Wow-- any thoughts from the gruppen?? To my mind, about as logical and effective as the anti-gun States and their "Magazine Capacity" regs..
What say you, gents?? RWTF

There is ongoing litigation about this, and a temporary stay in place by the DC Circuit for people who are members of certain 2nd Amendment groups. And you can join those groups online for a reasonable price ($30 I think?).

Instead of a bump stock ban, this is worth the read.

https://chuckbaldwinlive.com/Articles/ta...ubio-Et-Al.aspx

Cliff's Notes:
It is a 'red flag law' being proposed by Republican Senators, (RINOS) and all a person has to do now is accuse any gun owner of being unstable and the authorities and all the alphabet agencies can come to your residence and confiscate all you firearms, including our beloved doubles.

The link posted for information purposes.
If you want to write/ email you Senator about this proposed legislation, you can.

The problem with our ever-retreating gun liberties lies as much with shenanigans and confusion on the Right, as with the chicanery on the Left. The latter are, who they have always been. At their core they dislike America as it was founded, and bolstered by all manner of either exaggerated or completely fabricated shibboleths, they seek to remake it.

The Right, on the other hand, suffers generally from being split into two camps, each with their own sub-camps.

On the “Center” Right:

(A) Globalist RINO’s who see gun liberties as an impediment to the broader expansion of gov't in our lives (McCain/Romney/Graham). This group should be publicly vilified and voted out of office, as they bear little difference to Statist Leftists like Hillery Clinton.

(B) Well-intentioned, but grossly mistaken people, who value the optics of being “reasonable” more than our core liberty. Many in this group can and will eventually be corrected as to the truth of our national situation -- and the Left's true intentions -- and there remain some great people still on this side who we need working toward Liberty’s end.

On the “Liberty” Right:

(A) "Mostly" philosophically correct, but socially unpalatable and misguided people, who choose “antics” over “intellectual argument,” thereby clowning their own side. Like the idiots who took over Malheur NWR. Even acknowledging the Govt’s hot-handed approach in dealing with them, they did more to make gun owners look kooky than they do to help, even if their "passions" were in the right place. And there are some very bad apples on this side who probably aren’t the responsible gun owners we should be looking to promote the idea of in the public mind.

(B) Steady, fact and argument based individuals who understand that setting the tone and establishing “who we really are and what we’re really about” is the path toward WINNING HEARTS AND MINDS. Not settling for the short-lived and cheap satisfaction of hinting at civil war around the corner, which only scares the sleepwalkers. That would be a heart-breaking event…not something we should be rooting for.

This is where we want people to be. Calm in the face of vitriol, but steadfast in our reasoned, articulate resolve. Armed with facts and logic in the face of the Left’s mindless emotional bluster.

If group B on the Center-Right joins group B on the Liberty-Right, and we can hold the two A groups at bay...we prevail.

Nudge

I understand, Chief Justice John Roberts just declined to hear the case that would block the ruling banning bump stocks. I guess this leaves it in force, for now. I guess it will now be up to someone who is "charged" for possession of a bumpstock to show it does not fit the definition of machine gun as plainly stated in the law. Or maybe someone that loses his property( bumpstock) can sue for the same reason.
Mike

What I hate about this whole bump stock issue is it puts me into an awkward position.

On the one hand I really can see how using one of these things DOES effectively make a semi into full auto...which is against the law.

But being mindful of the Left (and their media) not giving even an inch on literally ANYTHING gun related, we're right to be reluctant to agree to the banning of these things UNLESS we get some explicit concessions on other [more meaningful] matters.

It pains me to feel this way, because right is right. But the Left doesn't play this way, so it's only prudent to demand they concede in return.

Nudge

I don't care about bump stocks and don't care if they are banned. What I do care about is they claimed they are something they are not. If they can claim they are machine guns, they can classify anything they want to as machine guns, even if they don't fit the definition. We already see many talking heads talking about "simi-automatic machineguns".
Mike

How is a bumpstock gun NOT a "machine" gun? What is in the 1934 Firearms Act that makes this distinction?

in simple technical terms,
a machine gun fires multiple rounds with the single manipulation of the trigger.
a bump stock does not change the way a semi automatic fires. pull the trigger/fire one round. reset the trigger and fire again and reset, and so on.
with a bump stock the rifle still requires a press of the trigger for each shot. the bump stock uses recoil to allow the action to move rearward so as to effect trigger reset and then the forward momentum of the rifle within the housing of the bump stock makes the finger contact the trigger again firing the rifle again.

It fires multiple times with one muscle contraction of my trigger finger. Both a bumpstock gun and a gas or recoil operated machine gun use recoil as well. I understand what you are saying but it seems pretty trivially different to me. Be that as it may, it looks like bump stocks are a thing of the past.

if I may give my opinion from far away - Europe :

quote
'if a machine gun fires multiple rounds with the single manipulation of the trigger'
unquote
is a clear statement

But - if this 'bump stock' by the forward movement of the action 'impinges' on the trigger finger and thereby
makes the gun fire again, in rapid succession, thereby producing in effect a 'continuous rate of fire', then I fear
that the 'anti gunners' might well be able to get a popular vote!
Is it worth giving the opposition a probably easy 'fear' argument against 'war' weapons?
Does anyone actually need (or want) 'fully auto' (or bump) guns -which have been outlawed for civilian use for some time already?

Don't misunderstand - my interest is in the continuation of the NRA and all it stands for.

As a reader of the American Rifleman every month I follow the discussion avidly and of course am on the side of the NRA!
But, the times we live in now (anti-gun mostly!) we have to be careful and believable.

Silly little things can and have swung popular votes! Beware!

Günter
NRA Life 1974

If it effectively mimics full auto...that's what people will see. All the anti's need to do is show a video of someone doing this, with the audio nice and loud, and the general public's reaction will be visceral. I can practically hear Leslie Stahl asking someone, "Why would someone need this?" as they show the smoking barrel on the scary black gun.

It's a media culture we live in, like it or not. The "optics" game cuts both ways. And this one won't look good to most people. And there are MUCH better battles to fight.

Better to negotiate it away and be reasonable by our OWN standard...than be forced into the Left's definition, having wasted an opportunity to fight on something which really doesn't matter.

See the Left knows this. They know that most of us don't use or care about something like this. So they want us to be in the awkward position of feeling like we have to defend something difficult merely to keep from losing ground.

Nudge

Brent D, Gunther, Nudge,
The objection is because they have included it in a class that doesn't fit the function of the gun. A stock by it self is not a gun, much less a machine gun. As far as "negotiating it away and be reasonable by our own standard": I said I don't care about bump stocks, but others do, and I do care about other things that other people don't. I don't want someone else negotiating away my civil rights and I will not negotiate someone else's away. As far as "reasonable" is concerned, it is very subjective. I can remember when "separate but equal" and "poll taxes" were considered reasonable. We have since learned that taking someone else's civil rights is not reasonable and it is not reasonable to make people pay to be able to exercise their civil rights. If they take the bump stocks they need to do it under the law, not by playing a trick. You can do the same thing as a bump stock does with a shoe string and a key ring( google : ATF shoe string letter). Maybe next they will come for shoe strings and key rings. There is nothing in any of the amendments about "need", regardless of what "Leslie Stahl" thinks.
Mike

Der Ami,

I promise you, as a matter of principle we're not far from each other. I just feel battles are best fought in places where you have the best ground under you. Otherwise, remove, and look for a better place to make a stand.

Nudge

Before the turn of the 20th century, after noticing the grass being deflected far beyond his muzzle while target shooting, John Browning successfully converted a Winchester lever action rifle to fire full automatic in less than one day.



Ed McGivern was able to fire double action revolvers at a cyclic rate of 750 rounds per minute... a faster rate of fire than many machine guns.

There were several full-auto conversions of bolt action rifles to fire full-automatic, including the Pederson device (Springfield 1903, the Charleton (SMLE), the Huot (Ross)

A couple days ago, Brian related other ways full auto fire can be mimicked without use of a bump-fire stock. And it is highly unlikely that any criminals who own bump-fire stocks will now turn them in. Any terrorist or mentally ill criminal with access to a 3D Printer will be able to make one or more because the technology is still available.

The Las Vegas shooter was a multi-millionaire who passed numerous Background checks, and could have easily afforded to buy full auto firearms which would have been even worse for the victims. But nearly an identical number of people were killed in 2016 when a terrorist drove a 19 ton cargo truck into a crowd in Nice, France. Imagine the devastation and death toll if he had stolen a gasoline tanker truck rigged to explode.

Better to NEVER negotiate anything with the anti-gun Liberal Left, because they have stated their position against the private ownership of firearms in the U.S. The antis already show inaccurate videos and use deception to achieve their goals of disarming us. It is far better to expose that fact, and to demonstrate that there are many things that kill far more people annually than bump-fire stocks or AR15 type rifles... for instance, opiate overdoses kill 200 times as many Americans as all rifles annually, yet Liberal Democrats refuse to fund a Wall to secure the Southern Border from drug smuggling. But too many FUDD's would rather remain meek and silent until it is too late to fight back.

Keith,

Now, you've brought up something that is one of the components of how we attack them when they argue this stuff.

Opiods.

In 2017, 48,000 people in the U.S. died from just PRESCRIPTION opiod overdose. The number does NOT include such things as heroine, crack, etc.

Consider that the Left nearly tore this country apart for the better part of a decade during the Vietnam conflict. And a TOTAL of roughly 52,000 American died in that war. Over the entire time!

We need to turn the argument on the Left, and question THEIR priorities every time they go bananas because some overly medicated paranoid schizophrenic blows a gasket and kills a handful of people. (A) It pales in comparison to the number dying from opiods, and (B) it's a drug and mental illness problem, not a firearms problem.

Nudge

I've been saying that for several years here Nudge. And I've not just been preaching to the choir either. I've been writing, emailing, and calling my Representatives in the U.S. House and Senate, and I've continued to donate to the NRA to get the message out that infringing upon the Constitutional Rights of law abiding citizens is not the answer to stopping criminal acts by mentally ill criminals and terrorists.

