Open letter from Ronnie Barrett **Read**

[TreeDoc]

An Open Letter From Ronnie Barrett

Dear Fellow Citizens

In the never-ending battle to destroy our constitution, more "big lie"
propaganda is being dumped on our elected officials. The rhetoric
given forth by the Violence Policy Center (VPC) so easily deceived the
legislators of California, resulting in the banning of fifty caliber
rifles because they are powerful and their bullets punch holes when
they strike. Even single shot .50 cal rifles were banned. It's hard
to believe we live in such a dark time that someone has actually
banned a single shot rifle. But as you will see, this is the
cleverest of all gun bans, and the end goal is civilian disarmament,
the confiscation of your tools of liberty, your rifles.

What lies before us is the continuation of the misinformation
campaign, trying to coax yet another state to infringe upon the U.S.
Constitution as California did. The anti-freedom/anti-gun movement
has discovered how transparent they appear when they propose sweeping
gun bans and now are successful by biting off a little at a time.
Ever so small, many politicians are trading off your rights without
you recognizing their violations.

First we had the "Saturday Night Special" which was all affordable
handguns, then "sniper rifles" which were any scoped deer rifles.
Those were obvious, too big a scam to go unnoticed, but with the
creation and demonization of the term "assault weapon," the Clinton's
Crime bill produced a wasted 10-year setback on your freedoms and safe
gun design. Now comes another scam. This time they are shocked to
discover that rifles are "accurate and powerful."

This is the same bull the officials in the 1950's fell for when they
banned the self-unfolding knife. First the knife was demonized by
giving it an evil name, "switchblade," then we (the trusting public)
were told that the problem of gang violence was solved with its
banning. How ridiculous. It's surprising they didn't ban the leather
jacket. In reality, gang violence was and is a serious social
problem, but it was not related to manually unfolding verses
self-unfolding knives. The elected officials voting to ban an object
like a knife proved themselves unwilling or uncaring to understand the
problem, and thus, incapable of any real solutions.

The handful of people that make up the VPC are solely responsible for
the big lie on .50's, claiming fantastic destruction capabilities.
They manipulate fear by claiming terrorists will use these rifles on
targets of our infrastructure. "They will shut down our airports in
flames" they claim. VPC's Tom Diaz refers to them as "super guns"
lying to his dupable group of politicians, concealing the facts that
there are many rifle cartridges that are comparable in performance
(those will be added to the list in phase two). He is boldly telling
these officials (and all who will listen) that the risk of terrorist
attacks on these targets will be solved with the banning of powerful
rifles, in this case, the .50 caliber rifle. In reality, terrorism is
complex and will be defeated with improved intelligence. In this
instance, the officials voting to ban an inanimate object like a rifle
prove themselves to be ignorant of the problem of terrorism and are
wasting time and resources.

You must understand the brilliance of this dangerous back door
deception. Your politicians are being told that the fifty is a highly
destructive cartridge that can destroy airplanes, fuel transport
trucks and depot storages of fuel. They show videos like the one on
60 Minutes showing a 1/2 inch plate of steel being pierced by a .50
cal round while stopping a .308 caliber. This is all to confuse the
people, those with little exposure to firearms; their impression
concludes that the .50 punches holes in sensitive targets where other
rifles cannot. Had they shot actual aluminum that is used on airplane
construction, or aluminum or steel used in actual transport or tank
construction, both the .50 and the .308 will pierce along with most
all centerfire cartridges. But this, they must keep secret.

First, with the confusion of massive, (although incorrect) technical
data and the hammering of urgency, the VPC demands a ban or strict
regulations on rifles that chamber a cartridge that has the ability to
penetrate targets. Sound ridiculous? It is.

VPC's Tom Diaz appears often on TV with maps of Washington, DC,
irresponsibly instructing where to position one's self to illegally
fire on vulnerable important targets of our government, promising
these specific targets will be safe when .50's are banned. He
pressures politicians to act quickly on this URGENT legislation needed
to make these terrorist targets safe, hoping they will act before the
VPC lies are discovered.

Now slow down. A ban on a rifle because the cartridge it shoots
penetrates targets? By the legislation naming and defining the
targets that are damageable by rifle fire, and in this case, .50 cal.
rifle fire, they create a new class of rifles. This new class is not
defined by such foolishness as detachable magazines, flash hiders, or
pistol grips. Instead, the test is; does it fire a bullet that
punches a hole, and can the hole result in damage to specified and
named targets? If so, the law-abiding citizen shouldn't be allowed to
have this, so they must ban this class of rifle before they can be
misused. This is the very thing California has just passed!

"Now, we are only talking about those powerful .50 cals, right? It's
such a small class, no one will mind or even notice." That's what the
VPC's lies have lead you to believe. No, remember they are banning
rifles because specific targets named in our infrastructure are
susceptible to damage. Now tell me, what centerfire rifle cartridge
won't punch holes in those targets? What centerfire rifle cartridge
is not powerful? Not many or not any? So, in order to comply with
the spirit and intent of the law, the Attorney General or State
Secretary must add those cartridges to the banned list. The big lie
is exposed. They aren't just talking about .50's. They're after your
hunting rifles, centerfire target rifles-just about any rifle you own.

Unlike California, we cannot allow any of our local, state, or federal
officials to be deceived with any of this "big lie" gun control
propaganda. The U.S. has every gun law that could possibly be needed.
Virtually every real world scenario of firearm abuse is already
covered in some law that is currently on the books.

Many of you have inquired as to the outcome of the letter I wrote to
Police Chief Bratten of the LAPD. Unfortunately, the chief's position
did not change. He continued to use his officers in the same
deceptive practices formerly utilized with the city council. These
few officers testifying in Sacramento ultimately contributed to the
unconstitutional AB50 law being passed. It saddened me to have to
tell members of the LAPD SWAT team that they would have to send
someone for their rifle, because I refused to assist anyone or any
organization that is in violation of the United States Constitution.
In turn, the department arranged to pick up their un-serviced rifle.

Barrett cannot legally sell any of its products to lawbreakers.
Therefore, since California's passing of AB50, the state is not in
compliance with the US Constitution's 2nd and 14th Amendments, and we
will not sell nor service any of our products to any government agency
of the State of California.

I appreciate all the phone calls and e-mails from LAPD officers and
civilians during that time, encouraging and supporting our actions.
We shall see if other firearms companies will follow this path. I
know many are corporately owned and feel like they are unable to risk
the life of their company for the liberties of our nation, but if we
lose our Republic, our freedom, what good is any of it? I am in the
proud and fortunate position that many of our forefathers were in when
they risked all for our liberties.

"Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would
they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at
the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not
what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me
death!" -Patrick Henry

[TreeDoc]

This "ban large bore" insanity failed in Washington years ago, but
that didn't discourage the VPC. Now it's resurfacing in city council
meetings, in individual states, and it's being reintroduced in
Washington. NRA-ILA Executive Director, Chris Cox, once told me
"These (anti-freedom, anti-gun) guys never go away, and they never quit."

I've received thousands of e-mails and letters from you offering
encouragement and support. Our Republic, our liberty, needs and
demands your support. You must take action to guard your rights.
First, find your State Senator and State Representative. Tell them
not to fall for this scam. This lie depends on the elected official
being naive about firearms and their capabilities. Stand ready to
carry this same message to your U.S. Senator and Representatives.
Know all of your elected officials' positions on gun issues. DO NOT
ELECT ANY ANTI-GUN PERSON TO ANY POSITION!

Position yourself with me in the battles that we must fight. You need
to join the NRA, the Fifty Caliber Shooters' Association, and the NSSF
in order to stay informed. These people have been with me in the
trenches, fighting for every inch of the liberty you enjoy.

Today we draw a line; there will be no more nibbling at our freedom.
Today you stand idle no longer. Today you do something to save our
country!

<signed>

Ronnie Barrett
Owner and CEO
Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, Inc.

www.barrettrifles.com
www.nra.org
www.fcsa.org
www.fiftycal.org
www.nssf.org

[Purebred Redneck]

I guess Mr. Barett missed the part on 60 minutes where a U.S. citizen of forgien orgin legally bought hundreds of 50 cals and sold them to his mother country in a war effort.


My take has and always will be that a 50 caliber centerfire rifle has ablsolutly no practical purpose, none whatsoever. Now if we were shooting at deer at 1 mile behind a brick building, I can see...

Now I definatly do not support a bill which does not specify muzzleloaders as being the exception.
And a bill like that would never pass because the state conservation dept would in return become a lobby against the bill because it's costing the state funding.


My question is "why are there so many proposed laws in California that fail if the entire state is liberal?" Unless the state does not allow initiatives and referendums, there is no reason why anti-gun laws don't pass all the time...unless the people are not as "liberal" in the animal and gun movement as "conservatives" claim.

[fabsroman]

I will admit that a .50 has no practical purpose in the realm of hunting, but who isn't to say that it doesn't serve a practical purpose for target shooters and for the militia that the second amendment says we should have.

If you really want to look at it as no gun serves a practical purpose unless it can be used for hunting, I am sure there are a lot of guns out there that would be off the list.

Then, lets look at hunting and fishing. What practical purpose do they serve other than as a hobby. There are very few people in the world today that actually hunt to live. Same goes for fishing, unless you happen to be a commercial fisherman.

What practical purpose does my trap gun serve because it can only be used to break clay and it really isn't too good in the field for anything. I don't want to see it banned any time soon.

As far as the U.S. Citizen that bought 100's of .50's and sent them over to his mother land, I would love to know how the system allowed that. What happened to the Nicks check and how could he buy that many guns without a dealers license. What exactly is the entire story on that one. My brother mentioned something about this 100 gun transaction, and when I asked him for the details he couldn't provide them to me. Is this more rumor than fact. I don't have the time to go digging today, but would appreciate any links to the "facts."

[Purebred Redneck]

I originally taped the 60 minute episode to show to high school students but I taped over it a few weeks ago.

Nics can't prevent legal people from buying legal weapons - they may just delay it.

The guy's first hand statement was that he as a citizen could buy as many guns as he pleased (which he can) by buying a few at a time and he made occasional blackmarket shipments overseas.

