Truck Driving Jobs

Uturn2001 · Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 11:50 pm Post subject:

Rev.Vassago wrote: Uturn2001 wrote: Between the various comments I have read around the WWW there are a lot of people who truly have no clue what the supreme court ruling really means.

All this ruling says is that it is unconstitutional for cities, states, and the feds to make a blanket ban on firearms. In other words they can not come in and say...No handguns, as DC, Chicago and a few other cities have done.

That isn't what the ruling said at all. Sheesh, and you have the nerve to call other people clueless. :roll:

For the most part what I said is accurate. All this ruling means is that it is unconstitutional for the government to have blanket bans on types of weapons. The case ended up at the Supreme Court because of a law suite challenging the DC handgun ban which a lower court ruled that the ban was unlawful.

Quote: In a 5-4 ruling, the court found that the right to bear arms does not apply just in connection with service in a militia, as some have claimed, but rather is protected in a much broader context. The court upheld a lower court’s decision that an outright ban on handguns in Washington – which had the country’s strictest gun control legislation – was unconstitutional. In other words: if you wish to keep a gun at home for “traditionally lawful purposes”, including self-defence, you may.

From HERE
Which is just one of hundreds of news accounts of the ruling.

Now if you have a different opinion on what the ruling says or means then please share it.

Rev.Vassago · Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:39 am Post subject:

The ruling had nothing to do with Chicago and "a few other cities". :roll:

kc0iv · Joined: 03 Feb 2005 Posts: 1113 Location: Kansas City, MO

I guess it would depend on who you are calling "nuts" in Waco. The Branch Davidians or Attorney General Janet Reno?

I ask you a question. When did it become legal for the government to use tanks and Blackhawk helicopters on civilians? Last time I checked it is illegal to use the military against civilians per the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. In addition why was the Delta Force and the British Strategic Air Service in Waco during the siege? Is this the type of operation you think the military should be involved in against private civilians?

Another question on Waco. When did it become illegal for a civilian to own non military firearms? All the weapons they found at the Branch Davidians compound were legal firearms. The Davidians were running a very profitable gun business. They were working with a gun deal named Henry McMahon, who held a Class III dealer's license allowing him to legally own, sell, and buy, any type of weapon.

Why did Attorney General Reno lie to Congress about the use of pyrotechnic devices? See: http://www.cnn.com/US/9908/24/fbi.waco/ Do you think it alright for an attorney general to lie to Congress? Or cover-up for the actions of BTF, FBI, and use false claims before a judge to get a search warrant?

Remember this is the same Attorney General Reno that oversaw the FBI that attack Randy Weaver and ended up paying over $2 million dollars in an out-of-court settlement to Weaver and his daughters.

You wonder why many believe they should have firearms? Well with the actions of people like Attorney General Reno maybe they should be concerned.

You talk about a "trumped up" war by Bush. How many wars have the Democrats got the U.S.A. involved in? How many billion of dollars has the U.S.A. spent in those wars?

You say a few million in welfare? Try over $234 billion in the Clinton budget. And not one dime for the work program he promised in speech after speech. Read the true Bill Clinton on welfare reform at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n16_v48/ai_18614085

kc0iv

Rat · Joined: 29 Apr 2008 Posts: 95

I along with millions hoep and pray that we can stop this needless removal of our firearm rights. background checks are fine in my book but to deprive me totally of owning the types of firearms I care to own is unconstitutional.

golfhobo · Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 12:44 pm Post subject:

Rat wrote: I along with millions hope and pray that we can stop this needless removal of our firearm rights. background checks are fine in my book but to deprive me totally of owning the types of firearms I care to own is unconstitutional.

Rat, this is a rational response, but I STILL have to point out a couple of things.

1) YOUR book is okay with me.... but, NOT with the NRA and the "gun lobbyists." They want NO background checks.... OR only an immediate one. They won't stand for a "reasonable" backgound check of a few days! EVEN with computers, there are too many chances for people to "hack" the records, for example, and come up "clean" on a QUICK check! IF you have no "CRIMINAL INTENT" in buying this weapon, you should have NO objection to a FULL background check that can't be easily "skirted."