Most important of all... no gun owner who values his or her gun rights should give their vote to those who are most likely to infringe upon those rights. That unfortunately includes my RINO Republican Senator Pat Toomey. He needs to be replaced.

I've also asked people to consider the FACT that far more kids die annually due to texting while driving than from school shootings... and there is no Constitutional right of kids to text while driving.

Just as many people die from medical mistakes every year in this country as from opiate drug overdoses, yet the anti-gun AMA lobbies for more gun laws instead of cleaning their own house.

Gun sales have increased over the last 30 years, yet murder rates have dropped considerably. This is due to higher incarceration rates for violent felons. Yet the Liberal Left whines that we should parole or release many of these violent repeat offenders.

You are right... we need to turn the argument back on the Left and keep it there. We should understand that they will never give up on attacking our rights.

Amen!

laws are all about technicalities. legal shotgun barrel is 18". an illegal one is 17.999". talk about splitting hairs but they will arrest you for 17.999.
hell, they killed randy weavers wife over 1/4"!

I think there's a medical journal research report out just a couple of weeks ago that concludes some multiple times increase in psychotic disorders in regular marijuana users. All the dem hopefuls want national legalization and all will claim the use is victimless. Point being, I wouldn't kid myself that an intelligent argument is remotely possible if an issue is given talking point status by the left.

Take here for example, the facts and figures of decades of legal and criminal firearms use has been presented and it's all swept under the rug by switching the subject to the nuances of civility. I think the effort might be better put into winning an election rather than an argument.

I've got some guns that will fire twice simultaneously with one muscle contraction of my hand. They are not machine guns. There are some of these guns that have been known to fire two shots simultaneously with one pull of the trigger. They are not machine guns.

It has long been known that a semi-auto rifle can be fired repeatedly by hooking one's thumb into a jean pocket or belt loop and having the recoil move the rifle back and forth pushing the trigger against thumb or finger. That is not a machine gun.

A device attached to the side of a semi-auto firearm that by means of a cam rotates continuously activating the trigger is not a machine gun.

A stock that is, for all intents and purposes, loosely attached to the action that allows the action to move back and forth firing as the action moves forward again is not a machine gun.

The average guy on the street who buys a gun and puts a bump stock on it is probably not going to hit what he's aiming at on the first shot much less any subsequent shots.

Bump stocks are not machine guns and never will be no matter how many times anyone says they are.

Also, I still have my doubts about the guy in Las Vegas. I think he was dead before the shooting rampage started. The range at which the shots were taken and the angle at which they were taken doesn't add up to the lethality of the shooting.

Alan

This.

Alan

I was floored when they allowed them in the first place. Seemed like a decision that was ripe for reversal from the day they made it.

The problem is that there a boatload of them out in the wild, many of them purchased with cash and no record of the sale. How do you put that genie back in the bottle?

My solution? Add them to the NFA registry. Tell folks they have X amount of time to either turn them in or register them. Make the tax fee reasonable . . . say $50-$75 . . . and the penalty for possession severe. Sort of like the "Any Other Weapons" on the NRA registry (i.e. Auto and Burglar). The fee for those is only $5 (established in 1935).

You have to make a stand on everything. There is nothing to be gained by trading away something in the hopes of appeasement. There is no appeasement.

That said, the earlier comment "it effectively mimics full auto" caught my eye. This is semantics in my opinion. The vast majority aren't engineers and don't care the "how" something works. They care about that it works. Bump stocks effectively create a full auto experience. If the subject is to be dealt with effectively, better to deal with it head on than to hide behind word play.

Exactly. If it looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, it smells like a duck. It's a duck.

Without having read the exact verbiage of the National Firearms Act of 1934, I don't think a new law should be needed. Maybe belt loops are outlawed already too.

Yes- so maybe with the belt loop ban pending from our elected "numb-nuts" it might be a smart move to invest in the suspender (braces for our Limey readers) making business. RWTF

Giving in on this is what I call a "Russian Compromise"( maybe I should say "liberal compromise"); they say " what is mine is mine and what is yours is mine- I'll compromise and let you have half of yours back". This sets a new baseline for the next time they demand a compromise( and they will)and then we lose half of the half we have left over. I spent most of my working life estimating and negotiating changes to contracts. An "auction" is not a negotiation and seldom results in a fair and equitable adjustment to the contract price. Similarly if we give away rights in an auction we are not being fair to our progeny, whose rights we give away so people will say we are reasonable. The biggest mistake we make is believing they have good intentions. We know from long experience that they will use those that have gone through a heartbreaking experience and tell them an inanimate object is the cause of their loss( not the one that wielded it), then present them to the public; so if we resist we are evil. The kids that lost their class mates or the parents of the lost students are not the ones we are fighting. We are fighting those that are "setting up" all the rallies, and refusing to let the ones that disagree with them participate. We seldom know who they really are.
Mike
Mike

The ATF Firearms Technology Branch examined these a few years back and called them simply a part or accessory.

The complete definition of a "machinegun" under the NFA also includes the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

After the Las Vegas mass murder, the President ordered them to be re-evaluated. The ATF attorneys got more involved this time around and determined that during the original evaluation the law was not being interpreted correctly. Specifically, the meaning of "single function of the trigger."

After a period of review, of which the public was free to submit their own opinions, they were banned.

I don't agree with their assessment, and believe that it is only going to cause headaches down the road. But, it is what it is.

We need to be diligent because the left will never quit or give up. Every day they are finding more and more creative ways to chip away or end arounds at not just firearms ownership but hunting as well.

The left is slowly chipping away at my rights and my money. Confiscatory tax rates, ever increasing taxes on property, constant backdoor attempts to limit my gun rights and the rights for due process is how they are trying to win.

The fact their supporters never worked hard enough to own anything of value gives them freedom to suggest that it’s only fair to take from the haves and give to the have nots. Well I did not see any of those SOBs working fulltime while paying for a college and graduate degree like I did. I did not see those SOBs working 60 hours a week for the first 17 years after school. I do sure see them licking their lips to get their hands on my assets to give away to their brain dead supporters.

It’s only a matter of time when the minority doing the work gets tired of paying all the bills. When the baby boomer generation retires in 10-15 years the gravey train is done. Millennials and generation X &Z will never be able to carry the load onward. Then we will print money and be the United States of Venezuela.

And, what part of this stock is a firearm of any sort? Maybe, we should worry about who is put in charge of reasonable taxes for double guns, if we don’t like it we could always turn them in.

I vote for KY.



Heck, add Great Britain too.


_________________________
They needed a Maggie and got a May.

I have no interest in semiautomatic rifles of any kind, but I do think that the takings clause of the 5th amendment might apply. If the government is going to confiscate items that were completely legal when purchased, it ought to pay the owners the value of the things taken.

That payment will come from another tax on you.

O.M

Remington 40X,
If we want the simi-auto guys to help us when our guns are in danger of being taken, we have to help them when theirs are in danger. The other side wants to break us apart, then take us on one little group at a time. Did you ever wonder why they were able to say 18 year olds shouldn't be able to buy long guns, since they can't buy pistols? It's because someone made a "reasonable compromise", before, to disallow purchase of pistols by them. I bought my first single shot 22 by mail order, when I was 12 years old; somebody "compromised" all that away too.
Mike

Without any doubt.

SRH

Defending bump stocks and saying that their ban is just the tip of an ice burg strikes me as foolish, and in the long run, harmful to gun rights. What mature, responsible person would want a bump stock? Someone who finds using one to be amusing is someone whose judgement ought to be questioned. When gun owners support any damned thing having to do with firearms, we present ourselves as morons. As for confiscatory taxation, didn't you just get a break? Who are we going to raise government revenue from if we don't tax the ones who have all the wealth?

So given that this is a fate accompli, or whatever, are bump stocks actually being turned in? Are there bumpstock burnings going on all over the country? I have not heard a peep about what is actually happening.

Good point Brent. I doubt the Trump administration will push the enforcement other than stopping production. President Trump will very likely be about as energetic with enforcing the bump-stock ban as Obama was about enforcing our immigration laws...Geo

These little suckers will be next. We had something similar when I was in college in the 1970s. We all bought Marlin tube feed .22 rifles (model 60s) and could empty the 19 round tube in a matter of a few seconds. Couldn't aim it worth a damn, but you could mow down a bunch of beer cans in a nano-second.

https://www.galatiinternational.com/bmf-trigger-activator-1022-22-rifle-rapid-fire-crank.html

So, if I like your gun and accessory list, then I'm not a moron? My aha moment!

Rocky Mtn Bill perfectly illustrates the liberal mindset. First, our betters in the government know what’s best for us. If we don’t agree, we are immature, irresponsible and exhibit poor judgment. Second, in order to satisfy the government’s insatiable appetite for revenue, our benign government overlords have to confiscate wealth from those who have earned it so the government can give it to more deserving groups

When you're sitting in court for an NFA violation, they are going to get very technical about what a machine gun is and how it operates.

That's why it is important to follow the mechanics of an item and not how it looks or feels to someone, anyone. Doing that is very arbitrary and is only relevant to the person looking or feeing.

But any of this is not the way to address the issue of controlling crime.

To control crime you control criminals.

If controlling guns is your goal, then you control guns.

Seems like a fairly simple concept to me.

If I learned anything in my job, it was that nothing happens spontaneously or in a vacuum. Somebody ALWAYS knows about anything BEFORE it happens.


Alan

Bill, are you familiar with this writing of Pastor Martin Niemoller ?

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

O.M

The 1996 "National Firearms Buyback Program" took 660,959 firearms out of private hands[1] comprising long guns, mostly semi-automatic rimfire rifles and shotguns as well as pump-action shotguns, and a smaller proportion of higher powered or military type semi-automatic rifles. Because the Australian Constitution requires the Commonwealth to pay "just compensation" for private property it takes over, the Government increased the Medicare levy from 1.5% to 1.7% of income for one year to finance the buyback program. The buyback was expected to cost $500 million.[2] The payments from the Commonwealth were conditional on the States and Territories introducing firearms laws and regulations consistent with the National Firearms Agreement.

O.M

Summed up perfectly. Completely comprehensible Craig.