[muledeer]

I bought a Barrett M-99 recently. No not for hunting but for 1,000 yd shooting. I haven't shot it yet (waiting for the weather to warm up). I own alot of rifles that I don't use for hunting like an M-1 Garand, M-1 Carbine, AR-15, M1A1, 1903 Springfield, 1927A1 Thompson, and SKS. Sure you can hunt with these rifles but I prefer my Weatherbys. I do not believe the right to own a rifle or pistol be based on whether you can or do hunt with it. In fact hunting has nothing to do with firearm ownership IMO. I had been leaning towards buying a 50 for about a year and decided to move foreward with that decision after seeing Ronnie Barrett on 60 minutes.
Doc, I just can't believe Kalifornia is coming down on firearms the way they are. I grew up in Southern K and guns were no big deal. Times change!!!!
Fabs, I agree 100%
muledeer

[PJgunner]

Purebred Redneck said, "My take has and always will be that a 50 caliber centerfire rifle has ablsolutly no practical purpose, none whatsoever. Now if we were shooting at deer at 1 mile behind a brick building, I can see... "


What ridiculous reconstituted bull food! :mad: What in almighty hell does practicality have to do with it? Apparently you like muzzle loaders. I think they suck, therefore who cares if you can't have one 50 caliber or larger? I sure as hell don't! I don't much care for shotguns either, so let's outlaw those, cuz I don't care.
Now before you blow a gasket, think over what I just said. That's the result the antis want. DIVIDE AND CONQUER, and you just fell for it. :rolleyes:
BTW, my feelings about muzzleloaders and shots is just that. I don't like them. But I damn well would not say you can't own one. How about a full auto firearm? They're a hell of a lot of fun to shoot. But look at the hoops you have to jump through to get one.
On several ocasions, I have taken the trouble to type out parts of cetain laws, still on the books including the Militia Act of 1792, Title 10 of the U.S. Code, and the fact that neither state that the National Guard is the militia, but I'm not going to do this anymore as I feel that I'm pissing up a rope. You want to find the facts, go to www.gunowners.org and go to their firearms facts section. Educate yourself.
Sorry if my post is offensive, but I'm tired of, "Well I see no practical use etc, ad nauseun" and trhe antis win another round. It's damn well time gun owner got their collective heads out of their eectal orifaces and see what's happening. You don't like 50 BMGs. So what. Don't buy one. You don't like AR-15s or AK-47, SKSs whatever, don't buy one. Nobody's twisting your arm. Just don't you tell me I can't buy one. Because I will tell where to go, and it's one hot place.
I've probably been around a bit longer than most of you here, and I've seen my gun owning rights being eroded left and right. I don't like it and I'm mad as hell.
Paul B.

[wrenchman]

I have never wanted to buy a 50 cal but i would love to meet some one that does so i could shoot it once i think it would be fun.
But as to it being destructive whats next the 338 or the weatherbys or a 7 mag.
They start by saying one gun is bad then after it is gone they go after another after all its only one gun .

[fabsroman]

I haven't been around too long, only 33+ years and I have seen enough of this stuff to really piss me off. There was the Clinton ban on assault weapons and that was a joke. The sniper attacks that occurred in my area, by U.S. citizens, were committed using an AR-15. As long as guns are manufactured somewhere in the world, the bad guys will have them. So, you can outlaw .50's in California, but that doesn't mean that the bad guy cannot go over to Utah, Nevada, or where ever else and buy a .50. Outlaw them in the U.S. and they will be shipping them in on the black market just like this guy was shipping them out. Of course, that is if criminals really want these guns. Terrorists probably have an interest in them, but does the everyday criminal, probably not.

As far as I am concerned, the ATF must have dropped the ball on this one because I have heard of people's homes being invaded for reports of arms stockpiling in amounts less than 100's and certainly not 100 Barrett .50's.

As has been mentioned before, there are plenty of gun laws already on the books. Law enforcement should worry about enforcing those laws and getting hard time for people that use guns illegally.

As far as I am concerned, this country would be a better place ALMOST everybody were allowed to carry guns. Then, criminals and terrorists would have to think twice before they did something, and even then, the damage might be decreased.

[iwerk2hard]

Fabs,
I had the time to do the digging a few weeks ago, with the help of my father.
One of the 50 cal. guns was bought at
a store near my hometown.

I'll post again with the lonk to the 60 Minutes story.

fabsroman wrote:
As far as the U.S. Citizen that bought 100's of .50's and sent them over to his mother land, I would love to know how the system allowed that. What happened to the Nicks check and how could he buy that many guns without a dealers license. What exactly is the entire story on that one. My brother mentioned something about this 100 gun transaction, and when I asked him for the details he couldn't provide them to me. Is this more rumor than fact. I don't have the time to go digging today, but would appreciate any links to the "facts."

Quite simply put, the store owners are making legal sales. The buyers are liars, plain and simple. They fabricate stories that depict legal use of the guns, then after the purchase, break any laws they see fit to break to accomplish their goals.

http://www.ridgwayrecord.com/articles/2005/03/23/news/news01.txt

St. Marys gun store on 60 Minutes
Wednesday, March 23, 2005 11:24 AM EST

ST. MARYS - A local business recently appeared on national television following the purchase of a gun by a former Albanian man supplying guns to guerilla forces in Kosovo last April.

According to a 60 Minutes show, which aired Sunday, Florin Krasniqi, a former Albanian currently residing in Brooklyn, N.Y., bought a .50-caliber rifle from Elk County Ammo & Arms, in St. Marys, while accompanied by a Dutch film crew.


The store, not named in the program, was referred to as a "gun store in Pennsylvania."

The .50-caliber rifle, which is legal to sell within the United States, was coupled with an estimated 200 other weapons bought elsewhere that were then shipped overseas to Kosovo.

Krasniqi's intentions, he told 60 Minutes correspondent Ed Bradley, was to show how easy it is to purchase large caliber rifles and ammunition in the U.S.

The weapons he bought in America ended up in the hands of the Kosovo Liberation Army, he told 60 Minutes.

According to Mark Rupprecht, owner of Elk County Ammo & Arms, the store had no idea the documentary was intended for 60 Minutes.

In fact, he said this issue all started when a woman from New York called the store, saying she had an elephant hunter interested in purchasing a specific gun for a hunt. As a freelance photographer, Rupprecht said the woman wished to film a documentary in hopes of selling the footage to a Dutch TV station.

"She wanted to film this hunt in its entirety, including where he bought the gun," said Rupprecht.

This footage is what ended up on 60 Minutes.

"It's not an illegal gun to buy," said Rupprecht, adding the only thing significant about this gun is its size.

Rupprecht did order the gun on the woman's request and agreed to the filming in his store.

Rupprecht said Elk County Ammo & Arms had recently gotten its website up and running, which is how the film crew found the store.

According to Rupprecht, filming is a big part of hunting, so he found nothing unnatural about the request to film the gun purchase.

"I went along with their wishes," he said. "That was pretty much the end of it."

However, in November, he said the Office of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms came to Elk County Ammo & Arms, asking specific questions about the transaction. He said the organization checked all of the store's records.

"They did their investigation and there was nothing wrong on my end," said Rupprecht.

Then the footage showed up on 60 Minutes.

"It was very deceitful what they did," Rupprecht said of the film crew. "I don't know how you can take precautions from deceitful people."

Rupprecht said there was absolutely nothing illegal about the sale, and the filming was done under false pretenses.

"The laws are very specific on what you have to do when you sell guns. Every sale we do is perfectly legal."

Rupprecht said last April's sale was similar to any other. He treated his customer with the best possible customer service. In fact, Rupprecht said he has no idea how many other stores were filmed, but he believes his footage was chosen due to the level of customer service he displays.

He said he was not letting them film for store promotion purposes, as the footage, he believed, was to be sold to a Dutch TV station.

[iwerk2hard]

Here's the link and text of the 60 Minutes story. Pay attention to the part about the elephant hunting club.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/18/60minutes/main681562.shtml

Buying Big Guns? No Big Deal

March 20, 2005


Florin Krasniqi supplied members of the Kosovo Liberation Army with .50-caliber rifles.

"We are the candy store for guns in the world. And it's easy for people to acquire them here."
Joe Vince, former top official, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms

Joe Vince, a former top official at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
Stacy Sullivan, a former Newsweek correspondent, wrote a book about Krasniqi.

(CBS) Fifteen years ago, Osama bin Laden sent one of his operatives to the United States to buy and bring back two-dozen .50-caliber rifles, a gun that can kill someone from over a mile away and even bring down an airplane.

In spite of all the recent efforts to curb terrorism, bin Laden could do the same thing today, because buying and shipping the world’s most powerful sniper rifle is not as difficult as you might think.

Two months ago, Correspondent Ed Bradley reported on just how powerful the gun is. New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly had a sharpshooter fire the department’s own .30-caliber sniper rifle and the bullets bounced off a half-inch-thick plate of steel. Then, the marksman fired the .50-caliber sniper rifle, and the bullets blew right through the steel plate.

Now, you’ll hear from a gunrunner who, just a few years ago, was able to outfit a guerrilla army in Kosovo with those powerful weapons. He was willing to talk to 60 Minutes, because now he thinks what he did was much too easy. The gunrunner's name is Florin Krasniqi, and he is seen providing a new shipment of weapons to Albanian rebels, who are about to smuggle them over the mountains into Kosovo. After a few days' journey on horseback, the guns will end up in the hands of a guerrilla force known as the Kosovo Liberation Army, which has been fighting for independence from Serbia for nearly a decade.

Krasniqi took these guns to his family's home in Kosovo. Most of them were easy to get in Albania, but not the .50-caliber rifles. "This is, we get from the home of the brave and the land of the free, as we would like to say," says Krasniqi, who lives in Brooklyn, N.Y.

Krasniqi came to America in 1989. He was smuggled across the Mexican border in the trunk of a car with just $50 in his pocket. Today, he’s an American citizen, and the owner of a highly successful roofing business.

"This is what I do for a living," says Krasniqi. "This is how we earn the money in New York. There’s a large Albanian-American community in the New York City area."

When the war broke out in Kosovo in 1998, many of the young men volunteered to fight. Krasniqi realized he’d be more valuable raising money for the guerrilla army. Then, he started buying standard equipment at a Brooklyn Army-Navy store.

"Anything you need to run a small guerrilla army, you can buy here in America," says Krasniqi. "You have all the guns you need here to fight a war. M-16s. That's what the U.S. soldiers carry in Iraq. All the rifles which U.S. soldiers use in every war, you can buy them in a gun store or a gun show."

What gun became the weapon of choice for Krasniqi? "By far, the weapon of choice was a .50-caliber rifle," says Krasniqi. "You could kill a man from over a mile away. You can dismantle a vehicle from a mile away."

He says it can also be "very easily" used against helicopters and planes.

If the power of the .50-caliber rifle amazed Krasniqi, what amazed him even more was how easy it was to buy. Krasniqi allowed a Dutch documentary film crew to accompany him to a gun store in Pennsylvania.

"You just have to have a credit card and clear record, and you can go buy as many as you want. No questions asked," says Krasniqi.

Was he surprised at how easy it was to get it? "Not just me. Most of non-Americans were surprised at how easy it is to get a gun in heartland America," says Krasniqi. "Most of the dealers in Montana and Wyoming don’t even ask you a question. It’s just like a grocery store."

