacity.

Yes, in certain calibers this is the case, but how many .375 rounds are being built for military use? I agree that much of the material and labor is being sent to wartime efforts, but read up on the lead/China connection, you will learn some interesting things strewn about in the rhetoric. Expect less lead in the US.

Regarding what? Do you mean DC's law, the one overturned after a long and heated legal battle, and only but the supreme court? What type of law do you legislation do you refer to? Perhaps the ones that require handguns to be delivered after a waiting period, or the one that prevents someone from Washington from buying an handgun out of state?

I am referring to NATIONWIDE legislation. The DC situation went to the supreme court for a particular reason. DC isn't a state. DC has no powers of legal authority that aren't granted by the federal government or local townships, so if something gets past a local court, it gets submitted to the higher courts more rapidly because the layers of circuit courts are thinner.

Weapons legislation is state based. Gun laws here are different than gun laws in Montana, and the US govt has no say in that. Thus the union.

All I ask is that you dig a little bit of faith out of whatever hole its crammed into right now. The people of our beloved country won't roll over and take whatever is thrown at them, and regardless of how bad you may think it is right now, ALL of the current politicians have to answer to the voters very, very soon. If things go right, they stay in office. If they go wrong, new blood comes in. Its a cycle, and one MUST have faith in the process, or we all become extremists....

E

[Marc Martyn]

Anglinarcher-

As a moderator of this forum and out of courtesy towards you, to spare you any public discomfort, I sent a private message to you asking a simple request. I felt that avenue of communication was best for you since you are a long standing member of the site.
I see the next day that my name has been injected into this discussion a couple of times in a manner that appears to press your point.
I am wondering why that same courtesy was not returned to me.
A while back, I was going through some of the older forum posts and was wondering what has become of several of the original members that were active on the forum. Many have been off the site for up to a year now. I wonder if they will ever return.

[zen leecher aka Bill W]

Members are NOT ALLOWED to make sales out side the gun show area. If they do...they get booted out of WAC and that removes lots of potential clients.

We agree completely on this. WAC is not a law enforcement agency, thus the only sway it holds is to disallow the seller to come into the next sanctioned show. There is still no legal tracking of said sellers by LEO's.

The gun shows I went to were when I lived in Oregon a decade ago, with family. Portland, Bend, Salem around 1994-1999.

E[/quote


So, let me see if I got this correct. You're quoting old information and making a current argument. Isn't that an inconsistency.

Let's keep things current.

Why don't you put your efforts into things that will make a difference.

[Gisteppo]

If you feel that way, then please educate me on gun shows.

E

[Anglinarcher]

Anglinarcher-

As a moderator of this forum and out of courtesy towards you, to spare you any public discomfort, I sent a private message to you asking a simple request. I felt that avenue of communication was best for you since you are a long standing member of the site.
I see the next day that my name has been injected into this discussion a couple of times in a manner that appears to press your point.
I am wondering why that same courtesy was not returned to me.
A while back, I was going through some of the older forum posts and was wondering what has become of several of the original members that were active on the forum. Many have been off the site for up to a year now. I wonder if they will ever return.

Marc, I don't feel public discomfort. Those that know me know that I like a good debate, especially about items that impact us all so very deeply.

If my point was pressed by invoking your name, then I apologize to you, and to all. I am trying to keep my responses toned down. But, as I expressed in my response to you, I won't roll over either.

This is not an exclusive argument between myself and Gisteppo, but we are engaging each other a lot on this thread. Please keep in mind that neither Gisteppo or myself seem to have any issues with each other, and to be honest, we still plan to go fishing with each other soon.

Neither Gisteppo or myself will be leaving the site soon, and if anyone else is offend, I offer my apologizes to them as well.

[Aaron]

I'll jump in here at this point and say that so far I have enjoyed reading this thread, and have not seen anything other than a good debate.

[Anglinarcher]

I don't see a few blaming the big CEO's, I see people around the country making $14 an hour busting their asses building houses for a living for people that spend 40 hrs a week in an office making decisions that cause companies to fail, only to receive millions in bonuses. Thats just human nature.

The loan crisis can be traced back to Regan's deregulation, which was perpetuated by every president that followed him. Greed fueled by a lack of rules caused it. People that should never have received loans got them, and the market collapsed.