THIS KIND OF PRACTICE is what allowed the 9/11 terrorists to get access to the planes that caused so much damage that day! The Consitution (actually the Bill of Rights) gives you protection against "unreasonable search and seizure." It does NOT give you carte blanche against REASONABLE investigation by authorities as to your "RIGHTS" (which CAN be restricted,) to purchase or OWN a firearm!

2) The fact that the Constitution gives you the RIGHT to own firearms, does NOT prohibit the government from placing "restrictions" on the types of "arms" you can own and bear. I have the "RIGHT" to pursue happiness... but not at 100 mph on the freeway! :roll: There will ALWAYS be "restrictions" on our rights. But, I hope those BASIC rights will never be revoked.

3) I'm an avid photographer. I LIKE taking pictures. But, the government has the RIGHT to "restrict" me from taking pictures of certain "secret" facilities. They can't take away my right to OWN a camera, OR to take pictures.... but, they CAN place restrictions on it! This is what our Legislators DO (when not taking a junket at our expense!) :lol:

There has NEVER been ANY form of "government" in all of history, including that of Ghengis Khan, that didn't place SOME restrictions on its people! The most BARBARIC of societies lived under the "restrictions" of some "power" that protected its OWN interests. GET OVER IT!

golfhobo · Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 2:14 pm Post subject:

Rat said:

Quote: Well, I am a firm believer that I should be able to own any type of firearm I wish to desire or can afford. I am building an AR15 personally. I also own a Norinco SKS and would not give it up for the world.

I am NOT trying to "assault" your beliefs, Rat. You are welcome TO them, as long as you will give the same respect to MY beliefs. "I" am of the belief that the Constitution provides you the right to own firearms ONLY to the extent that they are necessary for your personal protection. (the Militia rationale having been STRUCK DOWN.) I am no longer dependant on YOU to "protect me" from invading armies, therefore.... your only "defense" is against rodents and burglars! OR the desire to HUNT!

I really don't CARE what you are "building," but I question your attitude that you wouldn't give up what you HAVE for ANYTHING in the world..... including the LIFE of your child who might get caught in the "crossfire" of gang violence, or the lives of OTHER "innocents" like those at Virgina Tech! :roll:

I guess YOUR "rights" are more important than CIVIL order! :shock: :roll:

Quote: Some of these so called bans are going to outlaw alot of semi automatic hunting rifles also and that is not right. Heck I can make a Ruger 22 into an all out assult look alike with a 30 rd banana clip.

I'm not concerned with "look-alikes," that is for you BBR's of the gun world! But, IF that rifle would be "operational," then THAT is why we would want to BAN the "clips" and accessories so readily available for people to make JUST such a "conversion." :roll:

Quote: It just burns me that I have to work as hard as I do to have the things that I have only to see people not having to work and having nicer things then I do.

I understand this, really! Which is why I'm against tax relief for the RICHEST in America.... who don't NEED it.... at the expense of myself, OR "social programs" that would allow the poorest among us to rise above the poverty level and become "middle class." I am NOT talking about welfare "giveaways" here.... but programs to END welfare and help the lowest of Americans rise to a level that they CAN be "self-sufficient" TAX paying Americans!

I don't want to take ONE SINGLE DOLLAR away from YOU.... if you NEED it and EARNED it! I am SOLELY against the "class warfare" system that our current (Bush approved) tax system encourages. HIS idea that only RICH people start "small businesses" and provide JOBS is B.S!!

Rich people don't create jobs.... they send them overseas so they can get RICHER! POOR PEOPLE who manage to rise above indebtedness and servitude, with MEAGER government loans, are the ones who start "small businesses" and create such "jobs!" :shock: :roll:

But YOU guys call this "Socialism!" :roll:

Let's try THIS.... Let's say the amount of money realized by Bush Tax credits to the Rich, will instead be placed into an INTEREST bearing fund and doled out ONLY to former welfare recipients to start a new business!