As usual, Craig, your logic is faulty. Liking my guns wouldn't rule out the possibility you're a moron. And there are morons who don't like bumpstocks. People who own and enjoy firearms ought to be more resourceful in defending them and at the same time more creative in finding ways to diminish their misuse. The automatic assumption that all gun regulations are merely an intro to general confiscation is stupid and merely an excuse for not thinking seriously about lessening gun violence.

As usual Billy, your logic is faulty. Anti-gunners with your Liberal Left mindset say pretty much the same things about many other firearms as you say about bump stocks and military style semi-automatics.

For example, many Liberal Left anti-gunners have argued for years that semi-automatic "assault style" rifles are "weapons of war", and have no useful purpose besides killing people. You have made statements in the past that agree with that opinion.

Many Liberal Left anti-gunners have argued for years that handguns are useless for hunting and only good for killing people.

Many Liberal Left anti-gunners have argued for years that detachable magazines of certain capacities they consider excessive are dangerous, and should be banned. Don't many FUDD's like you think that we don't really need those 10, 12, 20, or 30 round magazines?

Many Liberal Left anti-gunners have argued for years that cartridges such as the 5.56 m/m or .223 Rem are designed for war, and can penetrate police body armor and have much higher velocity than dangerous handgun ammunition.

So if a .223 or 5.56 m/m is too powerful Billy and dangerous, where does that leave you and your .308, or .30-06 or 7 m/m mag?

In recent years, these same Liberal Left anti-gunners... the politicians you support... have been arguing that scoped bolt action rifles, such as the rifles you personally approve of, are super-dangerous sniper rifles.

So tell us Billy... using your flawed and faulty logic... do you present yourself as a moron when you own and shoot scoped bolt action rifles that many of your own Liberal Left consider to be dangerous sniper rifles which are unsuited for civilian ownership???

Who makes someone with logic as flawed as yours the arbiter of what firearms are Constitutionally protected and suitable for law abiding citizens to own and shoot??? And just what are you doing to diminish gun violence... aside from voting for the Liberal Left Democrats who work relentlessly to ban them all??? The "automatic assumption that all gun regulations are merely an intro to general confiscation" is not stupid, as you say. That assumption comes when Democrats like Barack Obama and Barbara Boxer come right out and publicly say that we don't need any guns or that they would round them all up tomorrow, if they could. It would be both moronic and dishonest of you to deny that fact.

Same can be said of silencers but those are on the NFA list. I have lost zero sleep over this ruling. If a more useless device has been invented I have not seen it. About as useful as good sized hole in your head.

As stupid and useless as bump stocks are, I’m not sure banning a device this simple to make is good law. Anybody who wants a bump stock can cobble one together.

I've grown so cynical. Gun control has nothing to do with reducing crime or violence. Confiscation and bans aren’t an immediate threat either. Nope, the sole purpose of gun control is to annoy target shooters and hunters. Create barriers and obstacles that discourage people from participating in shooting sports and then your whole deplorable gun culture shrinks away in a couple generations. It's all just to annoy you.

Ryan may be right, they sure are annoying me...Geo

Non Illigitimus Carborumdum, George!! RWTF

Has anyone heard about these very dangerous and effective weapons that fire from one to hundreds of projectiles with one pull of the trigger ?

Shotguns is what they are called.

These debates have been going on for along time.

It's always been about control from the left. That's all. I don't know that one single crime has been prevented by a law prohibiting it.

We will never come to grips with the reality that gun control is just about Control, total control, absolute control of the masses by the elite. Nothing more, nothing less.

The English forbid the Irish from carrying weapons so they could control them. the Irish began carrying walking sticks made of Blackthorn. Perhaps the shilelagh will make a 21st Century comeback!

Alan

Shotguns? Aren't they what Joe Biden told us we needed to buy instead of what we want? Maybe he didn't know they will fire hundreds of projectiles with one pull of the trigger. Maybe they ought to ban those projectiles, if they are made of that old dangerous lead.
Mike

SKB,
what is the problem with suppressors?
why are they so evil?

Asian martial arts is a whole school for teaching the use of farm implements as weapons. It rose up because of oppressive arms control three hundred or more years ago.
Now those farm implements are on the prohibited weapons list.
Nun chucks for example. Not so the Samurai Katana, work that out.

O.M

Evil? No, not in the least. They are currently NFA though and not a gun, my only point.

My objection to suppressors? My god they could not be uglier and some darn nice rifles end up ruined with threaded muzzles. See the UK for many examples.

I do not think that suppressors are something scary and evil but getting them off the NFA list is not a big priority for me.

Generally speaking, Ryan is right-on.

So Bill, is your logic based on facts, or your creativity? Thanks for lecturing me on what I ought to do, eh? Let me revise my previous comment, if I like your approved gun and accessory list, I may(?) have a slightly less chance of being a moron.

Ok, I misunderstood your comments.
I thought you were saying something different. while they may not be pretty, I can tell you from first hand experience and as someone who has significant hearing loss from continued exposure to loud noises (artillery, mortars, rockets, machine guns, small arms (incoming and outgoing!)in combat over 4 years worth and not always able to or practical to have hearing protection) that sound attenuation now is of the utmost importance to me to preserve what little hearing I have left. While max protection ear muffs and ear plugs help, a suppressor does add a much greater level of hearing protection and preservation to the equation, especially when used in conjunction with hearing protection.

Ryan, even if it turns out to be a useless effort, no body is worse off for it. If it has some beneficial effect, everybody gains. To believe that gun control has nothing to do with reducing gun violence is the stupidest comment ever.No politician is thinking two generations ahead. They're all focused on the next election. The next generation will have no more interest in firearms than they do in cars. Who cares? We won't be around to fuss about it. Look around. Our gun hobby is aging out. The 1950s is not coming back. We don't need to worry about that because we'll all be gone. Relax; nothing is going to change significantly in our lifetime.

You may be right. Maybe no politician is thinking 2 generations ahead. But they respond to the Leftist special interest groups who are. So effectively they are behaving as if they were. You can’t be so obtuse as to not know that Bill.

I think he could. Do you think he would just blurt out that he was mesmerized by the MAGA rally over in Grand Rapids. Was glued to the TV, made the grandkids bring him popcorn. You can thank the President for the new relaxed Bill.

Just puppets, the lot of them.
Follow the strings.
The dark puppeteer has a lifetime plan for everyone, for as long as we have time.
Today was planed more like 2 centuries ago.

O.M

On the other hand
Jeremiah 29:11

O.M

Gun control has nothing to do with reducing "gun violence", it has to do with controlling people, mostly our darker skinned brothers/sisters. When I was growing up our African American neighbors were tacitly allowed single barreled shotgun to hunt with, but it was "like pulling teeth" to get something more sophisticated. Then when "Civil Rights" made it illegal to refuse to sell them a gun, other impediments were thought up. Of course, Democrats were in charge then( the Democrat primary may as well had been the general election), and all the "Jim Crow" laws came from them; also there were no Republicans or Independents in the Klan. Since a lot of our darker skinned friends were poor, the "Saturday Night Specials" and "cheap foreign surplus military guns" were some of the first to receive the attention of the "people controllers". Now they are after the most popular rifle ever- divide and conquer.
Mike

Der Ami, I almost always enjoy your posts, and I'm often impressed with the depth of your knowledge about guns and gun making. I have to say, however, that your post about gun control being a racist plot is simply silly. "... there were no Republicans in the Klan." You have to be kidding. You're old enough to remember the civil rights movement. It wasn't Young Republicans who road buses to Mississippi to register voters. Strom Thurmmond was a Democrat until Democrats passed the Civil Rights Act. He then switched to the Republican Party to oppose the new law.

Yabut Bill, what about the dems that didn’t change party’s? Strom’s been gone for a bit, don’t you remember dems getting Lott to step down because he wished ole Strom a happy birthday?

Didn’t that old coot Byrd make it well into your new and improved progressive era? Nice fellow, eh?

Jer 29:16  Know that thus saith the LORD of the king that sitteth upon the throne of David, and of all the people that dwelleth in this city, and of your brethren that are not gone forth with you into captivity; 
Jer 29:17  Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Behold, I will send upon them the sword, the famine, and the pestilence, and will make them like vile figs, that cannot be eaten, they are so evil. 
Jer 29:18  And I will persecute them with the sword, with the famine, and with the pestilence, and will deliver them to be removed to all the kingdoms of the earth, to be a curse, and an astonishment, and an hissing, and a reproach, among all the nations whither I have driven them: 

As the Apostle Paul told the young evangelist Timothy, one needs to Study the Word of Truth & handle it aright, not picking out a single verse & MIS-applying it to suit an opinion..

I know a bit about Paul, Miller. That's as good counsel now as it was then.

Does Bill know who George Wallace is?

Really Bill, it's a matter of public record who started and supported the KKK. As it is a matter of public record which party supported emancipation and every other advancement that moved blacks from slaves to members of American society.

The fact that the Democrats, in the 1960's, made a wholesale, cynical and strategic swap of policy to suddenly portray themselves as the savior of the black man and people like you don't understand that, just shows why young people today know so little.

I'm not young, and I fully grasp that the two major parties which switched roles. Republicans today would like to take credit foe Lincoln, but if Lincoln were alive today, he'd have no use for Republican policy. He and Trump make the perfect contrast. As Shakespeare says, "What a falling off was there." I do know who George Wallace WAS. He was an AH. The deep South has a long tradition of blue dogs; they were wrong then and they're wrong now. Party affiliation can't redeem them.

The thing most people do not realize, because they have been lied to for over 150 years concerning history, is the black Race was not looked upon any lower in the South than in the North. The South wanted the Black people there as slaves, The North simply wanted them "GONE". How many of you know that in the State of IL, until After Lincoln was Dead, a black person was prohibited from owning property in at least most of the state. My Wife can "Personally" remember when she was a young girl a black family purchased (Or Rented) a house in a small town in Franklin County IL. They moved most of their furniture, except their beds, one day & went back to their old home for the night. The next day upon arriving at their new home with their beds, there was no house to put them in, It had "Mysteriously" Burned to the Ground.

Old Abe Lincoln hisself was about the "Worst" friend the Black people ever had, he wanted them all shipped to either the Caribbeans or Back to Africa. He made no bones about the fact he felt them as an inferior race & they could Never, live as equals to White folks in the same society.