Your side blames Regan, but my sides blames Clinton as the starting point. It was under Clinton's reign that they invoked laws to give more "needy people" the sub prime loans. The banks took it from there, but Clinton started it, and the Democrats IN CONTROL OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE under Bush doubled down on that same law. When McCain warned of the Freddie and Fanny problems, the Democrats, including Barny Frank who should have known better, claimed all was well.

Your side blames lack of regulation but my side blames laws intended to encourage banks to loan to

People that should never have received loans got them, and the market collapsed.

I think both sides were a little dirty on this one.

So, one party in complete power, with lobbyist having limited influence with this one party, and people that are fired up like they were in Nazi Germany and Czarist Russia, and the recipe is in the oven, how long do we let it cook?

We will have to agree on disagreement here. I don't have so little faith in the American populace that they will be railroaded. We are an independent group, and inflammatory statements aren't going to do anything but militarize small factions and incite violence.

This goes back to both your first statement about how many are blaming the CEOs and to the press. I love to quote Gerbals, the propagandist for NAZI Germany, simply because I have claimed so often that we are on the same path as Germany. He said that if you tell a lie often enough that people will eventually believe it. He also said that the more outlandish the lie, the easier it would be to convince the populace. The fair and balanced press is dead in this country. The democrats want to shut down talk radio because, except for Fox TV, it is the only Conservative opposition anymore. With the liberal media getting tingling feelings up and down their legs, is it any wonder why people are believing the story line that is being presented. More importantly, mix a little truth into the mix and it makes the lie seem plausible. Were the CEOs greedy? Yes. Was Regan partly at fault? Yes. Are the Democrats at fault? Yes. In fact, if a fair and balance press would report all sides equally accurate, we would see that there is blame for all on this one.

I find it interesting that while ammo is in short supply, the components to reload are not. I, and my friends, and the stores I frequent, believe the problem is in factory reloading capacity.

Yes, in certain calibers this is the case, but how many .375 rounds are being built for military use? I agree that much of the material and labor is being sent to wartime efforts, but read up on the lead/China connection, you will learn some interesting things strewn about in the rhetoric. Expect less lead in the US.

It is not that .375 rounds are being sent to war, it is that the production lines that make the .375 have been converted over to the military rounds, .223, 9mm, etc. A shortage may come to past due to the lead issue, but at present, it is production line capacity, not lead, not primers, not powder.

Regarding what? Do you mean DC's law, the one overturned after a long and heated legal battle, and only but the supreme court? What type of law do you legislation do you refer to? Perhaps the ones that require handguns to be delivered after a waiting period, or the one that prevents someone from Washington from buying an handgun out of state?

I am referring to NATIONWIDE legislation. The DC situation went to the supreme court for a particular reason. DC isn't a state. DC has no powers of legal authority that aren't granted by the federal government or local townships, so if something gets past a local court, it gets submitted to the higher courts more rapidly because the layers of circuit courts are thinner.

Weapons legislation is state based. Gun laws here are different than gun laws in Montana, and the US govt has no say in that. Thus the union.

The federal government has specific rights under the Constitution. The States have certain rights given to them by the same Constitution. States cannot do things reserved for the federal government, but you are correct that the federal government should not do things not specifically granted to it under the constitution. However, the right to have and bear arms is specifically a federal government issue.

It will be interesting to see what happens now that Montana is trying to pass a law that does an end-a-round to the Feds. I heard this morning that Montana wants to allow guns to be made, and apparently kept, in Montana, and because this means that no trade crosses state boarders, they would not, by proposed Montana law, be subject to registration. I don't know the details yet, but we shall see if your theory holds true.

All I ask is that you dig a little bit of faith out of whatever hole its crammed into right now. The people of our beloved country won't roll over and take whatever is thrown at them, and regardless of how bad you may think it is right now, ALL of the current politicians have to answer to the voters very, very soon. If things go right, they stay in office. If they go wrong, new blood comes in. Its a cycle, and one MUST have faith in the process, or we all become extremists....

There are those that call you the extremest, and of course there are those that call me that same thing. We are on opposite ends of the spectrum, but, we serve to educate. Did you not quote something about the uneducated always vote contrary to their best interest?

Faith is not the issue, it is education. The two of us are educating each other, and, if we are lucky, other people. Let's not end this quite yet.

PS, I have to travel for the next two days, so if I don't get back for a while, don't worry, I am enjoying this far too much to end this now.