They will receive "mentoring" NOT from some "Publicly funded agency" but by some "charitable" organization like the Kiwanis! So SUCCESSFUL "conservative" businessmen will GUIDE the business investments of the poor who don't really WANT to be poor, in a "capital investment" enterprise like YOU think you earned YOUR money from!

This reduces the roles of welfare, stimulates the economy creating REAL jobs (instead of shipping them overseas,) and doesn't cost YOU any money that wasn't YOURS to begin with!!

NO..... THAT wouldn't work! Too much like FREE Enterprise, American Dream, and SELF PRESERVATION for you "Conservatives" to understand! :roll:

Better that you just keep WHINING about taxation, while you destroy the commerce of the average Man, and continue to BLAME them for the lack of jobs while importing Illegal immigrants to take their few remaining jobs! :roll: :lol:

I REALLY don't understand you guy's concept of the Economy! It is going DOWNHILL under your leadership, yet you STILL stand by your "model" EVEN while your own "leader" (with the lowest ratings in history) has FINALLY (as a lame duck) admitted it is "not going well!" :lol:

He even "flip-flopped" on his message about the "purpose" of his "economic incentive" checks! One week, he was touting how we could spend it a Walmart to STIMULATE the economy.... and a mere two weeks later, he said... "OR PAY for the increased cost of gasoline and fuel!" :lol:

In other words.... here is some GOVERNMENT money to compensate for my FAILED ECONOMIC POLICIES! :shock: :roll: :lol:

You "lie down with dogs.... you wake up with fleas!" I get a KICK out of watching you "conservatives" defend the policies of your LEADER! The one with the absolute WORST "presidential ratings" in the HISTORY of this one time GREAT Nation! :roll:

Oh, wait a minute.... you don't ACTUALLY "attempt" to defend his policies.... you just keep blaming ALL the problems on the Liberals! :lol:

[Edited]

You Conservatives RENIGGED on your "contract with America," and you have continued in your FARCE! But, now the truth is out there for all to see! If things don't CHANGE in the next decade....."I" may move out of this dysfunctional country! :lol:

Oh.... but the IMPORTANT thing is.... you'll be able to keep your GUNS! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Rat · Joined: 29 Apr 2008 Posts: 95

I live in a small town out in northern North Dakota and there is no such thing as "gang" violence here so I am not worried about my daughters getting caught up in crossfire.

Actually my three daughters are pretty good with a rifle. The 12 guage shot guns kind of throw them a bit with heavy waterfowl loads. My oldest handles my Ruger Blackhawk .45 lc with a 7 inch barrel prety good also. She is 16.

I am one of your northern rednecks and have grown up with firearms all my life. got my first .22 lever action at 8 years, my first 20 guage pump action at 10 years and received a beautyful 12 guage pump for trap shooting and upland game at the ripe old age of 13.

I collect firearms that are fully operational. I have every firearm I have ever owned since I was 8 years old. My newest intrest is the "Black" guns, or weapons such as the AR15 etc and muzzle loaders or black powder.

If it moves and is edible then I hunt it when the season allows.

I am not one of them militia types that has dugouts and bunkers setup in the woods.

I hunt, fish, ride atvs, use my 4x4 pickup as intended and dabble in radio controlled aircraft and electronics.

Don't like me because I own firearms, I could careless. Try and limit what I can own then you will have a fight on your hands. If I want to own a 50 cal snipper rifle for the soal purpose of shooting old appliances out at the range then that is my choice. Nothing more fun then trying to bullseye from 500 plus yards out.

golfhobo · Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 12:35 pm Post subject:

First, let me apologize for making that last post sound like I was mad at YOU personally. I just get carried away sometimes talking about "SOME" Conservatives that are the most vocal about their beliefs and stuff.