Former Slave Trader Nathan Bedford Forrest actually held the Black Race in Higher Esteem, than did Lincoln.

I certainly do not deny that Racial Prejudices & Biases have existed in this nation since the day the First Black Man set foot on American soil. What I am saying that Shouting North vs South or Republican vs Dem is like the Pot Calling the Kettle Black, it existed, & still does today, Nationwide.

Just because a group uses it politically to "Buy Votes" does not of itself mean they are "Not Guilty".

So do you get that the switch was/is a cynical ploy about votes? That almost every initiative championed in the last 40-50 years by the Dems on HOW to solve the inequality has done nothing but further the divide? Why? Because Dems in Washington don't really care...they simply care about the votes.

At the time in question, there weren't enough republicans in Alabama to pass any law, anyway, racism and the Klan were pretty active north of the Mason -Dixon line. Since there were no republicans around here, there weren't any in the clan. I can remember when most folks around here were pretty violently anti Republican. Dixiecrats were still Democrats. It wasn't a racist plot, it was a general understanding. In my county, the sheriff and coroner still have to run on the Democrat ticket to win.
Mike

I remember George Wallace "Standing in the School House Door" and his speeches about segregation. BUT I also remember that he made the state start furnishing school books, instead of having student's families furnish them. I remember when he had the lunchrooms feed breakfast, and had the state furnish decent clothing, all to allow our colored brothers a real chance to go to school and learn. That helped more than just giving some money, that didn't always go to the kids. I didn't go to school with them, but I did work with them for the county, as "day hands", for $5/day. I remember one telling me White folks aren't prejudiced, when he worked in the yard for white women in Tuskegee, they would fix ice water or tea for him; but when he worked for a light skinned African American( he used the "N" word), they wouldn't even let him drink from the yard faucet. He said that was prejudice.
Mike

I accept that George Wallace had a change of heart. Strom Thurmond was recalled fondly ( as I recall) by his biracial daughter whom he had the decency to support financially. And undoubtedly there were Northerners who wished that blacks would disappear. However, the anti- slavery movement and the underground railroad were Northern causes. I believe that both Grant and Lee would have opposed bump stocks and Jefferson Davis and Lincoln would have, too.

Let’s not whitewash history. Nathan Bedford Forest was the commander of the rebel forces that massacred the mostly African American garrison at Fort Pillow while they were trying to surrender. Although I doubt the Southern history will tell that account. He was also the first Grand Wizard of the KKK. He is not someone to be revered.

Folks- it is sure strange to me how my question about the"bump stock ban" morphed into a heated exchange about: (1) the KKK and its history in America- (2) racism today, and its roots in American History- including the War Between the States-- Most wars are fought for reasons of political or economic gains, or both- But that may not have been the reasons behind the bloodshed in our Country from 1861 to 1865. Some scars never heal, do they. RWTF

No Fox, it's not strange at all. We are multi issue people, and not just clinging to our guns and bibles. If you prefer historical tidbits, that's fine. I know Bill likes them, because he can throw out some gratuitous critisism of a straw man dem, when all along he's a hundred percent in step with all of the tactics, policies and results of TODAY's dem.

The bumpstock is an issue of today, just as all the other baggage is of some folks vision for the America of tomorrow.

When the KKK proved to be too hateful and violent, even for Forrest, he left the organization. Nathan Bedford Forrest had his limits.

Excellent comment. Today, in many respects, both parties are two sides of the same coin. Who is the leper with the most fingers?

Yes, it is true he did leave the KKK. Sometime after the Presidential election campaign of 1868 in which the KKK, which he still lead, murdered over 2,000 people, mostly African Americans and Republicans, in an effort to suppress the vote.

Rocky mtn bill is telling lies again. Democrats did not pass the 1964 Civil. Rights Act. The House and Senate votes are a matter of public record, and Billy has been caught in this same lie in the past. The vote was first held up by a record setting 60 day filibuster led by DEMOCRAT Senator Robert Byrd, who had been a high ranking KKK Leader. When the filibuster ended, it passed mainly because of support from Republicans. 82% of Republicans in the Senate voted to pass it while only 69% of Democrats voted yes. The amended Senate bill was then sent back to the House where it got 76% support from House Republicans and 60% support from Democrats. The earlier Civil Rights Act of 1957 numbers were even lower for Democrats with only 51% support versus 84% for Republicans.

Republicans also were much stronger supporters of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and it was Republicans who outnumbered Democrat support for the later 1968 Civil Rights Act also known as the Fair Housing Act, with 81% of Republicans in favor compared to 59% of Democrats.

It was even worse back in the 1920's when the 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote. 12 States, all Republican had granted women full suffrage prior to the vote on the Amendment. When the vote was submitted to the states, 8 of the 9 States that voted against giving women the right to vote were Democrat.

Billy has been informed about these things in the past, but like many Liberals, he ignores the truth and keeps on repeating lies.

It's true Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act, but their arms were being severely twisted by President Johnson. The Republican Party since Reagan's day has not been in the forefront of any equality movement. I don't think the explanation is as much prejudice as it is indifference. Today's R's main concern is the welfare of the hyper rich.

Why not just say thanks? Only in America eh, you're saying that you got the R's to do your bidding. Since it's mostly about feelings, how do you feel when a talking point gets sent out to the commoners that the d's want you to rally around hyper rich elites? Why won't the d's stick up for Yashar Ali, you know, so the lil d proletariat can have a little diversity in their lives?

and what party has held the white house that has led to the lowest black unemployment in history?


Oh that's right, repubs are racists! why would they help blacks then?

Come on Bill. try something other than the standard talking points. You are in danger of becoming a parody of a Democrat supporter. You twist or ignore or deny historical fact to fit your narrative and you refuse to consider rational positions different from yours.

Here's a question I like to pose to my liberal and socialist friends (yes, shockingly, I have them). Can you show me evidence of government intervention that was successful to it's aim, done at a reasonable cost for the objective and did not lead to endlessly spending more money by the featherbedding bureaucracy created to solve whatever the initial problem was? The point being.....why do you think government will solve the problem?.....they have a massively bad track record!

Here's something from the former publisher of the Times of London and the Jerusalem Post, among other rags. BTW, the author supported our ridiculously incompetent socialist PM, Justin Trudeau, so he is no knee jerk member of the Alt Right.

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/conrad-black-the-absurd-collusion-delusion-goes-up-in-smoke-at-last

"IF" Forrest was the First Grand Wizard of the KKK (Which is very highly debatable) then they had existed for some time without. Forrest was not in on the forming of the KKK. In its early years, it actually had some Black members.
When Forrest saw it had deviated from its goal & was becoming violent he "Dis-Banded" it.

After the war, Forrest was tried by both a Military court (USA) & Civilian Court (USA) on charges from Fort Pillow. Both courts returned a "NOT GUILTY" verdict. "IF" indeed anyone was shot while attempting to surrender it was on an individual basis, not a unit as such. Fort Pillow had been offered terms of surrender which they refused. As they were leaving the Fort to go down by the river where a steamboat was to pick them up & where incidentally they had arms & ammunition stacked They Did Not strike the flag in surrender. Forrest's men had been given orders to fire on anyone until the flag came down. After Forrest gained the fort, HE gave the orders to Strike the flag to stop the firing & thus un-necessary loss of any more lives.

"There Was No Massacre", it was Warfare. Everyone killed was a "Soldier". You want to talk about Massacre, talk about Sherman in his march across Georgia & then up through S Carolina where countless "Civilians were Murdered".

I may have to call bree ese on this cback. If you're looking for numbers, let's say you want to deal in facts, how would you assign success tic marks for feelings and following talking points? Just kidding, you don't get to, Bill does.

Don't forget, the lowest minority and female unemployment in US history has come about by dumping the policies of that fellow that made them feel a tingle up their leg. I ain't gonna look for evidence of a tingle, would you?

Nope, tingles don't do it for me. Quantifiable results do, however.

Give him a break. Bill’s just voting present.


__________________________
Still funny after all these years
https://youtu.be/Dd7FixvoKBw

Contemporary accounts by survivors of Ft Pillow do not agree with your revisionist history. Nor does the true historical account of Lincoln’s attitude toward slavery agree with your, again, revisionist history. Perhaps you should read something other than that written by the Sons of Confederate Veterans. But it is clear you are a true believer and there is no point arguing with true believers. So I’m done.

Canvasback, Your question is loaded with assumptions. I'll start by citing the worst example since the war in Vietnam, namely the invasion of Iraq. You can investigate costs in dollars and lives to suit yourself.The results will be suffered for beyond the foreseeable future. As a positive example, there's Obamacare. It won't get much support on this site, but 20 million Americans now have health insurance who lacked it before, perhaps the majority of them blue collar families who voted for Trump. If Republicans had tried to improve it, it and they'd be in better shape today. But, no, they reflexively detest it because it wasn't their program, even though it really was. Now they're attempting to abolish it entirely despite having no clue what to do next. It they succeed, it will be an electoral disaster for them. Your question hinges on what is acceptable as a reasonable price. As a conservative, perhaps you bring a business orientation to the criterion. I'd remind you, government is not a business. It doesn't exist to show a profit. Nowadays. monetizing and increasing shareholder profit are the only standards applied to most every issue, especially by Republicans.

Bill, great examples. Oops, maybe not.

Let's start with the Viet Nam war. Started by a Democrat. Wildly expanded by a Democrat. Ended by a Republican.

The Iraq war. You will recall that America entered the Iraq war with overwhelming support on both sides of the aisle. This wasn't a partisan adventure, embarked upon by those damn warmongering Republicans. This was an ill-advised response to the attack on American soil that had all Americans still reeling several years later.

Obamacare. I'm not one to knee jerk against healthcare. As you know I live in a country that has a form of universal healthcare. And despite this we barely spend less per capita than the universally acknowledged crappy system the US has saddled itself with. With just as crappy or worse outcomes for the most part. Both systems as they exist encourage bureaucratic waste and unaccountable outcomes. In fact, for the most part, even our political class visits the US when timely and quality healthcare is needed. Both systems have rare beacons of light in a sea of expensive mediocrity or worse. Obamacare simply adds to the mess. Helps some and screws some others. Great fix (sarcasm there Bill, in case it wasn't obvious). That's your shining example? I rest my case.