And, he says there are a variety of choices for ammunition, which is easy to get as well. "Armor-piercing bullets, tracing bullets," says Krasniqi. "[Ammunition] is easier than the rifles themselves. For the ammunition, you don't have to show a driver’s license or anything."

"You can just go into a gun show or a gun store in this country and buy a shell that will pierce armor? A civilian," asks Bradley.

"You never did that? You’re an American. You can go to the shows and see for yourself," says Krasniqi. "Ask the experts. They’ll be happy to help you."

60 Minutes asked expert Joe Vince, a former top official at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, if anyone, even a terrorist, could easily buy 50-caliber rifles.

"We are the candy store for guns in the world. And it's easy for people to acquire them here," says Vince, who adds that America is "absolutely" the best place for a terrorist to equip himself with guns.

"There’s a lot of concern about terrorists bringing weapons of mass destruction into the United States," says Bradley. "Why should we care about small arms, guns like the .50-caliber, leaving the United States?"

"Small arms are the No. 1 weapon for terrorists," says Vince. "On the newsreels about Iraq and Afghanistan, you always see the insurgents standing there with their shoulder-held rocket launchers. But in fact, that is one round, where an assault weapon can be repeatedly fired – as many rounds as you have. It’s a much better tactical weapon."

Are these small caliber weapons used more often to kill people than large weapons? "Absolutely," says Vince.

60 Minutes asked Krasniqi how he shipped .50-caliber rifles out of the United States.

"You just put in the airplane, declare them and go anywhere you want," says Krasniqi. "It's completely legal. It's a hunting rifle."

Krasniqi says he shipped the rifles to Albania, and then the soldiers carried them onto the battlefields. He wouldn’t say how many .50-caliber rifles he sent to Kosovo, so 60 Minutes asked Stacy Sullivan, a former Newsweek correspondent, who wrote a book about Krasniqi called, “Be Not Afraid, For You Have Sons in America.”

How many guns did Krasniqi ship over there? "Probably a couple of hundred," says Sullivan. "It's easy. You're allowed to take two or three at a time. He had a group of guys that were dispersed in the U.S., some in Alaska, some in Nevada, some in California, some in Michigan, some in Illinois. And they would each buy a few at a time, and they would take them over in twos and threes on commercial airlines."

Krasniqi’s team of gunrunners never had a problem getting the guns out of the United States. But they often had to switch flights in Switzerland, and authorities there wanted to know what they were doing with such powerful weapons.

"We told them ‘We’re going to hunt elephants.’ And they said, ‘There’s no elephants in Albania,’" says Krasniqi. "And we told them we were going to Tanzania, so we had set up a hunting club here and a hunting club in Albania."

"You had to set up a phony hunting club in Albania, tell the Swiss authorities that men from this hunting club were going to go to Tanzania to shoot elephants," asks Bradley.

"Yes," says Krasniqi. "I never saw an elephant in my life, never mind shot one."

Even so, Krasniqi’s team needed evidence to support the African hunting story, so he says, "We had bought an elephant in Tanzania and set up the whole documentation, so it proved to them we are just elephant hunters."

He says he paid approximately $10,000 for the elephant. But he never got the elephant. "We were not interested in elephants," says Krasniqi. "We were interested to fight a desperate war."

Krasniqi’s shipments of .50-caliber rifles gave the guerrillas a confidence and firepower they’d never had before. But they weren’t getting enough of them. So Krasniqi broke the law by shipping the rifles out in larger quantities than customs allowed.

What was Krasniqi's largest shipment of .50-caliber rifles to Kosovo? "One was on an airplane that he filled up with weapons," says Sullivan. "And I think there were about a hundred guns in there,… 100 .50-caliber rifles."

According to Sullivan, the gunrunners transported the guns on a truck to New York’s Kennedy airport and hid them inside shipments of food and clothing destined for refugees.

"They put the palettes into a plane. Nothing gets X-rayed," says Sullivan. "It's wrapped up as humanitarian aid."

The fact that Krasniqi could smuggle a large shipment of guns out of Kennedy airport came as no surprise to the man who oversaw U.S. Customs at the time, now New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly.

"With the volume of shipments that leave our country and come in, I wouldn’t doubt that it’s possible to ship these guns overseas," says Kelly. "There are regulations that permit rifles to be shipped overseas. They limit the number, but there are probably ways of getting around the regulations."

"I would assume it’s safe to say we don’t have the number of customs agents who could check in that kind of detail every flight that leaves the country," says Bradley.

"No, that's true," says Kelly.

Too long, continued in next post.

[iwerk2hard]

Tracking weapons as they leave the country is like finding a needle in a haystack, unless federal agents are already tracking the smugglers and their activities. Vince, a former ATF official, says Congress should pass a law that would enable law enforcement officials to maintain computerized records of gun sales, something the gun lobby strenuously opposes.

Right now, Vince says there isn't a central database for gun purchases. "There is no national registration whatsoever," says Vince. "If we had computerized all the sales of firearms, we could be looking at patterns of activity."

And Vince says this includes all those .50-calibers purchased by Krasniqi and his team of gunrunners: "People normally buy firearms for hunting, for sporting purposes and self-defense. But you don’t buy 50 of the same type of weapon – or more in this case. It would obviously, through any type of analysis, ring buzzers with customs or anybody else investigating this."

How would Krasniqi describe the gun laws in this country? "More liberal than the wildest European imagination," says Krasniqi. "You can imagine them being liberal, and they are more liberal than that."

"But you wouldn’t have been able to buy guns for the Kosovo Liberation Army if the gun laws in this country were stricter," says Bradley. "And I’m hearing you say you’re anti-gun. How can you be anti-gun when you’re buying guns to free your people?"

"I took advantage of a liberal law here in this country to help my old country," says Krasniqi. "And I believe in my heart I did it for the good. But some people can do it for the bad."

[gd357]

Here's the problem as I see it.

1.) the government is restricting the tyoes of guns we can own. I can almost buy into the automatic restrictions, but now they're going after semi-autos, and even single-shots just based on caliber??? Give me a break.

2.) Most of the people making these laws have no idea what purpose ANY gun is used for. In short, we have very few hunters/shooters deciding what constitutes a legal firearm.

3.) Any hunter is free to use any legal firearm to take whatever game they are pursuing. I prescibe to the dead-is-dead theory which basically states that a .50 BMG is not too much gun for whitetails.

Now, we could say that .50's are military weapons, and have no use for civilian purposes. However, I'd say that a .50 BMG would be just the ticket for Alaskan brown bears, cape buffalo, or anything else capable of inflicting damage on the hunter pursuing said quarry. I'd also agree that a .50 would buck wind a lot better than a smaller round, and therefore would be useful for long range target shooting and similar activities. I don't have a .50 BMG, although I plan to own one in the future. I don't want a non-hunter who isn't familiar with firearms telling me that I can't own one simply because it is considered a "military only" caliber.

gd357

[Tater]

Well, I don't have a use for a .50 and probably never will. I think their a ridiculous waste of money. A lot of people think the same thing about my tattoos. I do, however, support an idividual's right to waste the money on one. Just because I don't have a use for a .50 cal doesn't mean others don't. And another thing, people buy and sell guns of all types and calibers for illegal purposes every day. Are they going to ban my AR15 because some nutjob buys 100 and sells the to the Columbian drug cartel?

[Andy L]

This is nothing but typical Feinstein, Kerry, Gore and Kennedy, (along with a few others, but no doubt started by a memeber of this crew), ploy to take one more step at getting our guns.

PBR, I have a truely hard time understanding you. I have talked to you in private and other places, and it appears to me that you actually do like to hunt and shoot. Then, you come off with more of this extremeist liberal bunk.

Just because you dont like 50 cals, or someone at your local range was a little rude with their AR15s while you were shooting you 22lr, has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not they should be legal or not. What does have a bearing is another brick in the wall, chink in the armour, toehold, or whatever you decide you want to call what the liberal, anti gun movement, aimed at taking mine and your weapons away from us.

The way I see it, 50cal will probably be construed to cover the most popular black powder rifles and the new SW500 pistol as well. And, Ill give you a clue, the "bad guys" are gonna get these weapons, no matter what.

Its like banning fully automatic weapons. Ok, I cant own one, unless I wanna go to jail. Should I decide to flip out and go on a shooting spree, I would bet all I have, I could own one before dark. And then, go on my shooting spree. What has the law accomplished? I can still get it, just not legally. The sane Andy thats typing this cant own a automatic weapon, but the whacked out one thats ready to kill a bunch of folks can have one in a matter of hours. What purpose did this law serve?

So "you" dont like 50 cals. (Or ARs or other assult weapons from your other posts and discussions.) So what. Dont buy one. But, do you like your hunting and shooting weapons that you do own? Well, you better start paying attention and get rid of this "I dont want one, so its ok to ban it attitude."

Thats the exact liberal extremeist attitude thats gonna take all of our weapons. Soon.

Andy

[fabsroman]

What I do not understand is that this guy bought over 100 guns, ONE of which happened to be a .50 cal. I am willing to bet that more people will be killed with the other 99 guns than will be killed with the .50 cal.

As far as the .50 cal taking out an airplane, it probably could, just as it could take out a tank if the shooter is using depleted uranium rounds. Now, taking out a plane flying through the air will require a lot of skill, and I doubt that the terrorists will have that level of skill. Heck, I doubt that the majority of military snipers have that level of skill.

SOMEBODY PLEASE POST ONE INCIDENT OF A PLANE BEING BROUGHT DOWN BY A .50 CAL THAT IS A SNIPER RIFLE AND NOT FULLY AUTO.

[M.T. Pockets]

There was an old guy in my hometown named Norwood Hanson. He flew a small recon plane in the Asian theater in WWII. He flew many, many legs between the small islands hauling people & supplies. He said he was shot down once, he was making a beer run from one island to another and a Japanese sniper still on the island shot out the oil pan on his plane.

I think the Japanese used 7mm's of some type didn't they ? Better ban them too then.

[Andy L]

Oh Yeah!! 7x57s, Gone.
:rolleyes:

Just a perfect example MTP.

I also hear that alot of our people are killed by 7.62x39 rounds. Better get rid of them. And the 5.56, its killed millions, gone.

But, probably more are killed with 9mm than anything, better ditch them as well.

They are all deadly and we cant be trusted, lets just get rid of all of them. And deer kill thousands of people each year by jumpin in front of cars, better poison them.

Its a wonder any of us are alive.......

Andy

[iwerk2hard]

Fabs
I think you read the article too quickly, the second paragraph after the BS story about the elephant hunting club seems to clarify your assumption.
What I do not understand is that this guy bought over 100 guns, ONE of which happened to be a .50 cal. I am willing to bet that more people will be killed with the other 99 guns than will be killed with the .50 cal.

