Anti-tax protests

[JeffIsHereToo]

What are you talking about? A thinking president who changes his policies as new facts come to light. The only fact that came to light was that it was going to be a major battle to try and re-instate the assault weapons ban because there was enough opposition on both sides of the aisle to get it to pass. HE STATED HE STILL WANTS THE BAN AND TO MAKE IT PERMANENT. A thinking president would actually look at the facts and see that the ban did practically nothing in the ten years it was in effect. In addition, the total weapons that Mexico has confiscated was about 17% coming from the U.S. not the 90% that they state. They don't want to talk about the level of corruption that is in the Mexican military and how many "military" weapons were found to be in cartel hands. So don't tell me that we have a "thinking" president who looks at facts and statistics to make educated decisions. Most decisions are political and not "do what's right'. That goes for both parties.

 

The way to fix the problem is to reduce the drug use in the United States or just bite the bullet and make'um legal in some form. Then we can focus on banning assault weapons for the simple fact that people don't need them. You obviously disagree and that's that!

[Afterburner]

The way to fix the problem is to reduce the drug use in the United States or just bite the bullet and make'um legal in some form. Then we can focus on banning assault weapons for the simple fact that people don't need them. You obviously disagree and that's that!

The simple fact is that people don't need muscle cars with big engines that could do 150+mph either. They are unnecessary, use too much gas, emit more pollution. If everyone drove little four bangers and hybrids and were speed limited to say 75mph, more highway lives would be saved in one year than the assault weapons ban saved in ten. Let's go back to prohibition. How many people are killed each year because of overindulging in alcohol. The simple fact is that alcohol is not needed. Do you have any idea why there is a second amendment? It's there to preserve the rest of the constitution if and when a government becomes too big and tyrannical and starts to turn against its own citizens. Don't believe it can't happen here. If you do than you are naive and yes, I'd rather be a little paranoid and ready than naive and an easy target. Yes, I finally agree with you on your last sentence :happy feet:

[SicShelby]

The way to fix the problem is to reduce the drug use in the United States or just bite the bullet and make'um legal in some form. Then we can focus on banning assault weapons for the simple fact that people don't need them. You obviously disagree and that's that!

 

You are right... people don't need assault weapons, really. Honestly, don't you think that this upsets people because they are seeing the ban as an infringement on their RIGHT to bare arms? I think conservatives, me included, are irritated because this is adding on top of the list of what we can't have, and the continuing intervention of government where it may not belong.

 

I also agree with you - we need to reduce the use of drugs in the United States. There has been a lot of debate, as you know, to even legalize marijuana... legalizing drugs, IMHO, is not going to help the problem. You can't expect people to be responsible with drug use, there's just no way.

[ilmor]

Looks like you got all the people that voted for McCain out of the house!

 

Outstanding!

 

 

That's hardly the point of my posting that list, but what good does it do to explain?

[KingCobra666]

OK, so I looked it up. My comment still stands, I would rather be part of the group that is naive about it than the the group that thinks it is so funny....... and you?

Well...

 

KC666

[JeffIsHereToo]

You are right... people don't need assault weapons, really. Honestly, don't you think that this upsets people because they are seeing the ban as an infringement on their RIGHT to bare arms? I think conservatives, me included, are irritated because this is adding on top of the list of what we can't have, and the continuing intervention of government where it may not belong.

 

I also agree with you - we need to reduce the use of drugs in the United States. There has been a lot of debate, as you know, to even legalize marijuana... legalizing drugs, IMHO, is not going to help the problem. You can't expect people to be responsible with drug use, there's just no way.

 

 

Then let's be honest and ban cigarets and alcohol! As long as drugs are banned, as in the days of prohibition, people will get it and crime will be the means. Did we learn nothing from prohibition?

 

Don't even get me started on your logic! So let's see, people can be trusted to be responsible for owning an assault weapon meant to kill others, but can not be trusted to be responsible for a joint smoked at home? So continuing intervention of government is ok as long as it's not something you care about?

