Anyone notice "Osama" sounds like "Obama" ?

[Mr._johngalt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeff2006 Pissed-off about what? From your posts you seem to have the life that logically results from your expressed desires and reported actions. Just wondering . . .

Yeah, you are correct. I was in such a hurry I forgot the smiley.
Just being provocative and hyperbolic as usual. OTOH, a lot of stuff does
annoy me, esp. Bill of Rights issues. Bottom line.............it is true that
my life has turned out pretty much as I designed it. I would only caution
all of you to be careful what you wish for.

JG

[alphabet soup]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr._johngalt I would only caution all of you to be careful what you wish for. JG

Can I wish you would just disappear to cloud cuckoo land with all the other wingnuts

Just hyperbole, John. NOT!

[Moderator edit: quote fix]

[73ss454]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lets-retire I want the ability to own the firearm, because according to the Bill of Rights it is my right to do so, period. I see no place written in the Second Amendment where it says I can only be allowed to own firearms up to a certain caliber, so why can't I own the most powerful firearm. Arty, bombs, and other explosives are not included in this as far as I can tell.

If the Bill of Rights says that you can have guns and weapons then you can.

Since is was written a couple of hundred years ago I feel it's time for a change. When the Bill or Rights was written we had no organized army nor local police as we do today. I'm sick and tired of picking up the paper and reading about some kid shot by an unproteced weapon. Nothing good ever happens when guns are involved. (period)

[bpp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lets-retire I want the ability to own the firearm, because according to the Bill of Rights it is my right to do so, period. I see no place written in the Second Amendment where it says I can only be allowed to own firearms up to a certain caliber, so why can't I own the most powerful firearm. Arty, bombs, and other explosives are not included in this as far as I can tell.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

This seems to me to suggest that militarily useful arms are intended to be allowed. Not much use in limiting one's potential militia members to only hunting rifles.

(Note: I don't like widescale gun ownership, but that is what Amendment 2 says. And I don't think that retroactively removing rights from the Constitution would set a very good precedent.)

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by saluki9 He would have to of course promise to raise taxes on business, ban all guns, and raise taxes on tourists. Then he would be elected for sure in Chicago (the only problem is I'm not sure he has enough relatives nearby to give jobs to.

He could promise "whatever," but as the party candidate, he would win.

He has plenty of relatives available to fill patronage jobs. They've been in the country since well before the '93 Trade Center bombing. But that's not how patronage works. You give jobs to other families to secure votes. Your relatives get jobs from other politiciansin exchange for vote delivery.

You new to the area?

[Mr._johngalt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet He could promise "whatever," but as the party candidate, he would win. He has plenty of relatives available to fill patronage jobs. They've been in the country since well before the '93 Trade Center bombing. But that's not how patronage works. You give jobs to other families to secure votes. Your relatives get jobs from other politiciansin exchange for vote delivery. You new to the area?

youbet nailed it. That's how it works.

JG

[Mr._johngalt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bpp "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." This seems to me to suggest that militarily useful arms are intended to be allowed. Not much use in limiting one's potential militia members to only hunting rifles. (Note: I don't like widescale gun ownership, but that is what Amendment 2 says. And I don't think that retroactively removing rights from the Constitution would set a very good precedent.)

bpp has presented a thoughtful approach to this, better than my usual rants, for which I apologize. Nothing gets me hotter quicker than
the gun debate/antigunners. BTW, IMHO most anti's actually know very little
about guns or The Second Amendment, or maybe even The BOR itself.
I just go ballistic (hey - good word) when people with absolutly no knowledge of weapons weigh in on ..................assault rifles, for example.
Now, assuming there really is such a thing, many of us believe their
private ownership should be fully protected, which is kind of what bpp
was pointing out.

JG

[bpp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr._johngalt I just go ballistic (hey - good word) when people with absolutly no knowledge of weapons weigh in on ..................assault rifles, for example. Now, assuming there really is such a thing, many of us believe their private ownership should be fully protected, which is kind of what bpp was pointing out.

That is exactly what I was pointing out.

I'm not saying that that is necessarily a right that I would put into a constitution were I writing one today, but it seems to be there in the US constitution, and I would never go along with removing any rights, because sooner or later someone would want to remove one that I do care about.

[saluki9]

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet He could promise "whatever," but as the party candidate, he would win. He has plenty of relatives available to fill patronage jobs. They've been in the country since well before the '93 Trade Center bombing. But that's not how patronage works. You give jobs to other families to secure votes. Your relatives get jobs from other politiciansin exchange for vote delivery. You new to the area?

No, lifelong Chicagoan.

[saluki9]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azanon Not to stray too much, but JG, i'm curious what isn't redneck about being a NRA, gun loving supporter? Do you not realize that we already have armed police, the national guard, and the most powerful military in the world. Do you not realize that if the government "turned" against you, that your 12-guage isn't going to help you much when they come to get you? Are you a hunter or something? I dont think the libs have ever went after banning a legitimate hunting gun. But it is a pretty sad thing that there are civilians out there that think they should have the right to own, say, a 50-cal. But just being plain honest, when i hear someone delare they support the NRA, instantly the term redneck (or gangster, depending on the applicably) pops into my mind. Since you dont really strike me as the gangster type JG, then i guess you can deduce what I think.... You need to pick between genius and redneck, because they're not mutually exclusive.

Well then count me in as a redneck. Remember, the second amendment was written for hunting politicians, not animals.

So who should decide what guns I can own?

[Mr._johngalt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr._johngalt youbet nailed it. That's how it works. JG

A little galting here. Heard this one yesterday. George W., Richard Daley
(mayor of Chicago) and the Pope are in a lifeboat. It's leaking and someone
has to get out. They took a vote and Daley won 3 to 2.

JG