Unless that's a line of BS too.


What was Krasniqi's largest shipment of .50-caliber rifles to Kosovo? "One was on an airplane that he filled up with weapons," says Sullivan. "And I think there were about a hundred guns in there,… 100 .50-caliber rifles."

I'm having a hard time understanding 2 things:
First, how these people admitted their illegal activities, with plenty of evidence, on national television and haven't been arrested.
Second, Why is our media so willing to broadcast lessons to teach anyone how to get away with breaking the law?

This isn't the only "Terrorist 101" lesson that has been broadcast or put into print.
Aren't our enemies dangerous enough already?
:mad: :confused:

[Steverino]

These SOB's would love nothing better to convince the US populace (along with the U.N.) that there is no sporting use for a .50 caliber weapon and therefore, no need to have these in the hands of private citizens.

DO NOT be sucked down this path of deceit folks and read your history!

As to whether the .50 is a "sporting" cartridge arm is irrelevant-the anti-gunners will demonize each and every cartridge, ball, and shotshell until firearms are banned from the hands of private citizens. This is the goal of these groups. Nothing else.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms guaranteed to us in the 2nd ammendment was NOT to be utilzed to ensure the hunting rights or shooting sports but rather to overthrow a tyranical government. There is a reason that our forefathers authored this right after the right to exercise freedom of speech.

People, even pro-gun advocates, sadly don't like talking about this less they sound a little "wacky" in this age of terrorism but these are the facts folks and we have a bevy of history to draw upon as to what road this nation heads-down if our freedoms continue to erode.

[Andy L]

I would assume a good number of folks reading this are NRA memebers. In this months magazine, there is an article on this very subject.

Andy

[fabsroman]

Iwerk2hard,

To be honest with you, I didn't read much more than the first page of your post. I have been pretty busy today, so that was the extent of it. Don't think I will have time over the weekend either because I have promised people a lot of stuff over the weekend.

[Purebred Redneck]

Well that makes 3 of us that werktwohard :rolleyes:

Don't jump me for this because I am very sincere and mean no disrespect.

My take (and I believe the take of many gun owners) is as follows: (and I may be very broad on some of this because I have to prepare for work tommarow and need to get)

It's not a matter of "I don't need this gun so no one should have it".

1. I have a lot of government background. I put aside any feelings and look at how the law and rights actually are (not to say you don't). But the problem with the second amendment is that it's only a right because we say it is. Laws are interpreted (especially one that is worded as questionable as this one) by the courts. The courts can overrule this and every single judge has been approved by the magority of the voters either directly or indirectly through other branches of goverment that we voted for.

2. The principle of logic and winning an arguement has to be applied. "Because we can" never trumps a more detailed answer even if that other answer is wrong or questionable. When asked why we need guns, I always reply "to use for recreational sport, relaxation, target shooting, etc". And many other gun owners say that too and I believe that is the best answer we can give.
But all to often, other answers come first
"Because I can"
"Because the second amendment says I can"
"Because of self defence"
"So when the government that the majority elect legally trys to take my guns away I can have a shootout and a civil war to the death"
Now I may have stretched the last one out a little bit (just returning the favor done to me :D )
But do you see how radical this sounds if you are a moderate on the issue of guns?

There is evidence (and also counter-evidence I know:rolleyes: ) that suggests the lifestyle that people lead determines whether or not they experience crime in that you know the person who commited a crime against you or you put yourself in a situation where you are vunrable. The opposition will say - bringing a gun grocery shopping is totally unnecisary. And I do understand your point about the fact that you do legally and safely carry that gun.

Something I firmly believe is that the NRA and gun owners MUST bend or else get all our guns taken away. Now I definatly understand the NRA is a lobby and its their job to take a very tough stand. But you also have anti-gun and animal lobbies as well. It's a fact in 2005 that people feel afriad of guns and are attracted to children and furry creatures. Now I'm not saying lots of children die because of guns (because I've already seen the stats you will throw at me), but I am saying that society feels safe when children are safe. A woman was raped or a child was raped - which is going to make the news? That's just how people feel about it plain and simple.

The same can be said about my statement regarding "the government taking guns away. Do you honestly know how it looks to the general public to hear "out of my cold dead fingers" or Ted Nugent playing an m-16 as a guitar? People think they are absolutly out of their mind :o It scares the hell out of them.

We have to cut our loses and lick our wounds before it's too late. If gun owners continue the road they are on about large caliber guns, ak/sks style high cap rifles, and even full auto, then yes all guns will be taken away. If we continue the way we are, there will very soon be enough people in the U.S. that could LEGALLY make gun ownership against the law. And then your battle, and my battle, is lost.
We have already established the fact that 99.9% of gun owners have absoltly no use for a 50BMG. There may be some target shooters and the one member who wants to lug that heavy 20 pound SOB up a mountain :eek: :D
If it comes down to screwing over 5% by taking away a 50cal or even the ak/sks type gun compared screwing over 50% of gunowners that have semi-auto shotguns or pistols, you cut your loses and move on.

What we need is a moderate organization that presents itself as a respectful and practical group. This organization needs to promote recreation and not radical beliefs. They need to promote a practical use of weapons. (and this does include self defence and military style semi-autos).
I believe an organization like this would stand a great chance at succeeding in politics, promoting the sport, and making the sport grow.

One final comment regarding andy's post.
Anyone that has talked to me on the internet (whether posting or instant messenger) knows I love hunting and shooting. I do take a different approach than many that go on sites like this because the people here are more devoted than most gun owners and hunters. I try to speak my mind as well as throw out the other side's point of view. So some times it is hard to tell when I'm talking about my beliefs or what I percieve is society's belief. And I have probably once again made that unclear in this post. :rolleyes: One thing that is very clear in my mind - while I do like arguements, my mood is never one of disgust, anger, or singling out one person. And by my post count and membership date, it looks like I'm new here. I'm not new here. I've had over 5000 posts on this board dispite a 2 year dry spell. Some of the older members can probably think back and remember the very civil, educational, imformationall but still going nowhere conversations we have had in the politics and gun realm ;)

OMG, it's 6:30 :eek: :eek: :eek:
ttyl

[Andy L]

Good post PBR, but still dont agree.

Just because you have no use for a 50BMG has no bearing on why a I, who can legally own weapons, can buy one if I want to. Even if its for no other reason than shooting coke cans at 1000k or hunting deer, should I see fit.

I dont see how its anyone elses business as long as I dont break the law with it.

I also do not agree with the "bending" to the antis.

Sorry.

Andy

[TreeDoc]

PBR...
I want to take away your first amendment right because I don't agree with what you say one bit. By your argument that would be acceptable, right?

It's obvious that you see the Constitution as a "living, dynamic document" that can be flexible, can be changed, can be interpreted as one feels.

I don't think so, bud.

[fabsroman]

It doesn't matter whether you are new here or not. That shouldn't matter as far as your opinion is concerned. It is kind of like saying the older people are always right, which we know isn't true. They are just right most of the time.

Personally, I think that was a pretty good post, with a couple of soft spots open for attack, so here I go.

1. I truly believe in "Give an inch, they take a mile." You even state that the anti's are radical groups. The problem with giving into a radical group is that they don't usually back down after that. They don't just stop after the .50 BMG is gone. Sometimes, you have to fight fire with fire.

2. I agree that society feels better when children are safe, but a lot of children get molested and killed without the use of a firearm. I think Val will be able to give you some stats on that one. Of course, I am not an expert, so I might be wrong on the stats on this one, but I just do not hear much about children being molested and killed at gun point.

3. In the end, I do not think there is any simple way to lessen the amount of crime or terrorism in the world. Look at 9/11. That entire thing happened without a single terrorist using a single gun. Look at the Oklahoma bombing which was 10 years old this past week. Not a single gun was used there. How about the little girl that was abducted and killed in Florida a couple of months ago. I do not remember anything about a gun there either. People that have never used a gun or been around one fear them just because they do not know them. So, they want to get rid of them. Just as schools teach children how to swim, they should teach them how to treat, handle, and shoot a gun. A hundred years ago, the use and respect of a gun was a lot different than it is today. Back then, almost everybody knew how to handle them.

It is just tough to give into these people based upon stupid facts. Hell, I am willing to bet that more people are killed by aggressive driving than are killed by firearms in the US every year. Sad thing is that traffic is only going to get worse. I do not see anybody banning SUV's. Who NEEDS an SUV? Why won't a stationwagon do instead of a SUV. What is the increase in the probability of injury when an SUV collides with a passenger car? Right now my fiance and I are kind of debating this because I am looking at an AWD car instead of an SUV but she really wants an SUV because she feels safer in them. I understand her point because I feel a lot safer in my F-350 than I do in my Taurus. Now, if there weren't as many soccer mom/dad, non-driving, SUV drivers on the road, I might feel better driving around in the Taurus.

America has a lot of problems right now, but I do not think that the .50 BMG is on the top of the list. Hell, I would love to know of the last shooting that involved a .50 BMG. About the only people that own them are the people with money, and those people aren't usually the ones going out shooting everybody. Then again, that is only my opinion.

[Purebred Redneck]

Fabs, I agree.
"Give an inch, they'll take a mile" would slowly happen. Then again, by meeting a reasonable objective, it may win public support. My point was that fighting fire with fire would either prolong the political arguement, it would evenually win although I don't see that happening presently unless the two party system does it for the shear fact that republicans in office would help prevent this.
But on the other hand, we have our chance to compromice. If we fail to do so, then we will "fight fire with fire" - but that could mean we lose everything too.
So it's a game of risk.

Doc, I'm not quite sure what your first amedment analogy is. I supose if you gathered enough public support, present it to the government, and it passed - I'm not going to like it but it's now the new law, supported by the people.


But you are correct in the fact I believe in the famous quotation you provided. One thing though - I don't believe it's correct saying it can be changed based upon how "one" feels. I think it can be changed based upon how the majority of the people feel and according to the rules of amending and creating law.

Andy, we have the right to life, liberty, and property/happiness --- so long as it does not infringe on someone else's life, liberty, happiness. Now the problem is this can be interpreted two ways
1. firearms take someone's life
2. firearms protect someone's life

You don't break the law, you are correct. There are people who do. As you remember from grade school, the actions of a some and failure to stop it results in no recess for everyone. It's not fair but it might be the only way.

I don't have the answer to these questions


I will say that every time we vote we are voting on our position on the matter. Because someone would vote to remove a weapon he/she doesn't like is no different than voting pro-life, or for increased highway funding.
My view of democrat government is that it supports the will of the people and when the will changes - the government changes with it. It might not be the long term solution, but that's the way the government is actually set up.