[sportscars]

You are correct that there is no need for assult weapons. I think they should be banned. The problem is that banning them only prevents law abiding people from owning them. The drug dealer down the street is not going to turn his in. The gate has been open too long. It doesnt do any good to shut it now. Take ALL the assult weapons away from ALL the criminals and THEN you can talk about taking them away from everyone else.

 

Now back to the us vs. them theme.

[JeffIsHereToo]

Do you have any idea why there is a second amendment? It's there to preserve the rest of the constitution if and when a government becomes too big and tyrannical and starts to turn against its own citizens.

 

Yes, I do know why there is a second amendment and it's not for the reasons you state, however having said that, when this mythical tyrannical government comes to pass I'll be sitting with my beer watching you with your AK-47 against the US Marine Corps.

 

I think the Iraq insurgents had a heck of a lot more than a few AK-47s, how's that working out for'um?

 

[JeffIsHereToo]

You are correct that there is no need for assult weapons. I think they should be banned. The problem is that banning them only prevents law abiding people from owning them. The drug dealer down the street is not going to turn his in. The gate has been open too long. It doesnt do any good to shut it now. Take ALL the assult weapons away from ALL the criminals and THEN you can talk about taking them away from everyone else.

 

Now back to the us vs. them theme.

 

 

Yes, yes, the same old tired rational we've heard over and over and over...shampoo, rinse, repeat.

[AFBLUE]

Actually, You can pretty much guarantee that 99% of the people that showed up are in the 50% of the people who actually pay taxes in this countrydemographic.

I heard this figure too and was curious if it were true. According to factcheck.org its 38% that don't pay federal income taxes

According to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, it is true that 38 percent of "tax units" -- which can be singles, couples, or families -- are projected to have zero or negative income tax liability in 2009. About 60 percent of these households make $20,000 per year or less.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/do_4...ans_pay_no.html

 

What I found interesting was this tidbit from the same site

However, being exempt from income tax does not mean you're exempt from federal taxes. Everyone who works is liable for payroll taxes, contributions to Medicare and Social Security that come out of every paycheck. There are also excise taxes on some goods and services, most notably the 18.4 cents per gallon tax on gasoline. The Congressional Budget Office found that earners in the lowest quintile, where most of those with no income tax liability fall, shouldered 4.3 percent of the payroll tax burden in 2005 and 11.1 percent of the excise taxes. Their effective tax rate (which is calculated by dividing taxes paid by total income) in those categories, according to the CBO, was in fact significantly higher than the rate of the top quintile, although that top one-fifth of the population had a much higher effective tax rate for individual and corporate income taxes.

So just to run some numbers, if you gross 20K/year your payroll taxes would be 7.65% (assuming you aren't self employed) or $1530. According to this site the average mileage per year is 20000 miles. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_aver...ileage_per_year

In 2004 the average mileage for cars in trucks in the US was 24.6, so lets assume it's 25MPG in 2009

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_automobiles So that's 800 gallons per year or $147.50.

So the the payroll tax and gas tax alone would be a 8.4% effective tax rate. There is also federal telephone, alcohol, and tobacco excise taxes. Not everyone smokes or drinks, but it's safe to say in this example their effective tax rate would be close to 8.5-9.0%.

 

So while 38% of Americans don't pay income taxes almost all of us pay some federal taxes (only group I could think of that doesn't are those in prison).

[AFBLUE]

Yes, I do know why there is a second amendment and it's not for the reasons you state, however having said that, when this mythical tyrannical government comes to pass I'll be sitting with my beer watching you with your AK-47 against the US Marine Corps.

 

I think the Iraq insurgents had a heck of a lot more than a few AK-47s, how's that working out for'um?

 

Actually, it worked out pretty good until Al Qaeda in Iraq started terrorizing the local population. Once the population turned against them and the local Sheiks switched sides and asked for American help the tide turned.

 

So if sportscar is in Texas, Oklahoma, or Utah, he'll be ok, but if he's Illinois, California, NY or Mass, he's toast (ATTENTION EVERYONE! This is a joke. I REPEAT this is a joke) :D

[sportscars]

I am in Texas, and I will be OK. I may have to sell a kidney to buy my ammo however.

