Our president..........

[Richard]

Our President

*Subject:* Breaking news

Georgia Arms is the 5th largest retailer of .223 Ammo in America. (they
sell 9 mm, .45, etc ammo)

They normally buy spent brass from the US Dept of Defense - 'one time
used' shell casings by our Military - from training on Military bases,
etc. They buy the brass and then re-load for resale to Law Enforcement,
Gun Shops, Gun Clubs, Wal-Mart, and etc.

They normally buy 30,000 lbs of spent brass at a time.

This week the DoD wrote a letter to the owner of Georgia Arms and said
that from now on the DoD will be destroying the brass - shredding it.
It is no longer available to the Ammo makers - unless they just buy it
in a scrap shredded condition (which they have No use for). The
shredded brass is NOW going to be sold by the DoD to China as scrap
metal....after the DoD pays for it to be shredded. The DoD is selling
the brass to China for less money than Ammo manufacturers have been
paying...plus the DoD has to pay to have the brass shredded and do all
the accounting paperwork. That sure helps the US economy now, doesn't
it? Sell cheaper to China - and do not sell shells at all to a proven
US business. Any agenda working here? Obama going after our
ammunition!!!!!

The Georgia Arms owner even related a story that one of his competitors
had already purchased a load of brass last week - and the DoD contacted
him this week and said they were sending someone over to make sure it
was destroyed. Shell Casings he had already bought! THE BRASS HAS NO
VALUE TO THE AMMO MAKER IF IT IS DESTROYED/SHREDDED/MELTED. THE AMMO
MANUFACTURER ONLY USES THE EMPTY BRASS SHELLS TO RELOAD DIFFERENT
CALIBERS - MAINLY .223 BULLETS.

Georgia Arms owner says that he will have to lay off at least Half of
his 60 workers, within 2 - 3 months if the DoD no longer sells their
spent brass to him. He has 2 - 3 months inventory of shells to use. By
summer - he's out. If he has to buy new manufactured brass shells, then
the cost of ammunitioin to the buyer will double and triple...plus Obama
wants to add a 500% tax on each shell.



You can read the info and see the DoD letter to Georgia Arms here:

The Shootist Site

www.theshootist.net/

[ozark]

If our president is guilty of all that he is accused of then surely there are ten or more of him. I am seeing more deer killed along the highways since he got in office. How does he do all this? Must be super human.

[kevin k]

I guess GWBush was way superhuman every thing was blamed on him this pres and congress are a insult to the usa and world

[Buckrub]

Aw, Ozark, you sell him short. I am SURE this person can easily be guilty of all he is accused of! He's SO good at it!

The last one was guilty of about 10% of what he was accused of, and thus, a failure! This one is such a HERO! SO GOOD at this.........

[youp50]

Just saw where the NRA among others pressured the DoD and they are no longer shredding brass. They are selling it to be reloaded.

[ozark]

I have been listening to Russ limbaug. He is fast remolding me into a democrat. I think about two more sessions listening to him and I will be a shaggy dog democrat. Did he actually say that he hoped that Obamas policies failed?

[minst7877]

Personally I feel its not if the policies will fail but when and at what cost. I am extremely worried about what he is doing and how this will affect my children and grandchildren. And that is not a pretty thought.

[edge]

Apr 3, 2009 20:28:47 GMT -5 ozark said:

I have been listening to Russ limbaug. He is fast remolding me into a democrat. I think about two more sessions listening to him and I will be a shaggy dog democrat. Did he actually say that he hoped that Obamas policies failed?

YES, he did...and so do I!

He IS in favor of the States controlling your guns!

He is in favor of KILLING a baby that was mistakenly born while attempting an abortion!

He lied when he said that his economic team was Warren Buffet, Paul Volcker, Larry Summers, etc.
( why else would he have had Pelosi and Reid write the stimulus plan...wouldn't you use your best people! )

What about not wanting jobs to go to WHITE Construction worker? Are you for this bigotry?




edge.

PS IF you really were designing a Stimulus Bill, and not just a PORK package for the Dem supporters, why wouldn't you do things that Stimulate NOW?

Most of the 800 Billion bill won't be spent for YEARS! As a matter of fact, less than 1/3 will be spent in the first 1 1/2 years!!!

What if the Economy comes roaring back, won't this be very inflationary?
What is Obama's EXIT plan from this spending?

[Buckrub]

I hate Rush Limbaugh. But I sure do hope Obama's policies FAIL big time. I sure as heck don't hope they succeed, for gosh sakes!!! Good Lord Almighty! Our only hope as a country is for every one of his policies to fail so badly that even his supporters recognize it. It's not HIM that we need to get rid of (because the ones behind him are probably even worse), but his POLICIES. He is destroying America daily..........just like I said he would....just like many folks said he would.