[fabsroman]

I agree with government changing with the people. Problem is if the majority is a nightmare. What if the majority of people in the US, 51% wanted to pass a law allowing the use of crack coccaine for personal purposes? Life gets a little complicated. The majority is not always right on issues.

Another thing that I found somewhat interesting was an AOL poll that was done when the assualt weapon ban was scheduled to fall into the sunset (i.e., the sunset provision within the bill itself). The poll asked how many people were in favor of it going away and the majority were. The poll also asked how many people had owned a gun at some point in their life and I believe it was close to 80% that answered they had owned a gun in their life. Somehow, I don't think it is the majority of people speaking out on the .50 BMG in California, but merely a couple of people that have influenced the legislature. I am surprised that Arnold signed the bill.

[iwerk2hard]

PBR
I have to disagree with some of your logic on this issue. You seem to be too willing to compromise. Rebecca Peters, George Soros and a whole long list of anti's have made it perfectly clear that they are not willing to compromise at all. They are willing to go to any extreme to get exactly what they want and nothing less. If we start right off with a compromise, we've lost ground before we started and will have to fight even harder to hold our ground. Imagine a tug-of-war at a company picnic, blue collar on one side and white collar on the other. The white collar team suggests that because blue collar does physical labor and has bigger participants they should compromise and reduce the number on their team. Sounds like a fair compromise, consider it done. Some of the white collar team are very healthy and active, therefore a lot stronger than blue collar thought. The contest starts, white collar gains ground immediately and is picking up momentum. Blue collar calls in those who were excluded by the compromise, they try, but white collar has gained momentum. Now blue collar has a heck of a job just to stop the momentum before they can reverse it and gain back the ground they lost. Only then will they have an opportunity to win if they're not exhausted from the additional fight.
And as for the way you present some of your other arguments:

Andy, we have the right to life, liberty, and property/happiness --- so long as it does not infringe on someone else's life, liberty, happiness.

The Declaration of Independence states:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

Note that nothing is mentioned about property, and that happiness is not listed as an unalienable right, however, the PURSUIT of Happiness is. If we want to hold our ground we will have to be sure to make accurate statements or the other side will start there to tear us apart.
Now the problem is this can be interpreted two ways
1. firearms take someone's life
2. firearms protect someone's life
I have to strongly disagree with that logic. I have several firearms and not once has any one of them even tried to take someones life or offered to protect someones life.
I think that it's angry, violent, mentally ill, uneducated, or desperate people who take peoples lives. It can also be inattentive, uneducated, careless or otherwise distracted people who cause accidents that take peoples lives. Likewise, it is people who protect peoples lives. A firearm can be used as a tool or an aid, but by itself it does not take or protect life. The same can be said for a car, baseball bat, golf club, axe, hammer, poison, fire or any of a seemingly endless list of other tools. They can all be easily used to take a life, or save a life. A firearm is usually superior to most other tools, therefore I prefer to have access to the tool of my choice when it comes to self defense, ( which, by the way is first on my list and third on yours), and I feel that every law abiding citizen of the United States of America should have the freedom to choose their tools from a virtually unrestricted assortment of suitable implements.
The next statement isn't directed at you PBR, it's directed at anyone reading this post;
If you are a member of the NRA and don't subscribe to "America's 1st Freedom" I would like to recommend that you give it a try. If you're not a member of the NRA, I strongly suggest that you join.

[Tall Shadow]

Fellow Hunters & Shooters.

As an Owner of 2 ( Yes!, he said Two!) .50BMG rifles, I can not believe that there are still hunters/shooters that support PBR & Other's stand that "Maybe, if we just >Give-up< the .50 cal guns, the anti's will go away and leave Us alone!?!"

WAKE THE HECK UP PEOPLE!

Today it's ".50 cal Super-guns"
Tomorrow it's "Scoped Sniper Rifles" (Hunting rifles)
The Next day it's "Shoot from the hip with no need to aim Shotguns".
Then it's "Pocket death bringers!"(All Handguns)

Do You really think they will stop with the .50's??
How Foolish!


When John M. Browning designed the .50BMG cartridge, all he did was to scale up the 30.06 cartridge.


Most "Hunting" guns actions were developed for military use first.

Still think that there is no connection between hunting guns & Military guns?


Like the old tail of putting a frog in hot water....He'll jump out. But put him in with the water cold and slowly raise the temperature, and he'll cook.

The Anti's aren't going to be just coming for one type of gun.....

THEY WANT THEM ALL!!

They have learned that they can't just take all of the guns outright, People, Even PBR, would fight that. But chip away at them a little at a time.......set one group of owners against another.......Use their friends in the media to vitrify guns....and before we know it...POOF!
They are all gone.

There is also the further writing of PBR, in which he stated (something to the effect of:) The second amendment rights are ours only because the courts say so.

I Guess >inalienable< means something different to some people.

In my view (And the founding father's) inalienable means......
"A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate." --Thomas Jefferson

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

Do you see "Hunting rifle anywhere in there?

Do you get that the whole idea behind the "Keeping and bearing of arms" is to protect ourselves from a government gone "out of control"?

Before you say "A bunch of yokels with guns can't stand up to Our military"....tell that to the north vietnamese......

Is this not what Our founding fathers were trying to make Us understand?


Do I ever plan on dragging a >41lb< .50BMG rifle around with me through the woods, hunting squirrel's....Heck No!

Does this mean that My .50s serve no purpose?

(A.) No, it does not.
(B.) What does that have to do with me wanting/owning them?

The 2nd isn't about hunting bubba!


If you are ever in Michigan, drop me a line. If it's possible, We can go shoot my wicked, evil("Fricken' LAZER beams!"), scary, , naughty, guns.......You will see that, like most things you hear from the anti's, they are just inanimate objects. Steel and plastic...nothing more.

Tall Shadow

[TreeDoc]

Well said, TS!

[denton]

The sole purpose of a personal firearm is to please its owner. It does not matter why it pleases its owner, as long as it does.

It might please its owner because it carries some history with it, like a Finnish M39, which the Finns used to successfully fight a Russian army 3X as large as their own.

It might please its owner because it is beautifully built.

It might please its owner because it allows him/her to hunt.

It might please its owner because it helps him/her feel more secure.

The burden is not on the gun owner to show that he/she has any practical use for the firearm, whatsoever. If it pleases the owner, that is enough.

We are witnessing the oldest political con game in the world: Invent a danger, so you can get yourself paid to protect people from the danger. If you can make the danger exist in the minds of enough people, you can make a nice living at it. It does not matter at all whether the danger really exists, nor does it matter whether the con artist can actually do anything about it, if it does. It only matters that enough people think it exists, and that the con artist can do something about it.

[Tall Shadow]

Originally posted by TreeDoc
Well said, TS!

Thanks TreeDoc!

I also wanted to say that denton provided another good point.

All I'd add is that this point can be used on our other rights & Privileges:

Why have the Internet? After all, why do you need anything more than 1 news paper to read.

Why should we allow hunting at all?

Why should anyone own a gun?

Why should there be more than one state?

Why would anyone need more than one house?

Why would you need more than one change of clothes?

Why have more than one type of food?

Why would anyone need an SUV?
Why have a car that is able to exceed the speed limit?


There are so many, I'd be here for weeks....You get the point.

Only It's not a "Why>>>Need?" kind of thing with Our rights....

They are Ours, By/At birth.....
They aren't open for negotiations.....Period!

If we fail to hang together, we will surely hang separately.

Tall Shadow

[fabsroman]

This has turned out to be a very good and informative thread.

TS,

Your post leads me to think that maybe military arms should be available to the masses so that if the gov't were to get out of hand the masses could rise up and put it back in its place.

While I understand your analogy about the North Vietnamese, I don't necessarily think you are right. With the technology that the military has today compared to that of the 60's and 70's, and the good possibility that the U.S. never wanted to actually win the Vietnam War, I find it a very tough analogy to today's U.S. Armed Forces putting down a revolt of the people, unless of course some of the military is involved in the revolt and we actually have a civil war.

[Purebred Redneck]

What if killing someone with a gun made that person happy?
Would that not contradict life, liberty, and happiness?
I forget the word or phrase (and I'm not looking for it after 65 hours of teaching social studies and book work this week. :o :eek: ) but the government does summarize that we have these rights so long as they don't infringe on those same rights of others.

And I do know "property" is not mentioned in the final draft of the Declaration of Ind.
Thomas Jefferson borrowed oringally "life, liberty, and property" from John Locke. It was even in the declaration up until the final draft when it was removed in favor of a more emotionally charged statement - happiness".
A lot of people believe democracy was this wonderful thing born in America. It most definatly was not - it was born in europe time and time again. This time Americans such as Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, etc studied european philosophy in europe and brought it back here to write.
But enough of that lol.

Let me ask this question and I would like an honest answer, although I probably know it.

Is there a difference between the government becomming a dictatorship and taking away guns AND the magority of the people through representation legally creates a law to ban guns?

One last point on Fab's post.
The U.S. could of went in and totally wiped the N. Viet. off the surface of this earth but they didn't do it wholeheartedly.
Also, if we are afraid of a corrupt government - what is to stop them from using nukes on the uprisers if they form in a common area?

That's what the president of Iraq did. People attempted to overthrow the legitament (questionable I understand - but nevertheless legal) leader of the country and that got them killed in MASS numbers.

[fabsroman]

PB - I think we are on the same page as far as your points on my last post. I don't think there is any way that the people of the U.S., whether in mass or not, could defeat the U.S. military unless the military sided with the people.

Warfare is a lot different today than it was back during the Revolutionary War. Back then, all you really needed to know was how to fire a musket, ride a horse, or use a sword. Of course, there was the strategy behind everything too just as there is today. Difference is, today, not many people know how to drive an A1-ABRAMS, Bradley, frigate, or aircraft carrier or fly a F-18, AC-130, or any other type of military plane. Warfare is much different than it was 200+ years ago, especially when you take into account nukes. But nukes also provide a lot of power if the people get their hands on them.

Maybe when there is a will there is a way.

As far as their being a difference between a dictatorship taking away firearms and the people voting to do away with firearms, there is obviously a difference. The first decision is made by a select few, if not one, whereas the second is made by the people in their entirety. While we are on this subject, I will also remind you that the U.S. gov't is not a true democracy in that the people do not vote on all the issues. Getting rid of the Second Amendment would most likely require an Amendment to the Constitution, and that would require a vote of the people.