 

Jeff, yes that is a common saying, but that doesnt mean it isnt true. If you have facts to show that criminals do indeed follow the gun laws then by all means please post those facts here. If you can show me how the average Joe will be safer if they give up their guns please do so. I will show you Australia and how their crime rate went UP after the law abiding population gave up their guns. I will stick to the theory that the criminals have and will continue to keep their's. I have no proof, so maybe the criminals DID give up their gun, but I doubt it (thats why they are CRIMINALS!).

 

If it was only about saving lives there would be other things more important. What if I told you we could save 13,380 lives and $40 billion a year. What do we have to do? Stop speeding. Thats it. http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/enf...eedingForum.pdf, check it out. Thats just from speeding! Imagine if the speed limit were 10 or 20 or 30 mph lower. That number could easily double. Total traffic deaths in 2008 were 37,313. Firearm homicides were 12,352.

If it was really about saving lives people would be willing to make sacrifices. Most politicians don't own guns so it doesn't affect them to ban them and they can claim they are trying to make the country a safer place. Imagine the backlash if they tried to lower the speed limit. Even if it saved tens of thousands of lives. Childrens lives. Wouldn't it be worth it???

 

I hate to break it to you but most politicians (donkey or elephant) dont really care about you and your well being. They want your vote. They bend to what they think the majority wants at that moment. That why they "change their minds". VOTES. Most people don't own "assult" weapons and they (with the media) portray those guns to be bad. Truth is guns are neither bad or good. They are nuetral. People on the other hand......

[2007GT]

They are actually right. The constitution does not give congress the authority to tax income.

 

Yes it does.

 

The Sixteenth Amendment (Amendment XVI) to the United States Constitution allows the Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states or basing it on Census results. This amendment overruled Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895), which greatly limited the Congress' authority to levy an income tax.

 

It was ratified on February 3, 1913

[Afterburner]

Yes, I do know why there is a second amendment and it's not for the reasons you state, however having said that, when this mythical tyrannical government comes to pass I'll be sitting with my beer watching you with your AK-47 against the US Marine Corps.

 

I think the Iraq insurgents had a heck of a lot more than a few AK-47s, how's that working out for'um?

 

 

Actually I would not be using an AK and you wouldn't be watching me because CNN or MSNBC wouldn't be covering it.

[2007GT]

One thing I will say though is that in Orlando assault weaps ARE being used on the streets and they are common. Illegally possesed but they are being used. I still dont want them banned but thats a reality here.

 

You must live in a different Orlando than me. I haven't heard or seen ANYTHING about this. Plus, there is no such thing as an "assault" weapon. Just because a semi automatic hunting rifle looks like a military weapon does not make it more dangerous. If a criminal shoots you with an AR-15 is that worse than if he shot you with a .40 Glock pistol?

[2007GT]

The way to fix the problem is to reduce the drug use in the United States or just bite the bullet and make'um legal in some form. Then we can focus on banning assault weapons for the simple fact that people don't need them. You obviously disagree and that's that!

 

 

You don't need a 500 horsepower car. You don't need a Filet Mignon, you can survive on rice. Let's ban those too! Anything that the government decides is not needed they should ban. Right?

[SicShelby]

Then let's be honest and ban cigarets and alcohol! As long as drugs are banned, as in the days of prohibition, people will get it and crime will be the means. Did we learn nothing from prohibition?

 

Don't even get me started on your logic! So let's see, people can be trusted to be responsible for owning an assault weapon meant to kill others, but can not be trusted to be responsible for a joint smoked at home? So continuing intervention of government is ok as long as it's not something you care about?

 

Ban cigarettes? When was the last time someone caused harm because they smoked too many Marlboro's in an hour? Ban alcohol? Oh yesss we learned a lot from prohibition, mostly that it DIDN'T WORK. And don't get me started on my logic? Do you have none? What it comes down to is responsible people will respect their rights and not abuse them, and take me for example. I'm an ex-Marine, and even though I have weapons (because I have the RIGHT to own them), I'm not going to go on a shooting spree. Tell me if you think the Columbine massacre was from a responsible citizen - yeah right! And you're telling me that the government has the right to take weapons away, and I don't know if I'm crazy, but I could SWEAR that the government MADE the second amendment? You bet your a$$ that government doesn't belong telling me that I don't have the right to bare arms when they said... I actually have the right to bare arms. Oxymoron, at best.