Again with the talking points like a good leftist shill. Corporate profit is the only standard I bring to the discussion?? What I bring to the discussion is a concern for my children and grandchildren. A belief we need to spend wisely and efficiently to leave them a better country and society than the one we inherited. It has nothing to do with profitability, despite your wish to pigeonhole me. The money isn't endless, the dependence on government to solve the problem and avoid personal responsibility comes at a cost. You won't pay it but your descendants will.

The list of costly government boondoogles that do little but suck up dollars and votes is near endless. And yet, when I ask that question that I originally posed to you, all you liberals actually have a difficult time answering the question. You should take some time and consider that.

Did you read that column I posted for your benefit? You guys, Democrats, have diverted the potential good governance of your country in a misguided attempt to overthrow a duly elected president. Is that how you solve problems?

Next, I'd cite federal regulations to protect soil, air, and water, many of them initiated by Republicans. No more. My state was ravaged by the mining industry. The current administration is working diligently to undo those protections and pave the way for free exploitation of resources regardless of cost to the environment. I totally agree with you about concern for the world we'll leave behind, but the crux of the problem isn't a world where our grandchildren won't be as wealthy as we are; it's that they'll inherent a world very substantially less livable. Trump has managed to boost the economy short term. He's willing to do so at any long term expense.PS: Do you mean to mention Nixon's conclusion of the war as some king of positive achievement?

Just for the record, I Did not learn all this from the SCV. I have been a member of the SCV for a very short portion of my later life. I became a member "Because" I had learned most of this from other sources.

So, Just Where, did you get your "Revisionist History". Lincoln's statement that he felt the black People a totally Inferior Race which could not Co-exist with the White Race on equal footing in the same society came directly from his Own Mouth.

Cover it up all you want to, it's still there. Were you aware that one of the ten wealthiest Slave owners in the Entire US in the late 1850s was a Free Black? Most of the slaves which came directly from Africa were gathered up & Sold, by their "
Brothers, IE other Blacks. The color of Slavery was never Black & White, it was Green.

I am not a racially prejudiced person, I have & have had many more Black Friends over the years., for whom I hold great respect. I DO NOT hold any respect for those who are now trying to destroy our history & monuments etc of our past.

Just quickly Bill, because I am no longer at home at my computer. What would you call extricating your country from an unwinable war? Beats accelerating it the way Johnson did, wouldn’t you say??

Miller, I agree that tolerance is a thin veneer everywhere. I also agree generally of old monuments as part our history, with explanatory inscriptions, and not inflammatory in-your-face provocations to intolerance. Canada has the same challenge.

Be interesting to see how thin the veneer of tolerance is if we put up a monument to Sheridan, Sherman and Grant, with explanatory inscriptions of course, in front of every SCV post. The inscription would be short and sweet.


___________________________
We Won.

Off the civil war and back to the race baiting again, eh.

Our latest local big deal is street names. Our most prominent resident race hustler had taken on the crusade to change the name of Forrest Street to Barack Obama Blvd.

Turns out the street name was originally Forest St. (one R) because it was at the edge of town and where the yellow pine forest began. Then it was changed to Forrest St (two R) to honor a local black man. Funny sometimes what actual history will turn up...Geo

I like to take things one thing at a time and really get to the bottom of it, as much as we can. I've already addressed your derisive dismissal of Nixon ending the Viet Nam war. Still waiting to hear what you think would have been better.

Next point. Who said anything about our grandchildren needing to be as wealthy as we are. I didn't and that isn't what drives me. I would however, like to not saddle them with needless levels of debt that are beyond comprehension and the expenditure of cash that caused the debt, utterly wasted. Can we agree that's a good idea Bill? Can we agree that we shouldn't beggar our grandchildren?

Federal regs to protect the environment. Good ideas. Shouldn't be a partisan issue. It's been made into one and for that, probably both sides share some blame. I actually think those sorts of things are the natural role for government. Setting standards that make sense that help preserve the world we have. But what are those standards? I think we can all agree it's not creating toxic dumps in the name of profit and then abandoning those dumps, like my compatriot Robert Freidland did in Colorado at the Summitville mine. Some stuff is obviously bad. But other stuff is a little grayer, and the partisanship that now exists makes it harder and harder to separate the wheat from the chaff.

I don't know that the current administration is working diligently to destroy the environment. I know you think so but I've heard so much bullshit in the last 20 years about global warming, outright politicized lies, that it's gets harder and harder to accept anything at face value these days. In the name of wealth redistribution and western guilt, there has been a whole lot of abandonment of the scientific method. How would you propose to solve that Bill. Or is it just more satisfying to keep yelling at each other, sleeping soundly at night knowing the other guy is the bad guy and nothing to be done about it.

So, mining has left a mark on your state? It's probably not good enough for you, but isn't your state riddled with super fund clean up sites? Maybe it helps, maybe it doesn't, but it's a plan with a goal, right?

How come you don't want to clean up the 'ravages' of mexican meth and heroine on your state? Is it because you voted for it, or is it just easier for you to pawn the problem off on your kids and grandkids? Too funny, they may not have monetary wealth, but they'll benefit from all the 'investment' in social justice that you're doing now, huh?

Here's a quick challenge for you, can you comment factually on the long term expense thing that you felt like throwing out? Or, did you form your feelings based on robo emails from tester?

Wealth redistribution? Where is that?Wealth in this country has been increasingly concentrated in the hands of folks like Bezos and Zuckerburg. How come I don't want to clean up drug problems? Craig, why would you assume something so patently stupid? Yes, I'd like them cleaned up? You clearly equate drug problems with immigration. So does our clueless president. If we somehow expand social justice, everyone will benefit. What do you have against social justice? As for Nixon, what would have been better is for him to have ended it sooner instead of delaying the end for his re -election. As for the "long term expense thing" Trump's push to deregulate industry is undoing things I give Nixon credit for despite his descent into criminality.

Bill, you are just staggering around the field like a drunk man, stepping into one cow pie after another. I'm a high school drop out....you spent your life in academia and I can think circles around you, never mind write them.

Why wouldn't you give Nixon credit for the things he did well? OMG you are mad at him because he didn't get out of Viet Nam fast enough? But Kennedy and Johnson are okay because they were Dems, right?

Wealth redistribution from the rich western nations to the poor second and third world, all under the watchful eyes of NGOs like the UN, corrupt money sucking organizations if there ever were. Bill, you seem to confuse intent with result.

Where was your precious Obama while Zukerberg and Bezos were acquiring that wealth? They made the bulk of their money under his watch. Did you know that? Gates made most of his under Clinton. Where was the outrage then? And what should the government have done. Did you notice the rush to repatriate corporate cash as a result of laws passed by Trump?

To Craig's point, what's with the priorities here for the Dems? Of course you'd like the opiate problem cleaned up. So would we all. So why then, while that horrific epidemic is devastating your country and mine are the Democratic generated headlines about guns and Russian collusion. Stew on that for a bit and see if you can't figure why some of us over here on the right are a bit cynical about the Dems' good intentions.

Social Justice? What is that anyway. Giving money and advantage to those who haven't earned it? If it were about applying the laws equally to all, I'm all for it. But I suspect that's not what is meant.

Your "clueless" president recognizes in his own fallible way that there is something rotten, no putrid, in Washington. Your democracy is at stake and you don't even realize it, you are so busy jumping up and down about Russian collusion. Who needs Russia when you have the Clinton crime family.

In my country, it's become so bad our Prime Minister and half the media don't even recognize or understand that tampering with the justice system on behalf of cronies and friends against the will of the Attorney General is what makes a Banana Republic. I suspect if you lived here you'd be a big supporter of our very own Trudeau. A man who has publicly expressed admiration for the Chinese system of government because of the speed with which they can get things done. Who gives a rats ass about due process and laws, right?

let me throw a curve ball -
I don't want to get involved in US politics -I don't live there anymore (unfortunately!)
My personal belief is, and has been for the last 40 of my 73 years, that the real problem we have is the number of people living on this planet - and growing exponentially !
More people, less space -
less space - more aggression
more people - more politics (see where it us in the UK today!!)
more aggro - more regs
more cars - more road regs
more cars - more regs and accidents (and more CO2 or whatever and more do-gooders)
more people, more idiots/criminals
more people need more food - where does it come from?
soon the area required to grow food for all of us will be greater than the available area -
(what was that film in the 80's?/90's? where the biggest (only?) company then was selling food pellets to the 'populace' that was made from your 'dear loved one'? he he!

and so on - I don't want to go any deeper into details, otherwise I run the risk of being called all sorts of names by the (local?) Press who like the New York Times...

I will say one thing though: if one watches certain TV programs and the News in general, it seems to me that, how shall I say this without running the risk of being sued in court? -
the families who seem to have the highest number of children - in the US or here in the UK - or anywhere else for that matter - seem to be the ones who are not in steady employ
(and have not been for a long time) and would not have much chance if they tried...
That seems to me to be another of the problems...
Call that what you like, but it's a fact!

Greetings from England
Gunter
NRA Life 1974

CB, you don't seem to read very well. I give Nixon credit for his environmental legislation. Yes, he didn't get out fast enough. The two previous administrations were handicapped by the domino theory. They were wrong. Kissinger had the sense to see through that, but he let Nixon delay a peace plan until he was reelected. Countless people died for that. Giving money to people who haven't earned it is the battle cry of conservatism. It translates into," I've got mine; if you don't, that's just TS. Never mind the injunction about my brother's keeper. The current economy is good to some people. Whether or not they deserve it is open to question. Those whom it abandons aren't automatically to blame.

Gunter, You got the main part right. The human race has exceeded the planet's carrying capacity. We are the only organism that destroys its own habitat. Or, as Mark Twain points out, the only animal who blushes, or needs to. We have succeeded in building a world so complicated we're not capable of managing or sustaining it. Thank goodness we have our AR 15s. As long as Trump's in the WH, there's still money to be made. Party Hearty.

Bill, how could you write so many patently stupid things? Just kidding, I was waiting for the right moment to try it out, but then I got over overwhelmed.