[PJgunner]

Fabs. I don't want to really take this off thread, but the reason we lost our butts in Viet Nam is due to that idiot (strictly my opinion) Lame Brain Johnson. (also signer into law that abortion 1968 gun control law.) :mad: :mad: He decided that he knew more than his generals in how to conduct the war. Don't bomb hanoi. Might kill off some Russian and Chinese adisors, piss 'em off and start WW-3. Same with bombing Haiphong Harbor. Sink a few Russian and Chinese ships, and yup, you guess it, start WW-3. China was supplying the NVA over bridges at the Chinese/N. Viet Nam border. Oops! Might knock of few Chinese and start WW-3. Like Adolf Hitler, who also thought he knew more than his generals, Lame Brain also signed into law, Hitler's 1938 (?) gun control law. If you need to know the details, I'll be glad to post them.
PBR felt we should take a softer action against the anti-gun people. The NRA has been doing that since 1934. They compromised on the National Firearms act of 1934 (NFA 34), the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA 68) the Firearms Owners Act of 1986 (FOPA 86) and that gun law of 1994 I forget the exact title.
Adolf Hitler once said, "What good fortune for government that the people do not pay attention." That's part of my signature along with "Compromise is not an option." and "Political correctness is an oxymoron promulgated by morons."
The main problem is in educating the sheeple that gun control is bad. It's very hard to do, considering the liberal media workes as hard as they can to promote gun control. As has been said, the 2nd Amendment ain't about duck hunting. It's the original Homeland Security bill. The militia ain't the National Guard either. A lot of my reference material is not at hand right now as my study is in the process of being remodeled.
So, how do we go about educating the non-shooting public? I try to take out non-shooters top the range and let they try it, should I find one open minded enough or curious enough to see what it's all about. I teach Hunted Ed classes, and try to talk the parents and kids to join the NRA, GOA or one of the other pro gun organizations.
I write my representatives about how I feel one anti-gun legislation. My Senators are fairly reasonable but my Congressrat would like all personal firearms taken away ASAP and all the Mexicans who want to come here illegally be allowed to do so, and be considered legal. :mad:
His predecessor was just as bad and I outright asked him if he was a Communist. (JMHO,, but I consider both of them commies.)
Paul B.

[TreeDoc]

Originally posted by Purebred Redneck
Is there a difference between the government becomming a dictatorship and taking away guns AND the magority of the people through representation legally creates a law to ban guns?


The answer is "No" because the Second Amendment gaurantees that right.

[Purebred Redneck]

It also grants ways for it's own demise though - like Fabs said - amendments.

It's only a right because we say it's a right. As soon as the 2nd amendment is amended then the right is totally non-existant.


But we are on the same page Fabs.

BTW - good thread. Whoever voted this thing a 5 star is on the money. Very good debate.

I also about sprayed beer all over the screen with the "frickin lazer beam" comment :D

[LoneWolf]

Originally posted by Purebred Redneck

It's only a right because we say it's a right. As soon as the 2nd amendment is amended then the right is totally non-existant.




I would like to ammend that PB.
It is only a right until WE allow it to be taken away.

To me the answer is simple, either fight for what you belive is right, or walk away, take what is dished out to you, and don't complain about it.

Myself, I stand for sticking with what got us into the greatest nation in the world in the first place.

[fabsroman]

PJ,

I think we are on the same page too. I think that we could have won the Vietnam War if we really wanted to. If push came to shove, we could have done a lot more than what we did.

By the way, somebody mentioned Johnson picking and choosing targets in Vietnam, might have been you PJ, but I read this thread a while ago and walked away from the computer to watch a TV show with the fiance. Seems as though Clinton did the same thing in Kosovo according to some of my Navy pilot friends. The armed forces didn't care much for Clinton and I would guess they didn't care much for Johnson either.

After everything is said and done, I will fight as hard as I can to keep my guns. I am an Endowment Member in the NRA and give whenever I have the funds. However, the day they make it illegal to own firearms, albeit a sad day that will find me crying, I will turn them in if required to do so.

[TreeDoc]

Originally posted by fabsroman
PJ,

Seems as though Clinton did the same thing in Kosovo according to some of my Navy pilot friends. The armed forces didn't care much for Clinton and I would guess they didn't care much for Johnson either.

Not to change the subject but Clinton's move in Kosovo was purely "Wag the Dog" to take the media coverage off of his whoring of the Oval Office! :mad:

[fabsroman]

TD,

I'll agree with you on that one. Problem was that he was sending fighter pilots into dangerous situations and supposedly telling them not to bomb certain threats on their way in. Completely bone headed if you ask me.

[Lilred]

Picture this: Yer in a new york ghetto w/ a gang on one side and a gang on another. Better yet, picture yerself in Bagdad w/ terroists on both sides of ya.
Now, picture yerself w/ a single shot 50 cal. in yer hand. Dead meat aint ya? Does ya bout as much good as a 1-legged man in a butt kickin contest.

So...why ban the dam thing? Why ban one of the oldest guns that man has concockted? Seems a lil out of place dont it....hmmm...maybe that's just they're way of addin another lil ole flea to the dog's back. But it dont take too many of them fleas to bring a dog down on his butt now does it? Just another way of lookin at things..

While I'm at it..let me say somethin bout that there Constitution.
Bein from Virginia and from a very long line of proud Virginians, I know my state's history perty good.
You see...the Constitution aint werth the paper it's printed on, iffin the people aint there to fight fer fer it..er back it up. Just like our money backed by gold. The state of Virginia has fought numerous times fer what they believed in, and more than once fer their own interpretation of that there Constitution.

Irregardless of that, no matter how many "interpretations" people may have, down through all of this here U.S. of A's ages, it has been the backbone of this country. Has it not been the one and only thing that has kept this nation connected in some form or another? And, on the other hand, has it not been the one thing that we have fought over fer hundreds of years? Yep folks, it has. Amend, amend, amend. But, there is 1 key werd in my last sentence that, IMHO, is the key. We fought. We still fight.

I dont know bout ya'll..but Lilred dont bow her head to nobody but the Good Lord and her Mama..and I reckon Mr. Redneck, that seein as how you aint from the South, sir, you need to change that there name of yers, cause you aint no purebred nuthin, esp. a redneck like us, iffin yer content to sit back and let them add them fleas on yer back.

I have more respect fer a person, wether I agree w/ em er not, iffin they have enough gumption to stand there and take the hit, than to cower. That is what your, and my, great-great-great granpappys fought fer and died fer. Why they came here to begin with. The way I see it, I aint shamin my gran-pappy by givin in to nobody. Then they all died, and continue to die, fer absolutley nothin. Iffin ya caint think of nuthin else, nor agree with nuthin else...think about yer ancestors who took the hit fer you and me..and what they would say to all of us today.

[fabsroman]

Lilred,

What is great about the Constitution is the ability to amend it. If it weren't for amendments to the Constitution, most of the people that vote today would not be allowed to. I am sure you know that women and uneducated people were not allowed to vote initially. I didn't even mention blacks because they weren't even considered citizens when the Constitution was drafted. Among other things, the Civil War was also over amending the Constitution.

The Constitution is able to change with changing times. Do you think the founding fathers ever thought there would be things such as airplanes and computers, much less satellites. The Constitution was made so that it can change as need be. That is why it has lasted as long as it has.

While we don't always agree with the Amendments (i.e., the Civil War), they usually mirror the people's wants. Let's hope that society never gets so bad that evil amendments can be passed by the majority. However, if it does get that bad, I guess we won't have much to look forward to anyway.

[denton]

Justice Scalia has put forth what I think is a very compelling argument against the way some people look at the constitution. What he objects to is people who interpret the constitution to say what they think it should mean. A perfectly good example, in my mind, is people who try to morph the 2nd amendment into something completely contrary to its clear and common meaning.

One of the main functions of the constitution is to limit what the government can do to the people.

If the constitution means whatever someone thinks it ought to mean, then the people have no protection.

If it doesn't mean what it ought to mean, then the route for change is an amendment, not a twisted interpretation.

[fabsroman]

Agreed.

Thing is as time passes, interpretation gets tougher.

If we asked each of the founding father their take on the Bill of Rights, I am sure we would get a bunch of different interpretations of what each Amendment meant. Try getting that 200 years later when none of them are alive.

[Steverino]

With respect to the above post from Lil Red, Amen!!! I've spent alot of time down South and still do as I have family there and I can say with pride that it will certainly be "From My Cold Dead Hands" in the South should any BS legislation ever pass denying us our 2nd Ammendment rights. I will be South of the Mason Dixon line quicker than a jackrabbit being run down by a pack of dogs.

I personally believe that our forefathers, knowing human nature, constructed with the help of God, the most perfect documents that were humanly possible. The anology they used was that this would only serve to be an experiment if the people were vigilant in protecting these rights. Look to Canada and England and ask yourself if they are better off now. I can go on and on but I will stop. There are certainly some things that are worth fighting for and in my book, this rates right on up there!

[iwerk2hard]

Fabs Wrote:
Your post leads me to think that maybe military arms should be available to the masses so that if the gov't were to get out of hand the masses could rise up and put it back in its place.
What was the difference between military fitearms and civilian firearms when the second amendment was drafted and passed? The intention was that the masses be equally armed.

PBR wrote:
What if killing someone with a gun made that person happy?
Would that not contradict life, liberty, and happiness?
I forget the word or phrase (and I'm not looking for it after 65 hours of teaching social studies and book work this week. ) but the government does summarize that we have these rights so long as they don't infringe on those same rights of others.
You answered your own question. Killing someone would most definitely infringe on that persons right to life, therefore you do not have the right to persue happiness in that manner.

What I'd still like to know is why the gun runner mentioned earlier is still a roofer in New York and not a prisoner in a federal prison.

[Purebred Redneck]

Lil red
One of the stars on the confederate battle flag are Missouri's. And being in Southern Missouri, I think that qualifies...
And as far as being a democrat being a bad thing, I'm sure your family's butts were saved just like mine by FDR ( the best or second best president ever). I vote democrat because that party still stands up for the little guy. If forced to, I will vote anti-gun and hippie before I vote pro-business.




He's not in jail because the cops haven't caught him in the act. He could just be the biggest liar on the planet and have all those guns in his basement.

It's like going up to a cop and telling him that you snorted coke 20 years. The cop can't do jack nothing.

[fabsroman]

Okay, there are a couple of good issues here.

Iwerk2hard,

There was almost no difference between the military guns and civilian guns during the Revolutionary War; however, there is a significant difference between military and civilian weapons of today. Things change over 200+ years and I would hate to think that almost every Tom, Dick & Harry could have a M249 chain gun in their basement if they have the money.


PBR,

As far as voting anti-gun and hippie in lieu of pro-business, that is a rather broad and somewhat ignorant statement. Business is pretty much what controls this nation, and the world for that matter. If we continue to strangle American business, you will soon see all of it move overseas. We are already becoming a country that cannot manufacture anything, make it harder on business and we will be up a creek. We won't even be able to manufacture a tank.