 

Jeff, yes that is a common saying, but that doesnt mean it isnt true. If you have facts to show that criminals do indeed follow the gun laws then by all means please post those facts here. If you can show me how the average Joe will be safer if they give up their guns please do so. I will show you Australia and how their crime rate went UP after the law abiding population gave up their guns. I will stick to the theory that the criminals have and will continue to keep their's. I have no proof, so maybe the criminals DID give up their gun, but I doubt it (thats why they are CRIMINALS!).

 

If it was only about saving lives there would be other things more important. What if I told you we could save 13,380 lives and $40 billion a year. What do we have to do? Stop speeding. Thats it. http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/enf...eedingForum.pdf, check it out. Thats just from speeding! Imagine if the speed limit were 10 or 20 or 30 mph lower. That number could easily double. Total traffic deaths in 2008 were 37,313. Firearm homicides were 12,352.

If it was really about saving lives people would be willing to make sacrifices. Most politicians don't own guns so it doesn't affect them to ban them and they can claim they are trying to make the country a safer place. Imagine the backlash if they tried to lower the speed limit. Even if it saved tens of thousands of lives. Childrens lives. Wouldn't it be worth it???

 

I hate to break it to you but most politicians (donkey or elephant) dont really care about you and your well being. They want your vote. They bend to what they think the majority wants at that moment. That why they "change their minds". VOTES. Most people don't own "assult" weapons and they (with the media) portray those guns to be bad. Truth is guns are neither bad or good. They are nuetral. People on the other hand......

 

Sportscars - +1!!!

[MikeCMM]

You don't need a 500 horsepower car.

 

+1 In a few years, the green folks may be asking all of us this same question. Why do we need a car that has 500 horse and goes that fast. You can only drive 55. Right? So we're going to change the law on your Shelby. You can own a Shelby but it has to have a govenor on it so it can only go 60. You don't need that much power. And oh by the way, you have to pay extra tax on the gas you put in it because we can't have this kind of vehicle fall into the wrong hands and use it as a getaway car in a bank heist. That tax is going to be used to fund a program educating youths on the dangers of owning a Shelby. You see where I'm going with this?

 

The point with firearms is where does it end? I study World War 2 as a hobby. Hitler slowly took away the rights of the people including freedom of expression. He didn't just jump in and do it all at once. He stretched it out over years until it was too late for anyone to do anything about it. Once you have the population disarmed there can be no resistance to policy put in place. Do not take this the wrong way but in my opinion, Hitler was very clever when it came to manipulating the people. History has taught us this lesson. So let's get off the second amendment, shall we?

[JeffIsHereToo]

Ban cigarettes? When was the last time someone caused harm because they smoked too many Marlboro's in an hour? Ban alcohol? Oh yesss we learned a lot from prohibition, mostly that it DIDN'T WORK. And don't get me started on my logic? Do you have none? What it comes down to is responsible people will respect their rights and not abuse them, and take me for example. I'm an ex-Marine, and even though I have weapons (because I have the RIGHT to own them), I'm not going to go on a shooting spree. Tell me if you think the Columbine massacre was from a responsible citizen - yeah right! And you're telling me that the government has the right to take weapons away, and I don't know if I'm crazy, but I could SWEAR that the government MADE the second amendment? You bet your a$$ that government doesn't belong telling me that I don't have the right to bare arms when they said... I actually have the right to bare arms. Oxymoron, at best.

 

 

 

Sportscars - +1!!!

 

You ignored my point...prohibition did not work and this "war on drugs" will not work. We need to stop the crime and violence and that is the lesson of prohibition...IMHO!

 

The people that go on shooting sprees are always "quiet", "nice guy", "kept to himself", etc..etc.. as for the tragedy of Columbine it shoes that people are not responsible when their assault weapons can be taken by kids and used.

 

I'm not going to argue your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, there are plenty of web sites and references available and we're not going to change one another's mind but when you find a "well regulated militia" let me know!