I don't hate ALL Conservatives. It just sounds that way sometimes. :lol: Really.... the ones that make me the maddest are the "talking heads" on Fox who continue to distort everything ANY Democrat says, and blame everything on the Liberals! But, I can't talk BACK to them!! So, I come on here and show my butt! :lol: Oh yeah.... and I listen to Patriot radio on Sirrius alot! MAN.... some of them guys are "warped!" :shock: :roll:

Rat said:

Quote: I live in a small town out in northern North Dakota and there is no such thing as "gang" violence here so I am not worried about my daughters getting caught up in crossfire.

That is nice, for you. My beef is that "many" Conservatives seem to take the opinion that, if it doesn't affect THEM.... it's not an ISSUE. Problem is, it IS an "issue" throughout America.... and only the Dems seem to CARE about that! I don't have a daughter to GET caught in the crossfire. But, I care about OTHERS' daughters! :wink:

Quote: I am one of your northern rednecks and have grown up with firearms all my life. got my first .22 lever action at 8 years, my first 20 guage pump action at 10 years and received a beautyful 12 guage pump for trap shooting and upland game at the ripe old age of 13.

I don't have any problem with people who like to own guns. I have lived "up there / out there" and understand why you like them. I just don't share your enthusiasm. But, THAT is not why I argue about gun control. I am concerned with the social issues..... and I just like debating the LEGAL issues. :wink:

Quote: I collect firearms that are fully operational. I have every firearm I have ever owned since I was 8 years old. My newest intrest is the "Black" guns, or weapons such as the AR15 etc and muzzle loaders or black powder.

I have no problem with people who like to collect them, either! But, if there is a gun that society deems too dangerous for just ANYONE to own, then I resent that "collectors" are so intent on THEIR right to collect, that they don't care about the risk to society. I have a RIGHT to that opinion, don't I?

Quote: If it moves and is edible then I hunt it when the season allows.

I am not one of them militia types that has dugouts and bunkers setup in the woods.

I hunt, fish, ride atvs, use my 4x4 pickup as intended and dabble in radio controlled aircraft and electronics.

That is all FINE by me! And I'm GLAD you are not one of the "wackos!" :lol: Unfortunately.... they ARE out there, and THAT is why "we" feel we have a right as a society to impose SOME restrictions. WE are looking for some compromise that doesn't completely trample YOUR "rights," while allowing US to address gun violence in America.

Quote: Don't like me because I own firearms, I could careless. Try and limit what I can own then you will have a fight on your hands. If I want to own a 50 cal snipper rifle for the soal purpose of shooting old appliances out at the range then that is my choice. Nothing more fun then trying to bullseye from 500 plus yards out.

I don't dislike YOU at all, Rat! Nor anyone ELSE that chooses to own firearms. Can't we disagree in our opinions without hating each other? "I" don't make the laws of the land OR enforce them. If you end up with a fight on YOUR hands, it will be with the U.S. Military and other agencies who DO enforce the laws! And, I hate to burst your bubble, but... like the Davidians.... you will ultimately LOSE if it comes down to that! Of course.... THAT is my opinion! I'm sure YOU would disagree! :wink:

BTW.... other than the cold up there, I envy you your peaceful life in North Dakota. Haven't spent much time in N.D., but I LOVE driving thru S.D, and Montana! I certainly am NO FAN of living in the SouthEast as I do currently! My best years were the 6 I lived in Colorado! "Plink" away, my friend! :wink:

Rat · Joined: 29 Apr 2008 Posts: 95

The problem I see is the difference in types of gun control we share or I share with others.

I feel there is plenty of gun control right now other then the background checks could be harsher.

That and stop the illegal sale of firearms without background checks.

Each and every buyer should have to go through a background check that goes through the buyers complete history including any phycological checks.

I also feel that no one should beable to come across our boarder with any firearm of any sort without it going through our FBI first.

We already have laws against fully automatic firearms and that is completely fine with me. You can own them in certain states but there is alot of red tape you have to deal with to own them legally.

But to ban certain firearms all together because they may be considered assult weapons is ludicris (sp). Also banning clips that hold more then 5 or 10 cartridges is ludicris also.

It would be like banning polished aluminum on a truck because it might blind someone or fully banning straight pipes because some pin head insists on using the jakes while rolling through town with them.