As far as FDR being the best President, I think there are many arguments for better Presidents. How about Reagan or Washington? Does Reagan not count because he is a Republican. I think trying to single out the single greatest President is pretty tough. A President's presidency is pretty much determined by events that occur during that presidency. FDR had World War II to deal with and that made him this great President. Did he also have to deal with the Great Depression? Why is it that other Presidents that didn't have to deal with these type issues are not as good, if not better, than FDR. Just because a President has a quiet presidency doesn't mean that he isn't a great President. Maybe he was so good that he could prevent things like the Great Depression or a World War occurring on his watch. Maybe the President before him was so good that it made his Presidency a walk in the park. Pretty tough to say that one President, above all others, is the best one out there, especially since people tend to look more upon the more recent Presidents' accomplishments.

[Purebred Redneck]

Originally posted by fabsroman
Okay, there are a couple of good issues here.

Iwerk2hard,

There was almost no difference between the military guns and civilian guns during the Revolutionary War; however, there is a significant difference between military and civilian weapons of today. Things change over 200+ years and I would hate to think that almost every Tom, Dick & Harry could have a M249 chain gun in their basement if they have the money.




Oh i definattly agree with that.

As far as gthe other stuff, I'll have to deal with that this afternoon when I'm not drunk. :o :o :o

[Lilred]

One of the stars on the confederate battle flag are Missouri's. And being in Southern Missouri, I think that qualifies...

PBR, sir, you have missed my point. First of all, under your location, you left it blank. Secondly, and most importantly, just because you are from a "Southern" state does not mean you are a "Southerner" or share a Sotherner's POV.
Southern folk, original Southern folk that is, have always had a different way of lookin at things than most Northerners. Just as the black and white folks. That's just the way it is, nothin in the world wrong with that. Judgin by yer posts, the difference stems from the werd "purebred".
You, comin from a Southern state, iffin you "purebred" bloodline is true, amazes me even more that you are so different from us simple-minded Southerners.

[fabsroman]

Come on PBR,

Last night, I wrote that post above after two glasses of wine, and I almost never drink. You just need to concentrate harder after drinking. LOL

[Purebred Redneck]

got it beat Fabs
I had 7 beers at the bar - sang "I'm so lonesome I can cry" and "ring of fire" on kareoke (and I DON'T SING)
Went back to someone's house and drank a bottle of Boones Farm wine and 6 Schlitz.
Decided to walk 1/2 mile home and halfway there I decided that I wanted a taquito from the gas station. So ended up walking about 1 1/2 miles piss drunk.
Then I get home and you want me to type something constructive? I've done enough concentrating last night :D :D :D


Consistently on polls (you have in changing order depending on the polls)
Reagan
Clinton
W Bush
FDR
Washington
Lincholn
JFK

are on top

And I agree it is very hard to figure out what makes a good president.
Of the people on th elist I mentioned

Reagan - is probably in the top 10 but definatly not the top 5 on my list.

Clinton is in the top 5 and probably the top 3

W Bush is too new to figure out where he stands. I personally despise the coke head alcholic and put him somewhere in the back 20. But that doesn't mean the rest of the U.S. agrees. If after this war everything works out, I could go as high as probably 10-15

FDR - top 5 and probably top 3

Washington - nothing real special about him other than the fact he kept the nation halfass together. Somewhere in the top 20-30 I'm going.

Lincholn - I'm going to throw a bombshell and say 20-30. Perhaps the civil war was enevitable, but his election was the straw that broke the camel's back. He represented perhaps only 1/3 of the country - the northern republicans

JFK - nothing special about him. He was shot at the height of his popularity and was probably going to go downhill fast. 15-20 maybe

Not included in the polls I remember seeing is Teddy Roosevelt.
Now he is definatly in my top 5


My top three would probably consist of (in no order)
Both Roosevelts and Clinton

[fabsroman]

PBR,

You definitely had me beat in the drinking category, but if I had drank as much as you I wouldn't have even been awake, much less walking 1.5 miles.

Just to put this right out there, I despise Clinton and I don't think he really did much for the Nation. Yeah, the economy was doing well, but was that really a result of his Presidency? I doubt it since the economy is cyclical and it takes time for any policy change to have a dramatic effect. I think he set the economy up for a downfall with the take off of the stock market. Greenspan kept urging people to stop buying on credit by relying on their paper profits (i.e., unrealized capital gains in the stock market because they had not sold the stocks yet). The market hit the crapper and look at the economy since. People were having a great time during the stock market boom and they love Clinton as a result.

What happened with the first bombing of the World Trade Center on Clinton's watch? If you do not remember, that was the bomb that went off in the parking garage of the World Trade Center. Did Clinton do anything about that. NOPE. I know some diehard democrats that live in New York that decided not to vote for him after that incident.

On top of all that, he was a womanizer, a liar (not that all politicians aren't), he didn't inhale, and worst of all he lied on the stand under oath. That I cannot stand. I find it hard to swallow when LEO's lie on the stand to try and get a conviction, but the President of the USA lieing under oath? What type of dignity is that. Let's compare Nixon and Clinton. Nixon took the fall and in his Presidential library he has a wealth of information on the Watergate scandal. Clinton tried to lie his way out of it and he has very little, if anything, in his Presidential library about the Lewinsky scandal. Oh yeah, how about the White Water scandal of Clinton's where the person with all the knowledge conveniently ended up committing suicide. Personally, I think this country is trying to recover from all the wrongs of Clinton, of which the economy and terrorism are included. Do you think the terrorists that hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon weren't here planning this thing while Clinton was in office? George W. Bush came into office and within less than 9 months 9/11 happened. Somehow, I doubt the terrorists put that entire plan into motion in less than 9 months. Further, if Clinton had hammered them like Bush has been doing, maybe they would have had less free time on their hands for planning and less resources for carrying out missions. Reagan bombed Quadafi and that was the last we ever heard of that man. Clinton should have done the same to Osama and the rest of his crew.

Don't even get me started about he and his wife falling asleep during Reagan's funeral. We'll see how many people attend Clinton's funeral.

Let's also look at another thing. The Presidents that you are ranking highly have been some of the most recent Presidents. Something tells me that you don't know much about all the Presidents' legacies and what they did. You definitely do not know what they all did during their Presidency and I rarely rely on polls because they are based on people's experiences while they are alive. Almost nobody will know what the 5th President of the nation accomplished. Hell, I don't know that either.

To really come down to who is the best President of them all, it would take a bunch of educated/smart people years of studying all of the Presidents' accomplishments and then voting to come up with a semi-legitimate list of the best and worst Presidents.

Would I put Clinton in there, probably not. Most Blacks would rank Lincoln rather high along with JFK. I also agree with you that JFK is famous because he got shot. A lot of Presidents are popular because of events that happened during their Presidency, not because they were great Presidents. You have to ask yourself, why couldn't we have prevented World War II or at least lessened the destruction from it (i.e., Pearl Harbor, D-Day), the Civil War, or 9/11. Why wasn't the Great Depression prevented or foreseen. How about Black Monday which I think occurred under George Bush's Presidency. How about the current disaster with the stock market? I am sure there are plenty of other incidents in there, but that is all I can come up with off the top of my head.

[Purebred Redneck]

Oh I totally agree with you. (Clinton aside ;) )
It wouldn't take years to come up with an educated list, but I would sure get a headache reading up on all of them and making the call.

I know there are some great presidents early on. I was just commenting on the recent presidents because that's who the public voted on.

[TreeDoc]

Clinton! Ha!....don't even get me started PBR. What a friggin' JOKE!!!!! :mad:

I'll tell ya, PBR.....the democraps that voted for FDR and JFK, just like the men themselves, are FAR DIFFERENT than the today's democraps.

[Purebred Redneck]

I agree he might be a joke for you and most on this board, but for over half the country he represented the overwleming magority's of this nation's interests, kept relative peace, was in office for one of the greatest economical and technolocal advances in our nation's history, gave us a surplus economy all in amist of hatred by republican politians.
There is little doubt in mind that he would still be president this very day if there were no term limits. I think the only person capable of defeating him in 2000 and 2004 would of been McCain (who I think would also do a good job).

I think for the most part, democrats today are similar to democrats of the last say 75 years.
I highly doubt 40% of the nation vote democrat soley on the the fact they like abortion, hate guns, and protect the environment. Different radical interest groups are present in every election and political party.
The economy, labor, "work benifits", social programs, etc have been and are the reason why most democrats vote that way.
Most democrats are not liberals just as most republicans are not conservatives. You only have about 20 or so % vote that are hardcore democrats or republicans. Most are undevoted moderates or those whom slightly lean to one side.

[TreeDoc]

http://www.jesseshunting.com/forums/html/emoticons/smiley-ugly-lol-bashing-sign.gif
http://www.jesseshunting.com/forums/html/emoticons/Reagan-hittin-head-ani.gif http://www.jesseshunting.com/forums/html/emoticons/smiley_rotflmao.gif

[Purebred Redneck]

lol :D :D :D



I edited BTW

[fabsroman]

Was Clinton impeached and just not voted out of office? My memory is fairly foggy on that one.

PBR,

I agree that most of the country lies between conservative and liberal. One of my best friends labels himself as a conservative democrat, if that makes any sense.

As far as Clinton being continually voted back into office, I think that would be a far cry from actually happening. He might have made it for a third term, but after 9/11 and the miserable economy that we currently have, he might have had a tough time getting a fourth term. Yeah, he might have been able to fix the economy if he were in office, even though I blame the economy's current condition on him, but I seriously doubt he would have been able to stop 9/11 from happening. It would have been really interesting to see how he handled 9/11 though. I would have really loved to see if he struck back or not after 9/11. Luckily, we did not have the opportunity to see what he would have done regarding 9/11.

[Purebred Redneck]

Yeah, if my memory serves me right he was impeached...by a bunch of republicans who were just trying to stir the pot for 8 years. First time they had the opportunity since Jimmy Carter - and they did a great job of ruining him. Carter could of been a great president if the Republicans let him.
Your memory clear up now ;)

This is interesting
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/poll_clintonlegacy010117.html

You do bring up an interesting point about how 9-11 would of been handled had it still occured. Regardless who would of been in office - Clinton, Gore, McCain, Buchanan, Bush- they would have gone into Afganistan. Of those 5 mentioned, I don't think anyone else would have even thought about going into Iraq besides Bush - given the same evidence and threat.
Now I'm not saying 9/11 was a good thing - not saying that at all. I'm not saying Bush is glad it happened.
But it sure saved Bush's butt. 9/11 was literally the best thing that could have happened for bush because he was going absolutly nowhere in both the polls and actual policies.

[fabsroman]

PBR,

You should read the entire article. I believe it says that Clintons' approval rating pretty much tracked the economy, as I have been trying to say in all my posts. If you know economics, the economy doesn't turn around over night and it always follows a cyclical pattern. Just in case you do not know what cyclical means (which you probably do), the economy cannot keep on an upward trend forever, it ebbs and flows, that is just the way it has been over the centuries. The politicians just try to make the upturns larger than the downturns.