Craig, Relax. Scratch your head. You'll remember what you meant to say sooner or later. Meanwhile, we'll hold our breath.

So Kennedy and particularly Johnson get a pass but poor old Tricky Dickie just gets crapped on despite actually achieving the desired result, rather than making things worse.

I read just fine. however when I read you, I'm overwhelmed by in-credulousness. Your biases, in the face of irrefutable evidence, are stunning.

And as far as my brother's keeper goes....dig into the statistics. Across North America, the jurisdictions that give the most to charity are dominated by conservatives. It's not that we don't believe in giving a helping hand....we just don't think that giving should be dominated by a government who got it's money by extortion.

You actually don't know much. At the start of this exchange I opined your comments were like a parody of Dems in action. Sadly it's no longer parody. You are living it. And dragging your country down with you and yet you can't see what you are doing.

Far from the only one Bill. Just check out what the snow geese are doing in the arctic. And we and the geese are far from the only species with that tendency.

BTW Bill, are we agreed we shouldn't beggar our grandchildren? That we should endeavor to give them a fighting chance?

Bill.
I am not sure whether I appreciate your 'faint praise'!
Yes of course we 'destroy our own habitat'! - see my earlier argument - we destroy our own habitat because we have multiplied to the extend that 'our habitat' (the planet) rapidly becomes 'too small' to feed us and give us enough space to live - apart from the other problems mentioned earlier.
On your other (uninvited) point: I don't see any problems with President Trump! - he is exactly what was - and is - needed in this modern (dare I say it: socialist kabal) world!
I stop here - I have no wish to offend you or anyone, but there is a limit to what thinking people can accept - politically or otherwise - from the uneducated classes
(yes, I know, but what do you think 'education' is for? People who are able to think and get their thinking 'sharpened' by education are supposed to take care of us! For our BENEFIT!
Some people might call this 'elitism' - but yes, that's what it is - the original meaning of the word is just that!

Enough

rgds from England
Gunter
NRA Life 1974

to paraphrase an old bible saying: The Meek have inherited the Earth!

Gunter, the meek have not inherited the world. The world has been inherited by the super rich and the multi-national corporations-- with the assistance of our Republican Party. The uneducated are left to fend for themselves- some of them effectively but most just hanging on. Education is the way out of this morass, but conservatives see it as a drain on the bottom line.

Gunter,
The movie you were referring to was titled Soylent Green.
Karl

Bill, check your email, yup those seventy-three from the dnc, the mega elites are currently off limits. They've made your talking point most favored list. Ah, I think I know what happened, you thought all that spam was solicitations for money. Heck, most of the stratospheric rich you belly ache about have floated the idea of future runs for high offices under the dem banner, eh?

You know, even with your President unchaining the enslaved economy, there're still a bunch of college graduates aspiring to making manager at the local latte shop, until something better comes along or they get off their phones. Just imagine how much they will value that degree when it's 'free', eh? Do me a favor, the next time you need a plumber or mechanic to keep your truck spewing poison, you insist on a college degree, okay? Don't 'forget' to tip the waitress, she's a person too and just may be smart enough not to be saddled with some gender studies degree and a mountain of debt.

Craig, you're right, of course; as the world turns, lots of people are under-employed. They have my deepest respect. The future you and I enjoyed has been denied them, and it's not their fault. The ladder we climbed has been severely narrowed. As for whatever else you intended to say, no one could possibly interpret. Like many conservatives, you seem incapable of clear exposition. You just know somehow that you're on the right track and that anyone you takes a different view is seriously mistaken.

CB, You're as obtuse as Craig. Where did I give a pass to Kennedy or Johnson? The war should never have happened- like many others. BTW, I'm lying awake nights fretting about the environmental degradation brought on by snow geese. Maybe we should open season on them.

I never said that, did I Bill. As you might notice, I keep reminding you of baggage that goes along with your view, because you won't try to change my mind with facts and logic. If you say I'm seriously mistaken because you feel like it, why aren't my feelings equally as valid?

Knowing that factually there's a high chance that one of the current Democrat Presidential hopefuls will be on the ballot in two years. And, knowing for a fact the words that come out of their mouths and are printed on their websites, wouldn't you think it would be smart of me to wake each morning and thank God for a sharply divided nation?

Isn't it the silliest thing in the world to believe that facts and figures will change feelings?

Can you prove these statements Billy???... especially the part about LBJ twisting Republican arms to get the votes to pass the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, and the 1965 Fair Housing Act.

Then tell us how and why LBJ was supposedly able to twist a lot more Republican arms than Democrat arms.

Billy, you should Google "Lyndon B. Johnson racist" and see what pops up. Even the highly Liberal Snopes fact checkers freely admit his extreme racism and relates that he referred to the 1957 Civil Rights Act as the "Ni**er Bill". I wonder why you Democrats never want to go anywhere near the truth about such things?

Obviously, you're still lying, and compounding lies with more lies. Then you move on to blame Trump for environmental damage that was done long before he entered politics.

Your statement claiming that humans are the only species that destroys its' own habitat is simply stupid, and evidence that you just repeat propaganda without any thought or reason. One quick example, without much thought required, is a swarm of locusts. Many more easily come to mind. But it does require that you have a mind.

It's hard to fathom why anyone would wish to debate you Billy. You aren't very smart, and you've been caught in numerous lies here. But it is quite entertaining and educational to see you once again making an ass of yourself, and saying virtually anything to prove your Socialist points.

By the way, how did Obama provide health insurance for 20 million people who didn't have it before? Who pays for it, and how much does it cost compared to the cost for similar coverage prior to Obama taking office? And tell us why his plan which was supposed to make health health care affordable precipitated double digit annual percentage cost increases. Then tell us why Obama left over 37 million without coverage, and why he was so heartless?

I know it is unfair to ask you to either think or tell the truth Billy, but at age 78, I believe it's about time that you started doing so.

I don’t read very well, you say? I’m obtuse, you say? And yet you ask where you give Johnson and Kennedy a pass on the Vietnam Nam war?

Right here in this post you made in the middle of our conversation yesterday. It wasn’t their fault, you are saying. They were handicapped by the Domino Theory.

I can’t guess what you think Bill. I can only go on the words you type. And right there, you absolved Kennedy and Johnson because they were stuck with some theory that they had to follow, while at the same time blaming Nixon for not shucking that same theory fast enough.

That’s where you gave them a pass.

Very big of you to give Nixon credit for his environmental legislation. Too bad your partisanship blinds you to his other successes. You have unwittingly exposed the shallowness of your thinking and the extreme bias that guides you. In case anyone was in doubt, we now know conclusively how much credibility we need assign your claims and positions here.

Edit to add: when I look back over our conversation from yesterday, there are so many falsehoods or errors put forth by Bill, so many direct questions I’ve posed unanswered. In truth an inability to respond directly to each claim or counter claim. It took me three posts in another thread to get Bill to admit that the Mueller report exonerated Trump of collusion with the Russians. Three times asking for a direct answer to a direct question. I started that line of questions because Bill did a drive by slander of Trump on the question of Russian collusion. Bill represents the Left. Not interested in discussion nor results. Simply attaining and keeping power in order to tell others how to live. What small minded people.

Sad that that movement is cloaked in the cause of "equality", when in truth most of the Dems could care less about equality. What they want is power, and control over the populace, and to keep that they have to stay in office, and to stay in office they "buy" votes. They have bought them by deceiving the minorities into believing they care about them. How? "Welfare" checks. The countryside is riddled with baby factories who are not married, don't even have a man living in the house, have never held a job, but draw more and more money for every baby they produce. And, they have raised a generation that is just like them. The Dems did that to them, it is not the result of an inequitable system.

You're a joke, bill. The only thing unclear to me is your motives.

SRH

CB, When I used the word handicapped, I did not intend it as an excuse. I meant their judgment was at fault. I blame them for their error just as I blame every politician of both parties who backed the invasion of Iraq. Stan, that line about buying votes won't hold much water. What do you think Trump's tax cut was. Politicians do stuff for their constituents, occasionally it's true service; often it's not. That's the system.To see it as partisan is silly. As for welfare, check out government support for sugar producers. When the system lets Amazon and General Electric escape income taxes, you have real welfare fraud.

All one big happy, disfunctional family, huh Bill? Could you pull the part of tax cut that says it's only for old, white Republicans? Can you pull up the part that says dems don't get to participate with the tax cut? Constituents, eh. Your entitlements do tend to favor blue states and blue counties in states that you folks are trying to flip.

There you go again, aren't the ceo's of those big corps lock step dems? What a luxury huh Bill. You get to bash them out of one side of your mouth because it'll make three or folks feel good, and on the other hand you get to reap the benefit of their mega dollar corporate donations to get your social justice fundamental change agents elected.

Are you sure the campaign coffers, of these folks telling you what to do, are filled twenty or fifty dollars at a time by folks like you?

Stan, I bet when Bill got up this morning and had some breakfast, he figured if stove ain't broken don't fix it. It's clear, he doesn't like America and is motivated to change it.

We have gone, in the space of 1/2 of a presidential term, from record numbers of people unemployed, record numbers of people dependent on welfare and general assistance checks from the government, to the lowest numbers for unemployment for black, Hispanic, female, and Asian minority groups ever recorded. While all that was promised by the previous administration, it delivered nothing. The numbers of people who were suddenly insured were almost all people who were simply shuffled into Medicaid. The democrats gave big pharma and big insurance the pen to write the healthcare legislation, and to write the profit margins as well. As per usual, it is pie in the sky liberal nonsense, that could not have worked.
At the end of the day, the thing that matters the most to me, and that I have the least control over is the economy, and Democrats have left it in a shambles enough times in my life that I hope they are bludgeoned in any and all elections henceforth.
Bill is worried that some corporation gets a tax break, unable to comprehend the value employment numbers by an outfit like Amazon or General Electric contribute to the US economy, when they are here, and not pulling up stakes to do their business elsewhere, a policy almost encouraged under the Obama administration.
Bill will never grasp political give and take, only liberal take. Trying to show that is a waste of time.
Anyone who can’t clearly fathom the positive change for the US under the Trump administration, versus the Obama administration, on almost every level, from energy independence to household wealth, is a simpleton. They aren’t worth the effort it takes to educate them.
Just for you Bill, remember, that Mississippi became the 15th state to endorse a constitution of states. It is coming, Bill, and it will cause all liberals to become terminal bed wetters when the states check the federal government power and force them into term limits, a balanced budget, and a fraction of the power they have, now.
Get used to it, Bill. It is going to happen.