When used responsibly these things do not hurt anyone and why should I be limited to things when others are iresponsible.

Simply put, Guns do not kill people. People kill people. There are litterally millions of responsible firearms owners out there that are being punished due to a few thousand idiots.

The democrates want nothing more then to unarm the american citizen and tax us because their democratic run house has spent too much money.

Don't go blaming Bush for this either because to be honest his hands are basically tied when it comes to most anything because he can't do anything with out the house saying so. If the house wants him to do something then he had better do it one way or another.

Like our little war. Had he been able to go over and get r done then it would be over and done by now. But no the house says this and that or this will happen and look at what we have now.

Hew wanted to spend a little money to get r done rather then a ton of money to just drag our feet. Well we ended up dragging our feet and spent a ton of money because the house would not allow the initial moneys to be spent.

We need to start using our own oil and the Dems say no. No drilling. Use our money to develop electric cars and trucks instead. In the mean time we will keep sending money to the over seas oil barons to keep us supplied with crude for the mean time.

Things we can look for in a completely democratic run house and office.

Huge tax increases to try and balance the budget.

More money going to the oil barons with not real push to increase production and reduce costs.

Yours and my tax money being spent on feeding and housing illegal imigrants or allowing them to stay in our country for free.

And with BO you can expect to see his true family heritage come out and si muslim buddies take up perm residence here in our country.

RebelDarlin · Joined: 06 Jul 2007 Posts: 1860 Location: Illinois

Rev.Vassago wrote: The ruling had nothing to do with Chicago and "a few other cities". :roll:

Not directly, but it set a legal precedent, it opened the door...

Gun rights advocates maintain that handguns are used far more often to protect against crimes than they are used to commit them. To them, the Supreme Court ruling came as a victory, and emboldened gun rights groups to file legal challenges to similar bans in other jurisdictions, including San Francisco and Chicago.

Rev.Vassago · Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 8:27 pm Post subject:

RebelDarlin wrote: Rev.Vassago wrote: The ruling had nothing to do with Chicago and "a few other cities". :roll:

Not directly, but it set a legal precedent, it opened the door...

I doubt that will go very far, as DC has the special distinction of not being in the jurisdiction of any state, whereas every other city in America is.

golfhobo · Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 8:56 pm Post subject:

Rat said:

Quote: The problem I see is the difference in types of gun control we share or I share with others.

I feel there is plenty of gun control right now other then the background checks could be harsher.

That and stop the illegal sale of firearms without background checks.

Each and every buyer should have to go through a background check that goes through the buyers complete history including any phycological checks.

I also feel that no one should beable to come across our boarder with any firearm of any sort without it going through our FBI first.

We already have laws against fully automatic firearms and that is completely fine with me. You can own them in certain states but there is alot of red tape you have to deal with to own them legally.

But to ban certain firearms all together because they may be considered assult weapons is ludicris (sp). Also banning clips that hold more then 5 or 10 cartridges is ludicris also.

It would be like banning polished aluminum on a truck because it might blind someone or fully banning straight pipes because some pin head insists on using the jakes while rolling through town with them.

When used responsibly these things do not hurt anyone and why should I be limited to things when others are iresponsible.

Simply put, Guns do not kill people. People kill people. There are litterally millions of responsible firearms owners out there that are being punished due to a few thousand idiots.

With MINOR exceptions, you HAD me up to this point! Then, you posted CRAP! :lol: :lol:

Quote: The democrats want nothing more then to unarm the american citizen and tax us because their democratic run house has spent too much money.

The Democrats have NO desire to "disarm" law abiding American citizens! You think some of US don't own firearms?? :roll: Tax you? Democratic run "house?" What are you smoking? The House was controlled by the GOP from sometime during the Clinton administration until 2006! Yeah, the Dems have/had a reputation of "tax and spend," but I'm pretty sure Dubya has blown that argument out of the water for all eternity! :lol: Can you do the math? ONE Trillion dollars defecit at the end of Bush Sr's "reign." Balanced budget after Clinton WITH the help, or no help, of a GOP controlled House! NINE trillion dollars deficit after 8 years of Dubya!! NINE TRILLION DOLLARS.... mostly owed to CHINA! :roll:

Quote: Don't go blaming Bush for this either because to be honest his hands are basically tied when it comes to most anything because he can't do anything with out the house saying so. If the house wants him to do something then he had better do it one way or another.