I would have to study Clinton's economic policy better to figure out whether or not he is responsible for the upturn in the economy, but I am pretty sure that his watch was responsible for the downturn in the economy. When exactly did the stock market start taking a beating and unemployment increase? Who was in office then probably wasn't a big deal because they were at the end of their second term (i.e., Clinton).

[foto]

Clinton is in the top 5 and probably the top 3

FDR - top 5 and probably top 3

Washington - nothing real special about him...

Lincholn - I'm going to throw a bombshell and say 20-30.

HUH?
Listen to Fabsroman. Do you really believe any president has a serious impact on the economy of this country? The economy has a mind of its own and goes where it wants, the president simply takes the blame. Name one single act done by any one of your "top 5" presidents and show me how they affected the economy. FDR did absolutely nothing for the economy for all his spending. The only thing that saved us was the war and the rebuilding contracts we got when it was over.Clinton? What magical act did he perform on the economy? I'd love to know and so would Wall Street and every other person on the planet.( can anyone say stock bubble or did you all get out before Clinton's magic really blossomed. Oh wait don't tell me, you really think Priceline.com was worth a billion bucks and it was only GWs ineptitude that prevented us from realizing that dream) Presidents don't do crap as far as making the economy boom, their powers are far too small. Considering the power corporations wield in this world do you really think they are going to let one man whose put there by political parties that can be bought and sold, decide their fate? The only president in this century who might have really affected the economy and not as a result of war, was Reagan and he did it by cutting taxes and simply unbridling the engine of the economy, greed. (GW's tax cut is meaningless economically speaking but every penny less to the govt is always good in my book as its one more penny that will be better spent)

The only meaningful way to judge a president is in the tough choices he had to make and how they affect us today.
Washington risked everything, life and property and when offered even more power he refused.
Lincoln faced some of the toughest choices of all, the future of the entire country and its makeup rested on his shoulders, right or wrong, he stuck by his choice and faced it down.
Can you imagine the world today if either of them had chosen the different paths that were being offered? Where would we be today if Reagan had chosen differently? All of those easy paths were turned down by these men and that is what made them great presidents.
Clinton aTop 5? What tough choice did he make that you are so proud about? Sure, he's top five and the Captain of the Titanic was the best captain in world if you asked about two hours before it sank. He sure had a nice ship, good service and they had a real good menu selection at dinner time.

And guys, as far as interpreting what they meant when they wrote the constitution, its not too hard, in fact we already know.
The dead speak to us and we can speak to those yet unborn. Its called writing and it very clear what the people meant as they wrote it all down for us and we can read about the actual debates that took place. The hard part is getting someone to care when it goes against their own wishes.

Had to post when I saw Washington and Lincoln being put down and not measuring up to the likes of Clinton.

[fabsroman]

Good post foto.

Last night at dinner, I asked my family who they thought was the best President, and they all came back with Reagan. My little brother even slamming his fist into his hand when he said Reagan. I then went on to tell them about this thread and that somebody had put down Washington and Lincoln, and they couldn't believe that. This topic actually made for a pretty good dinner topic and elicited some pretty good conversation from my brothers who usually don't talk about this type of stuff.

[Purebred Redneck]

I agree economy swings on it's own but I'm big believer that the government can prolong economic growth or make recessions shorter. There's a term for this - too bad I slept through every economics class I ever took in college.

I think Alan Greenspan is beyond genouis.

FDR did not help the economy???
The New Deals did not help the economy or people's lives?


There are a variety of programs Clinton signed that help prolong this growth.
Targeting tax cuts
Financial aid for college
Balancing the budget
Welfare reform
Family leave act
International trade
That's just off the top of my head

We've covered this a little on here back in 2000. From what I remember there was quite a few people that agreed with me. I do not think the economy was done growing when Clinton left office. I think the economy collapsed because of the "sky is falling" campaign Bush ran that year.
Everything was going great, there was a short period of decline and Bush used that moment in time to scare the public. Since Bush hit the national spotlight, the economy has gone downhill. I think had he not jumped the gun in mentioning this and using it as a strategy, I think the government could have turned it around.

[fabsroman]

I think people were saying the "sky is about to fall", Greenspan included, even while Clinton was in office. That is why I didn't dump everthing I had into the stock market and I didn't buy on credit that I couldn't pay off at the end of the month.

The economy is the way it is right now because too many people were looking thorugh rose colored glasses and they thought it would never end. Everybody was going to be rich off of the stock market, yeah right.

[Purebred Redneck]

That's what I think the problem is.

Bush told everyone to watch out because the economy is about to collapse while he was running against Gore. Then everyone like "huh? It is? I guess it is".

Consumer confidence is what makes the economy. If you believe the economy is falling, then it definatly will.

[fabsroman]

I agree that consumer confidence has a great deal to do with how well the economy is going.

According to what you are saying, people didn't believe Greenspan the genius buy believed Bush the moron. Kind of hilarious. Supposedly, the people don't like Bush, but they are willing to listen to him about the economy collapsing. Trust me when I tell you that Greenspan was saying it way before Bush was even running for the Presidency.

Personally, I have made a decent amount of money lately off of the stock market. Sold a bunch of stuff about 10 months ago after taking pretty decent gains and now everything is in the crapper again, so I am about to go on a buying spree again. Granted, I don't think I have made up what I lost when the market took the initial down turn and my retirement funds look like crap, but I am only 33 and have quite a while to worry about retiring. Hopefully, the economy will have an upswing before I have to retire. Otherwise, I better be investing a lot of money in guns and ammo to fend off the rioters.

[Purebred Redneck]

I've been looking here lately at putting a pretty good chunk of money in a variety of U.S. Eagles, Canadian maple leafs, and Swiss Bullion. I need to do some research and talk to professionals to get their opinion first. Gold is at an all time high and is in great demand. I'm wondering if I should make a short term investment - buy high and sell slightly higher. It keeps going up...
I'm thinking I might wait 3,4,5 years until it reaches a peak low again. Buy a crap load fairly cheap (maybe 300-350 oz) and just sit on it.

As long as stocks are questionable, people are going to invest in precouis metals. Man if you would of bought a **** load of gold in the 70's for 200 an oz you would feeling pretty good about now since it's about 430.

[fabsroman]

Gold would have been a terrible investment if it was at 200 in the 70's and it is only at 430 now. That means that over 30 years you barely doubled your money, which according to the rule of 77, you barely made more than 2% on your investment over those 30 years. If a person gets a 7% return, he should double his money in 11 years and quadruple it in 22 years. In 33 years, his initial investment should be 8 times what it initially was. That means that gold would have to be at $1,600 an oz. to be worth something.

When the stock market goes bad, a lot of people invest in real estate. My brothers bought a place together almost 7 years ago and it has doubled in value over that time. They spent $195,000 for it and it is worth over $400,000 now. So, they got about a 10% return on their investment over the 7 years. Problem is that they live in the house and cannot realize the gain. The other problem is that real estate is just like the stock market. It is probably on a bubble right now as people are willing to invest more in the market because if the market goes any lower the entire country will be in trouble. Plus, real estate is rather risky now because it has been going up way too fast that normal people cannot even afford a house to live in, much less invest in rental properties or investment properties.

[iwerk2hard]

PBR wrote:
He's not in jail because the cops haven't caught him in the act. He could just be the biggest liar on the planet and have all those guns in his basement.
People have been convicted of murder with no corpse. This guy presented some pretty good evidence against himself, a bit of follow-up should uncover enough factual evidence to get a conviction on some charges.


Fabs wrote:
There was almost no difference between the military guns and civilian guns during the Revolutionary War; however, there is a significant difference between military and civilian weapons of today. Things change over 200+ years and I would hate to think that almost every Tom, Dick & Harry could have a M249 chain gun in their basement if they have the money.
My point is that the second ammendment was intended to put the masses on equal ground. Yes things have changed, and in a lot more areas than firearms and weaponry. Let's not be too quick to start giving up what we still have. The roots lie in the likes of 50 caliber single shot rifles. Muzzle loaders rather than bolt action, significantly less power than modern rifles, but still the heritage has carried through to the level of todays civilian arms. And how many of todays civilian arms are direct descendants of military arms?


Now that there has been discussion about drinking habits, political party affiliations and reasons, the difficulty of determining who were the best and worst presidents, the fact that Bill Clinton happened to take office as the economy started booming, $425.00 per troy ounce is an all time high for gold even though it was over $610.00 per troy ounce in 1980, the rule of 77, better investments and a whole slew of other random thoughts, would anyone be interested in starting a thread discussing the "Open letter from Ronnie Barrett" that was brought to our attention by TreeDoc?

[fabsroman]

I thought this was a thread discussing the "Open letter from Ronnie Barrett" that was brought to our attention by TreeDoc. LOL Would you like to enter the chatroom and discuss it? If so, I am around almost all day and night today unless the fiance finds a mattress that she likes and wants me to go take a look at it.

All kidding aside, convictions for murder without a dead body are based on what we call circumstantial evidence. There is very little direct evidence in a murder trial unless the police are lucky enough to find a person that actually witnessed the murder or if the police were lucky enough to witness the murder. Even a dead body isn't really direct evidence because all it shows it that somebody was killed, it has to be connected to the killer either through direct or circumstantial evidence.

I agree that we shouldn't give up anything that we have right now. In fact, I think they should slacken some of the concealed carry laws, but that probably wouldn't happen in Maryland.

[foto]

PBR I'll just note that as far as FDR and the NEW DEAL was concerned, go look back at the numbers, unemployment, housing, etc, basically the economy in general and you'll see the total ineffectiveness of his programs. Look for yourself.They were more like busy work to make people think the govt was doing something. Nothing changed till the war and the destruction of Europe. On the other hand at least we did get some good public works projects out of it though we did pay for them dearly and continue to do so today.

And as for rest, maybe you should rethink what those programs are really doing. Too many topics here for a political minded guy like me to single out just one. Giving away money or lending money to students to pay back later doesn't help the economy. Forcing an employer to pay workers who aren't working is not a way to make money. As far as a balanced budget we are a debtor nation, we owe trillions and trillions of dollars and will never be able to pay it back without cutting SS and other entitlements. Too many topics and don't want to go on a political rant, better to stay away remain calm. Going to hit the trout streams this weekend and maybe try for a turkey on Sunday. take care all.

[Purebred Redneck]

Originally posted by fabsroman
Gold would have been a terrible investment if it was at 200 in the 70's and it is only at 430 now.

See what happens when I post right before going to bed...fuzzy math :D :D :D
You are right.

[fabsroman]

Don't worry about it PBR, I have made some math mistakes before myself. Probably more than I care to admit to.