 

:happy feet:

[SicShelby]

You ignored my point...prohibition did not work and this "war on drugs" will not work. We need to stop the crime and violence and that is the lesson of prohibition...IMHO!

 

The people that go on shooting sprees are always "quiet", "nice guy", "kept to himself", etc..etc.. as for the tragedy of Columbine it shoes that people are not responsible when their assault weapons can be taken by kids and used.

 

I'm not going to argue your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, there are plenty of web sites and references available and we're not going to change one another's mind but when you find a "well regulated militia" let me know!

 

:happy feet:

 

I did not ignore your point, I just misread it, sorry. I agree with you that prohibition didn't work, and that this war is not working either. However, the solution is not to ban weapons or alcohol, or to approve the use of drugs.

 

How was stopping crime and violence a lesson of prohibition? Violence and crime were already there, and if anything, it was intensified when it started! And you're right, the freaks that do things like mall shootings, etc., always seem to be the quiet and disconnected types, but guess what, they would have gotten a hold of weaponry whether or not there was a ban on assault rifles. So in this case, a ban on assault weapons would have had no affect on that... the freaks are going to be freaks, regardless.

 

Furthermore, you are making a generalization about "people" being responsible with assault rifles, which I can understand. However, that statement makes responsible gun owners guilty by association, and that is not right. Why should I give up my rights because some retard can't keep is life in check because he just got dumped by his girlfriend, and because mommy and daddy were never there in the first place? If we were ALL like that Jeff? then I would all be for a ban!! But, I'm far from that stereotype!

[JeffIsHereToo]

I did not ignore your point, I just misread it, sorry. I agree with you that prohibition didn't work, and that this war is not working either. However, the solution is not to ban weapons or alcohol, or to approve the use of drugs.

 

How was stopping crime and violence a lesson of prohibition? Violence and crime were already there, and if anything, it was intensified when it started! And you're right, the freaks that do things like mall shootings, etc., always seem to be the quiet and disconnected types, but guess what, they would have gotten a hold of weaponry whether or not there was a ban on assault rifles. So in this case, a ban on assault weapons would have had no affect on that... the freaks are going to be freaks, regardless.

 

Furthermore, you are making a generalization about "people" being responsible with assault rifles, which I can understand. However, that statement makes responsible gun owners guilty by association, and that is not right. Why should I give up my rights because some retard can't keep is life in check because he just got dumped by his girlfriend, and because mommy and daddy were never there in the first place? If we were ALL like that Jeff? then I would all be for a ban!! But, I'm far from that stereotype!

 

 

We agree on the first paragraph!

:happy feet:

 

I have no concern about you and your having the weapon but I'm REALLY torn buy the need and the results when things go bad.

 

Let me say the assault weapons ban is not high on my priority list for the country, not that my list means anything!

 

I really don't think we're going to see much "change" on the existing laws for quite some time if ever...IMHO!

 

BTW: I would love nothing more than to have an M16 and go off on a range and have fun! I have my Expert Pistol Medal so a .45 would be nice too!

:happy feet:

[Boss Doctor]

You ignored my point...prohibition did not work and this "war on drugs" will not work. We need to stop the crime and violence and that is the lesson of prohibition...IMHO!

 

The people that go on shooting sprees are always "quiet", "nice guy", "kept to himself", etc..etc.. as for the tragedy of Columbine it shoes that people are not responsible when their assault weapons can be taken by kids and used.

 

I'm not going to argue your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, there are plenty of web sites and references available and we're not going to change one another's mind but when you find a "well regulated militia" let me know!

 

:happy feet:

 

A "comma" says it all Jeff. You either believe in The Constitution of The United States, or you do not. You can't pick and choose what you believe from it.

[SicShelby]

We agree on the first paragraph!

:happy feet:

 

I have no concern about you and your having the weapon but I'm REALLY torn buy the need and the results when things go bad.

 

Let me say the assault weapons ban is not high on my priority list for the country, not that my list means anything!

 

I really don't think we're going to see much "change" on the existing laws for quite some time if ever...IMHO!