:lol: :lol: You ARE joking, right? Until 2006, Dubya had what was universally accepted as a "rubber stamp" Congress! "Better do it?" Bush has vetoed nearly every bill out of Congress SINCE 2006.... (no NEED to while they were in his pocket!) Only recently, have a FEW bills been overidden in Congress (AFTER he vetoed them) and, I hate to admit it, but with the lowest rating in history, he STILL has more clout as a "lame duck" president than any I can remember in history! :roll:

I'm REALLY sorry to have to say this, RAT..... but, you just qualified yourself as the typical Conservative Zombie, who parrots whatever Karl Rove tells you to say.... or of the "simple mind" that repeats whatever Bill O'Reilly is saying this week in his "talking points" without even stopping to THINK if it makes any sense! :roll:

Quote: Like our little war. Had he been able to go over and get r done then it would be over and done by now. But no the house says this and that or this will happen and look at what we have now.

He wanted to spend a little money to get r done rather then a ton of money to just drag our feet. Well we ended up dragging our feet and spent a ton of money because the house would not allow the initial moneys to be spent.

NOW you're on CRACK!! :lol: Bush LIED his way into all the money he needed or wanted from Congress before illegally invading Iraq! He went against the advice of many Generals, and went with a "shock and awe" and a low impact force "because they will welcome us as liberators" battle plan! As "Commander in Chief" (though a "shirker" of his Guard duties,) the failures of our "mission" (that he had the audacity to claim was "accomplished" long before we even really got INTO a war,) fall SQUARELY on HIS shoulders! Had the great Democratic President Roosevelt been so INCOMPETENT.... we'd all be speaking German or Japanese right now! :roll:

Quote: We need to start using our own oil and the Dems say no. No drilling. Use our money to develop electric cars and trucks instead. In the mean time we will keep sending money to the over seas oil barons to keep us supplied with crude for the mean time.

I cannot, and WILL not argue that the Dems have stood in the way of drilling for oil in America! But, they are not alone in their culpability. As long as oil was cheap to import, the big oil companies (with subsidies from the GOP) felt no need to build new refineries or update their facilities! This is a massive fiasco, and their is PLENTY of blame to go around! I, for one, will not play politics with this one! I just want it fixed! I WILL, however, point out ONE thing that many seem to miss. Bush has a very "cordial" relationship with the House of Saud (Saudi Arabia for some of you) and as such has "negotiated" many large contracts to sell them the finest fleet of combat aircraft in the Mideast. Why? Perhaps, to "have our back" should the chit ever REALLY hit the fan, but mostly.... so that our Military Industrial Complex can continue to keep THEIR jobs, when all others around them are shipped overseas! In return, and as a "necessity" of sorts, he has allowed the Saudis to make MORE than enough money off of their oil to PAY for these military goods! And WE are paying for it all at the pump! :roll:

Quote: Things we can look for in a completely democratic run house and office.

Huge tax increases to try and balance the budget.

That IS what it takes! Only the Dems have the B@LLS to do it!
More money going to the oil barons with no real push to increase production and reduce costs.

I believe this IS what the GOP has been doing for 8 years now!

Quote: Yours and my tax money being spent on feeding and housing illegal imigrants or allowing them to stay in our country for free.

You DO realize that BOTH such "amnesty" policies have been under GOP administrations, right? No.... I don't think you DO! :roll:

The only thing more frustrating than arguing with a "conservative" is arguing with one who can't even keep his "talking points" straight as they've been "issued" to him! :lol: :roll:

Quote: And with BO you can expect to see his true family heritage come out and si (???) muslim buddies take up perm residence here in our country.