Best,
Ted

Well stated, Ted. That State Constitutional Convention cannot get here fast enough, afaic.
JR

Thank you, Stan. Truth spoken here. The ruination of the nuclear black family and all the resulting rot and crime to society is squarely on The Democrat Party. Started with Roosevelt's New Deal, but was weaponized by Lyndon Johnson's War On Poverty, then carried to a new level by BHO. America will be fortunate to survive the fallout from it.
JR

Ted, Obama didn't cause the financial meltdown.When he saves the economy from the gamblers on Wall Street and turns it in the right direction, he gets no credit from his detractors. As soon as Trump takes over, he magically pulls prosperity from a hat. This conversation is amusing, but it doesn't seem likely to go anywhere.

The fellow barry selected to save your economy had the nickname, turbotax. That should tell you something. Anyone with fifty bucks and an internet connection could have done the job, if they stayed out of the way.

Your current President has not used smoke and mirrors. For one small but significant example, can you honestly explain what it means to have tens of thousands of pages of new regulations, potentially affecting the ability to do your job, randomly dumped on you by barry on many a Sunday evening? Or, is 'regulations' just one of the meaningless rally words that lefties look for?

Aren't you the smart one, building yet another conversation to nowhere. Can I let you know now and then that it won't be an easy road?

Yo'll have to copy and paste, but
watch this if you can stand the light of day, RMB:
https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?hsimp=yhs-att_001&hspart=att&p=candace+owen%27s+2019+CPAC+speech#id=1&vid=62e41b9051e1787761cf251518f2a0aa&action=click
JR

Craig, if anybody could have cured the crash, surely someone might have prevented it in the first place. That was W's watch. As was the war in Iraq. As for these conversations, I wouldn't want an easy road. That would be boring.

Much like FDR didn’t cause his meltdown, he just extended it for the following decade. From what I can see, and what I experienced, that extension of hardship is a hallmark of liberal administrations.
I’d have taken my chances with the gamblers on Wall Street before I signed on to the level of debt Obama foisted on us, with a lot fewer promises and results then Wall Strret has delivered. It gets old pointing out to liberals that debt level surpassed the entire debt, combined, of all previous administrations.
Trump pulled nothing out of his hat. The rocketing up of the economy began the day of his inauguration, based on the expectations of what he campaigned on. Simple as that.
If the man had done nothing other than select the Supreme Court justices he has, and played golf for the remainder or his term, he would have done more good for the country than Obama had done his entire 8 years. I didn’t vote for Trump, I voted against Hillary, and I and the nation got more, far more, than we could have dreamed.

Best,
Ted

Ted, The Great Depression began in 1929 under a Republican administration. FDR wasn't elected until 1932. As for debt, check out the projections from Trump's tax cut.

Bill,
The Great Depression soldiered on for a decade, after FDRs election, and every policy he implemented made it worse, not better. Here, that bastion of conservative thought, UCLA economics explains why:

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409


RE debt under the tax cut: You have to fix the economy, Stupid, before you can begin to clean up the mess from the previous administration. You also forgot to note that under the budget proposed by Mr. Trump, the budget is balanced in 15 years.
Quite a triumph.

Best,
Ted

There's also the little matter of, whose projections and who gets to attribute them to what. I suspect what's going on here is a double edged sword. The left gets traction with the tax cut talking point and, go figure, the R's are racists and hate the poor if entitlements aren't exponentially ever expanding, eh Bill?

Yes, Craig, I've always advocated "exponentially ever expanding entitlements". Now that you've called me out on it, I'm changing my position. Let the poor starve. If they can't find a job, they should start a business, perhaps something in venture capitalism or arbitrage, or wealth management. Ted, I'd appreciate seeing evidence that The New Deal made the depression worse. Perhaps some Austrian economist thinks so, but I still see the benefits of it where I live. In the small town I grew up in TND gave employment to lots of young guys who had no other source of work. We enjoy today parks, highways, reservoirs, and art works that were made during the depression.

If you can’t find a job in the Trump economy, you can’t find a job, period. The fact of the matter is, everyone who WANTS a job, now has one. The realization that in order to hire someone at this point in time, is going to mean companies have to provide more than the employer someone has now, is driving phenomenal wage growth.

You can’t read the link I posted to UCLA economics, Bill? More evidence than you will ever provide that FDR did anything, save promise a chicken in every pot.

Which never happened.


Best,
Ted

Awe c’mon Bill. If a dem wants a 20% increase in some program and an R holds the same funding for the follow year, then the R is a sink in a ditch for slashing the program by 20%, eh?

I’ve never read it quite that way, but will your ‘poor’ be exempt from barak era regs? My thought would be their best chance of earning some food money would be by the good graces of being hired by a big ole fat corporation, right? It doesn’t have to be some Wall Street corp, maybe something entry level like a mcd’s or 7-11, huh?

Hey, how about your open border future for the country and your grandkids? Ignore the US citizen, then go on TV and claim each illegal will pump millions into your ‘projected’ economy, eh? Don’t forget, about 90% of the worst, or best if you must, illegal drugs in MT come up through mejico, si?

If you actually paid attention to this stuff, Bill, you'd know that the origins of that crash began with terribly ill advised choices the CLINTON administration made to encourage the extension of mortgages to people who could not afford them. It was specifically done to make the poor, low information Democrat voter think Clinton was doing them a favour.

I'm late to the game today as most of the day was spent working snow covered fields with a happy and hard working dog while carrying my trusted J & W Tolley single barrel 12 ga game gun. The dog did his part, the pheasant did their part and the Tolley did it's part. A good day was had by all. This stuff never gets old.

Or a favor, as we spell it in the USA. Clinton, Harding, Hoover, Nixon, Carter-- all fell short of the leadership we had under Teddy Roosevelt. And FDR was the direct opposite of his cousin "Teddy"--he was the biggest con-man to ever hold the office of POTUS-- his many "smoke and mirrors" programs just delayed the inevitable- WW11- which he got America into vis a vis his cozy relationship with Winston Churchill was the event that brought the American economy out of the Great Depression-- RWTF

As I said, buying votes. It not only holds water, bill .......... it's a wellspring of truth.

'Fess up, Bill. What are your motives, really?

SRH

James is right. Deregulation hand-over-first with Clinton, Greenspan saying all the tools in place to prevent bad happening, Obama chose Keynes to save the world and got the country's money back with small profit. But look, look: the big boys are pushing deregulation hand-over-fist again. As for doing the electorate a favour by getting it to vote against its interests, all parties are good at it. It's manipulation of the electorate under the guise of managing its affairs.

Well alrighty then; we don't all agree on the 2nd or the welfare society. Immigration is a non-starter around here.

How about "women's rights" aka abortion on demand. Georgia has passed a bill referred to as the "heartbeat bill", which outlaws abortion after a fetal heartbeat can be detected. It carries the usual exceptions for rape or incest.

GA doctors are up in arms about it saying the State can't outlaw something they are trained to do. Women's Righters are livid. The whole purpose of the bill is to get something before the supreme court to either uphold Roe vs. Wade or overturn it.

The issue is simple for me; infanticide or feticide is murder. However, my own wife and I can't even agree on it.

On the other hand, women, for the first time since Adam's Rib have been allowed to fully enjoy their own sexuality without fear of more offspring. Men have benefitted accordingly.

Where's this one going?...Geo

Geo, if your post doesn’t send anyone to the hockey thread nothing will.

Final Four set. One Yankee team. Go Green!


___________________________
Hockey, the wholesome sport.

Almost a perfect night !

Habs won
Leafs lost
Preds lost

Problem is Habs winning meant Jets lost. Divided loyalties. So I’m reveling in the losses by the Preds and the Leafs.

Did i ever tell you about the hockey game I went to in Atlanta one time back in the '70s? No idea what was going on but it sure was happening fast!...Geo

Canvasback, you live in the right place if you're still hunting pheasants in March. Here, we just hope some of ours made it through the winter. It's not fair to blame low income home buyers for the crash. Most of them probably thought they'd never be able to buy a house. Along come easy leans; the banker says of course you can get a loan. It's hard to pass that offer up. It's the lenders that drew these people in. They didn't care if the buyers were qualified or if the loans were repaid because they sold the mortgages off to another set of naive clients. Trump will let this happen again if he gets his way. He is no fiscal conservative. He's been an unqualified borrower several times and left others holding the bag.

Why that's terrible. It was only twice, but barak was an unqualified prez. He was eminently qualified though to show the ways of identity politics, eh? His signature accomplishment, after making community organizing a college degree, two year.

Bill, it was a lovely day.

I didn’t BLAME low income homebuyers..... I blamed cynical user Bill Clinton for using them in such a despicable way..... to financially trap them while pretending to give them their dreams. All to buy more time in power. More time to become worth 100 million. A cynical ploy by a despicable man. Hero to the Left. Regular passenger on Lolita Air.

I’ll take Trump and Bush, for all their faults, any day. And remember Bill. Iraq war. Full support of the Democrats at the time. Full support.

Now the Liberal Liar rocky mtn bill would have you all believing that Banks willingly lent money and gave mortgages to people that they knew would be unable to repay the loans.

Billy is a guy who can make excuses for anything the Liberal Left does... including incrementally taking away our 2nd Amendment rights.

Billy absolutely refused to even acknowledge my last post. He refused to tell us how Lyndon B. Johnson's arm twisting made a whole lot more Republicans than Democrats vote for the 1964 and 1965 Civil Rights Bills. He refused to acknowledge LBJ's well known and extreme racism... while he calls President Trump a racist here dozens of times. And he wouldn't or couldn't explain his wild-assed claims about Obamacare.