 

BTW: I would love nothing more than to have an M16 and go off on a range and have fun! I have my Expert Pistol Medal so a .45 would be nice too!

:happy feet:

 

You have no concern about me? This inadvertently concerns me, because whether I like it or not, a ban on assault weapons is taking away my right to bare arms. It's going to start with assault rifles, then it is going to evolve into every other type of firearm, and you can't deny that this is where it is going to end up. EVERYONE is concerned and taken back when these kinds of tragedies happen, we are together on that, but banning assault rifles? The carbine one of the killers used at Columbine was a tool used by a lunatic, not the other way around...

 

You know, I do not think the laws are going to change for a while as well. Unfortunately, you cannot allow complacency on these issues!! Just because it may not happen now does not mean that the foundation is not being set. Do you think fifty years ago people would have imagined that there would be ANY type of ban on weapons? Probably not... Right now we are talking about bans on assault rifles (which has already begun), and 50 years from now do you think we would be saying "I never would have thought in 2010 everything would be banned..." or something to that affect...

 

Even though you cannot buy an M16 on the open market (AR15 equivalent if you want), you had better get it and have fun with it now! That way, you can sit on your front porch and drink a beer with me while they take your possessions from you at the same time! Hell, maybe we'll even throw a BBQ!!!

[JeffIsHereToo]

You have no concern about me? This inadvertently concerns me, because whether I like it or not, a ban on assault weapons is taking away my right to bare arms. It's going to start with assault rifles, then it is going to evolve into every other type of firearm, and you can't deny that this is where it is going to end up. EVERYONE is concerned and taken back when these kinds of tragedies happen, we are together on that, but banning assault rifles? The carbine one of the killers used at Columbine was a tool used by a lunatic, not the other way around...

 

You know, I do not think the laws are going to change for a while as well. Unfortunately, you cannot allow complacency on these issues!! Just because it may not happen now does not mean that the foundation is not being set. Do you think fifty years ago people would have imagined that there would be ANY type of ban on weapons? Probably not... Right now we are talking about bans on assault rifles (which has already begun), and 50 years from now do you think we would be saying "I never would have thought in 2010 everything would be banned..." or something to that affect...

 

Even though you cannot buy an M16 on the open market (AR15 equivalent if you want), you had better get it and have fun with it now! That way, you can sit on your front porch and drink a beer with me while they take your possessions from you at the same time! Hell, maybe we'll even throw a BBQ!!!

 

 

Ugh....we do do not communicate well!

 

I meant: I'm "not concerned with you" going crazy and shooting people or being irresponsible with your guns".

 

I think we're beating a dead horse now...

[AFBLUE]

We agree on the first paragraph!

:happy feet:

 

I have no concern about you and your having the weapon but I'm REALLY torn buy the need and the results when things go bad.

 

Let me say the assault weapons ban is not high on my priority list for the country, not that my list means anything!

 

I really don't think we're going to see much "change" on the existing laws for quite some time if ever...IMHO!

 

BTW: I would love nothing more than to have an M16 and go off on a range and have fun! I have my Expert Pistol Medal so a .45 would be nice too!

:happy feet:

Jeff, maybe you've already addressed this, but if prohibition doesn't work on drugs and alchohol, why would a prohibition on assault weapons work?

[SicShelby]

Ugh....we do do not communicate well!

 

I meant: I'm "not concerned with you" going crazy and shooting people or being irresponsible with your guns".

 

I think we're beating a dead horse now...

 

What.... you don't like to BBQ?

[JeffIsHereToo]

Jeff, maybe you've already addressed this, but if prohibition doesn't work on drugs and alchohol, why would a prohibition on assault weapons work?

 

 

Don't use my logic against me!

[JeffIsHereToo]

What.... you don't like to BBQ?

 

Oh I'm there for that!

 

Is it bring your own AR-15?

[SicShelby]

Don't use my logic against me!

 

What logic?

 

Oh I'm there for that!

 

Is it bring your own AR-15?

 

Annnnd.... No just rubber band guns.

[Boss Doctor]

Speaking of assault weapons: http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/20/obamas-gun-lies/

 

Facts are a bitch, aren't they?