This is just so blatantly racist and totally IGNORANT as to be beneath me to even RESPOND to! Fold up your "pointed white hat and robe" and put them away before you trip over your own ignorance and fall into your own CRAP! :lol: :lol:

"THIS" is exactly why it is so hard for a Liberal or a Democrat to even TALK to a Conservative! FIRST, we have to sober them up, THEN we have to educate/deprogram them, and when all is said and done, we STILL have to deal with their PREJUDICES! :roll:

All further comments are being reserved at this time! It would just be TOO easy.... and I'm trying to lose weight! :lol:

Rat · Joined: 29 Apr 2008 Posts: 95

The only one smoking crach around here is the ones thinking the a demcrat run office would be a good thing.

But then the truth has been told over 100 fold on the real things in the back of BOs mind. And strickter gun control policies are just one of them, but then this would make it safer for his muslim friends to come and move in.

kc0iv · Joined: 03 Feb 2005 Posts: 1113 Location: Kansas City, MO

" Balanced budget after Clinton........." One of the biggest lies the Democrats tell. Show me just one year that we had a balanced budget by either Democrats or Republicans.

Now about Clinton directly. Clinton's first budget called for an astronomical tax hike of $220 billion which the Democrats in Congress increased to $240 billion. Clinton's first three budgets left deficits of $241.4 billion, $201.2 billion, and $194 billion.

China is NOT the the leader of Federal debt. Japan is. Holding 25% of the Federal debt.

Want some facts bout the national debt? Go to: http://home.att.net/~mwhodges/debt_a.htm#culprit
And go to http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6107 who really was directly responsible for reducing the budget deficit.

When it comes to gun control all someone has to do is look at the records and find out who voted for and who voted against a given law. I think you will find the Democrats have voted for stricter gun control. Some of which borders on the ridiculous.

One of the best examples I ever saw was a discussion on the Ruger 10/22 a semi-automatic rimfire rifle chambered in .22 Long Rifle. It has a removable 10-round (or 5-round) rotary magazine. A very common rifle for rabbit hunting. They had taken the gun-stock and removed the screws so it could easily be change from one form to another. When the host ask the anti-gun group if they had a problem with this gun the answered no. They then changed to gun-stock to one that was made it look like AR15. Mine you only the gun-stock was changed the gun itself was a still a 22 semi-automatic rimfire rifle. Now the anti-gun group all said this gun should be banned. The host then changed it back to it's stock look and anti-gun group had no problem with the gun.

What was proven by this example? The anti-gun nuts wasn't concerned about the killing power of this gun but the look. I've seen the same reaction with the AR15 vs the Ruger mini-14. Same killing power just a different look.

What we need is not more gun laws but judges that enforce existing laws. A slap of the hands isn't doing it. The single thing that will help is mandatory sentencing laws. No more of these 5 year sentences and the criminal is out in 18 months or even less. And quite coddling the Juvenile Offender that commits a crime with a gun. If they commit a crime with a gun the should tried as an adult with the same punishment. Put them in jail until their 18th birthday then transfer them to an adult prison to serve the balance of their time.

kc0iv

GMAN · Joined: 13 Feb 2005 Posts: 9882 Location: Tennessee

I see no need to do background checks and register our guns. It will do little to prevent criminals from getting guns. It is simply a way for politicians to make some feel more secure. We got along in this country for several centuries without either. We have gotten to the point in this country when we want 100% security. That will NEVER happen. There is no such think as a 100% risk free existence. Crime hasn't gone down since the government started registering guns and doing background checks. Granted, they have nabbed a few criminals with the background checks, but they probably would have gotten them at some point, anyway. There is NO amount of government regulations which will give us complete security. The best security we have is our freedom. We should be free to arm ourselves or not. Based upon recent events I think we have more to fear from our government than we do from criminals. Sometimes it is difficult to tell the criminals from the government. :? We should not be answering to the government. The government should be answering to us.

Truck Driving Jobs

Trucking Jobs

Truck Drivers

Trucking Companies

Class A Drivers.com