It's a shame Dave banished jOe, and kept a lying turd like this who blindly supports those who would love to take our guns. Billy is a typical Liberal. If he had his way, the corporations that employ the people who pay for his precious Socialist Welfare programs would be taxed to death and driven into oblivion. Then when they simply left, and the country swirled down the toilet like Venezuela, Billy would find a way to blame Trump, Reagan, and the Bush's.

Wondered why old Ho-Jo did a disappearing act on this forum? So our gracious host Dave W, "pulled the pin" on the gent from the Volunteer State-- well, life goes on, does it not?? RWTF

'Now the Liberal Liar rocky mtn bill would have you all believing that Banks willingly lent money and gave mortgages to people that they knew would be unable to repay the loans.'

errrr....that's exactly what they did. giving loans even if they had no job in some cases....


"In 1995 Clinton loosened housing rules by rewriting the Community Reinvestment Act, which put added pressure on banks to lend in low-income neighborhoods. It is the subject of heated political and scholarly debate whether any of these moves are to blame for our troubles, but they certainly played a role in creating a permissive lending environment."

The worst part was that the mortgages were allowed to be traded, and exempt from regulations. This policy was carried on by Bush for two terms.

The whole story
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_policies_and_the_subprime_mortgage_crisis

just say'n

P.S.- so you may be right, that banks were NOT willing to lend money, but were pressured into it...hmmmm

That's correct dal, the Banks were forced to make loans to people that they traditionally would have turned down. George Bush was accused of racism and being cruel to poor people when he urged Congress to reverse this insane policy signed into law by Democrat Bill Clinton. But banks and bankers aren't stupid, and they knew they would be left holding the bag when these people began defaulting on mortgages on homes they couldn't afford. So they legally bundled these bad subprime loans and dumped them on others, including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Then taxpayers and stockholders in these entities were killed when the House of Cards came crashing down. The crash was accelerated by outsourcing of millions of manufacturing jobs due to insane foreign trade deals. All of a sudden, people who had been able to make those big mortgage payments for a while, found themselves laid off and without a paycheck. That's when we began seeing record numbers of foreclosures that led to the meltdown.

We could try to then blame Bush for not stopping the major banks from bundling and selling bad subprime loans, but he didn't have the votes to do it. And even if he did, then the banks would have failed, and we all would have quickly learned that the FDIC does not have nearly enough to cover us when our banks closed and told us our savings were gone. It could have been much worse. Most of the ground work for the recovery such as TARP was started by Bush, and handed off to Obama.

It was not only predictable, it was absolutely predicted, but the Democrats did it anyway. People who had the dream of home ownership, but not the means to pay for it lost everything. Many of them still haven't recovered from the temptation that bankrupted them and inevitably ruined their credit. And the resulting Great Recession of 2008 almost became a global Depression, and cost all of us dearly in terms of job losses, losses in 401-K's and IRA's that delayed retirements or made retirement impossible for some, and a decade of depressed wages and chronic high unemployment.

So it remains true that the best welfare program and the best health care program is an economy where the majority of people can find and hold a decent job and earn enough to pay their own way. Driving corporations away through high taxes and excessive regulation won't accomplish that, and no poor man has ever employed me. Billy was employed as a teacher by taxpayers, so he sees a well that he thinks can never run dry.

Earning the stupidest comment ever is, in some way, quite self-satisfying. I never excel at anything.

This thread is a perfect reason to bring back Misfires. It started out as a 2nd Amendment thread and devolved into a diatribe about parties and politicians. I get it, they can be intertwined with the 2nd A but this just went down a deep deep rabbit hole.
I don't have an issue talking politics for politics sake in the appropriate section (misfires) but folks need to stick to the initial topic of the thread.

Don't forget the detour into racism.

Alan

"The worst part was the mortgages were allowed to be traded." Yes. Keith calls anyone who disagrees with him a liar. He adores Trump. Trump has been proven by non=partisan sources to have lied more then 8500 times these past two years. That doesn't count with Keith because he agrees with Trump that the truth is whatever he happens to believe.

Well, Bill, I have been lied to by a politician. He told me a few whoppers. If I liked my doctor, I could keep my doctor. If I liked my health plan, I could keep my health plan. My costs for my health plan I liked would go down $2500 a year.
Did I ever mention my health plan, that had cost about $2300 a year,was taken away from me, and the new one the liar stuck me with, went up to almost $10,000 a year, and had a $10,000 deductible? Because, it did.

Oh wait, I just remembered-that wasn’t Donald Trump.

Best,
Ted

Ted, that's four lies. He has along way to go if he means to keep up.

But, they were four lies that impacted me, in a way no other US politician ever has. They were fraud, they stole directly from my family budget, and created a hardship on myself and other American families.

Name anything uttered by Mr. Trump that cost me 4 times what it had a year prior, and basically left my family uninsured? Are you too dense to see the negative impact that whole episode had on the average American?

People died waiting for the promise of the glorious new healthcare fiasco promised by the most unqualified president with the worst 8 year record in history. It took some doing to beat Jimmy Carter on that one. But, Obama did just that


Best,
Ted

Bill, you should pay attention, some good points are being made. I read somewhere online that prez. b averaged some 5200 lies per year. But, eleventeen different research centers concluded that 4 out of 5 of his lies registered 5 or higher on the metoo richter scale. Serious stuff Bil, but hey, you win a big juicy hug from biden, wash your hair first, okay?

CB, A while back you asked for evidence of a government intervention that succeeded at a reasonable cost. If you can, check out the NYT's report today on Obama's rescue of the US automobile industry.

The New York Times?

Haaaaaaah, ha, ha ,ha!! "Evidence" means that it is without question. Hardly what the Times offers.

SRH

Ha....from bump stocks....to snow geese to... mortgage failures to....?

Ah yes, the TARP, or Troubled Asset Relief Program... started by none other than pro-gun Republican George Bush... who handed off the ball to anti-gun Democrat Barack Obama... who then fumbled the ball by losing $10.6 Billion by the time the Treasury Dept. closed the books on the TARP program. In the end, GM went bankrupt anyway, tens of thousands of good paying UAW jobs were lost, Billions in salary pensions and medical benefits were lost, and fewer workers ended up with lower wages and benefits. I guess it all depends upon your definition of success.

There will always be questions on whether it was a good idea for the government to intervene, of if the weak and mismanaged industries should have been allowed to fail. GM got in trouble mostly because of GMAC and their involvement in the Mortgage Crisis. Just 3 years earlier, in 2005, GM had all-time record profits. We will never know if short term misery might have led to greater stability and prosperity, or if we might still be mired in a global depression. But we do know what Party was most responsible for unfair Trade and Mortgage lending policies that put us in that position in the first place. Billy doesn't wish to even discuss that, and would rather fall back on claiming that President Trump lies all day every day.

And ain't it funny... the same rocky mtn bill that hates the idea of Trump cutting corporate taxes and regulations to create jobs is the same Libtard who gives Obama full credit for an $80.3 Billion bailout of major AUTO CORPORATIONS.

I kinda agree with this... BUT... if I had a nickel for every thread that ever veered or was steered way off topic, I could buy a very nice double rifle. And I'm not just talking about those which have a political bent.

But I'm also glad this went off topic, because it illustrates some points I've made many times. The 2nd Amendment should ALWAYS be on topic in any firearms forum, because without the 2nd Amendment, all we could ever do is talk... maybe... if the government permitted that. But just look at who is most responsible for steering this thread into a Republican, Conservative, Trump-bashing fest. Then ask yourself why none of the usual Thread Police have uttered a peep about rocky mtn bill and his usual campaign to trash most any pro-gun politician.

Here's a challenge. Can anyone show me a thread or post here in the main Doublegun forum made by rocky mtn bill that ever offered any advice or useful information pertaining to double guns. Billy comes to this forum to drop his load of Liberal Left bullshit, and then retreats to the Custom Rifle forum where he acts as if it is a mortal sin to even broach the same subjects he brings to the front page. And all I can say is, King must not be feeling well, or he would have surpassed Billy at least 4 to 1 in off topic drivel and Canadian politics by now.

Stan, Read The National Enquirer then.

lets not forget Obamas cash for cars program !!
That was a huge success!!!! LOL

Yup, some of these things are related. Let's not forget the funding source for this disaster and the troops in war zones at the time that might have benefited if it was left alone. Hmmm, hasn't Bill complained a time or two on this thread about that money pit of a war?

Is that another of your sources of "evidence"?

SRH

keith, there's always talk of the 2nd because it is sacrosanct to some and not others, with tens of thousands of infringements from municipal, state and federal governance. It's a story that doesn't need repeating. Certainly not as a member's injunction that posts must be on topic, never veered or steered away from on this forum. It may not have occurred to you that US members and from elsewhere see partisan political bashing of any kind as tiresome drivel deliberately thwarting the forum's rules. I'm encouraged that my Trend post had an engaged response, off- and on-thread, with members having their say without bashing or a rude word. It can be done.

King, you're a funny guy. You must think that nobody here has a memory. If you really believed the B.S. you posted above, especially the part about U.S. members and from elsewhere seeing "partisan political bashing of any kind as tiresome drivel deliberately thwarting the forum's rules", then certainly you should know you yourself would be among the biggest serial offenders. And when it comes to rude partisan bashing, it would only take me a few moments to post a number of your own numerous insults toward Conservatives and pro-gun politicians. Do the words "greedy", "selfish", "misogynists", "haters", "racists", etc. ring any bells with you?

So cut the crap already King. Dishonesty is not civility.

However, your first sentence about tens of thousands of infringements on the 2nd Amendment is refreshing because it helps to bring us back on topic for this Thread. I acknowledge that there have been thousands of infringements. Even after the 2008 Heller and McDonald U.S. Supreme Court decisions that affirmed the Framers Original Intent of an Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms, there are still infringements... Unconstitutional as can be. And virtually all of those infringements come directly from people who share your Liberal Left mindset.

It's a story that absolutely needs repeating. Gun owners will never win the unending battle to preserve our rights until they are smart enough to see who the enemy is. The best way to stop anti-gunners is to stop electing them. Period! More importantly, gun owners need to open their eyes to see who among them is stabbing them in their backs by supporting the Liberal Left politicians who impose those "tens of thousands of infringements". I think we all know where that leaves you and rocky mtn bill.