During the elections we kept being told "Nothing will really change too badly, he'll be fine, he can't do all these bad things, don't worry about all this, just vote for CHANGE".

CHANGE is about all I have left in my pocket.

This is a long read, but worth it. I think Edge will like it especially (why I think that I dunno....I just do). Read this please:

seekingalpha.com/article/129457-unemployment-reaches-8-5-businesses-gird-for-depression

[ozark]

Well over fifty percent of americans believe that he is doing a good job. Do we believe in the majority rules or do we believe that the minority should rule. It is fine to oppose any politician but opposing the majority is a different matter. I hope all policies that help America succeeds and that those which hurt America fails. If I a choice to be led by Obama or Russ Limberger I would choose Obama in a heartbeat. I think it is foolish to blame Obama for the mess we are in. Now, if the economy and all else gets worse during his administration then we can blame him. He is the President of The US and the person that all servicement swears to obey. I may not salute him because he is Obama but certainly I would because of the position he holds and the responsibility that rests on his shoulders. My question is this: How can we hope he fails in all that he attempts to do when failing means that America fails with him? I can't speak for others but I am an American first and somewhere way down the list I might be a Republican or Democrat. And please don't get into the Constitutional arena. The Constitution means precisely what the Supreme Court says it means. Nothing else. Obama is my President and the only way you can avoid his being your President is to change countries. One last point, Just because something appears in print doesn't mean it is true. Would any American like to see all Servicemen violate the Oath they took? I hope not.

[edge]

ozark, let me ask you a specific question.

Since Obama is for gun control do you hope that he succeeds?

edge.

[Buckrub]

Your assertion is wrong.........him failing does NOT mean that America fails. Why would you think that?

The opposite is true.

If him failing meant America failed, I'd be for him all the way. But HIS failure is the ONLY salvation that America has. Hard to see it any other way.

He thinks we're not at war with Islam, but Islam is at war with us.
He thinks abortions are fine and dandy.
He thinks no private citizen should own a gun.
He thinks a huge federal government is the answer to all economic problems.
He thinks welfare should be increased.
He thinks we can talk and negotiate with a country who doesn't believe the Holocaust happened.
He thinks we need to abandon Iraq after 3,000 of my countrymen's blood is on their ground.
He thinks it's ok for HIS appointees to have tax-paying problems, but not anyone else.
He thinks it's ok that he worshipped for 20+ years at a church who preaches hate to America (still).
He thinks it's ok to stand in France, where my forefathers are buried, and denigrate the U.S. as being 'derisive, confrontational, evil".
He thinks it's ok to spend TRILLIONS of my grandchildren's tax money to give to atheistic China.
He thinks it's ok to lie to me and tell me this stimulus is going to finance an economic turnaround when it's going for a bunch of new Liberal programs instead.
He thinks he knows more about how I should spend my money than I do.

And I want him to fail in everything he does today, including tying his shoes.

And to me, that is the OPPOSITE of wanting America to fail. To me, his failure will MAKE America succeed. To equate him with America is a sad, misguided, incorrect, and invalid conclusion, and will end up killing us.

As for whether it's ok for half of America to like him and his policies, I'm reminded of this Bible passage from Matthew 7:13-14 "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it."

God says the majority is seldom right. They may get their way, but that doesn't equate to validity.

I realize that half of America (actually about 65%) think he's doing a good job. That's the point I keep making......that the downfall of America will not be just some economic issue. It will be the ever-widening chasm that divides us into two camps that cannot ever reconcile, and will not, ever. A country divided cannot stand. We are no different.

[ozark]

Quoting from the Christian bible explains a lot to me. It led you to call the people of China atheistic. Just because people don't believe in the same bible that you have accepted without more proof than they have tells a lot about you. Obama, like all of us has faults and supports things which would not be good for America. Many of the conflicts we have are religious beliefs in nature. Christians are thought of as heatherns by several religions and I think Christians believes that all other religions are hell bound. It depends on which book you accept as fact.
Gun control... The Brady bill stemed from an attempt to kill a Republican president. A former Democrat who turned Republican because he thought his chances of being elected Govoner of California would be better.
What proposed law or presidential act by Obama has banned any guns. People are saying he wants to ban aspirins because they are white and they work. To many of us owning guns for hunting and for protection is right at the top of our concerns. Lately, a few idiots have uesd guns to create carnage among innocent people in groups. I think some gun control measures are ahead of us. Should a mentally retarded person have all the guns he wants? I have no objections to a system of determining if a person is old enough, stable enough and mentally sound enough to be trusted with a gun. We need a licence and proof we know how to drive before we are permitted to do it leagally. I have always removed bolts or seperated ammo from rifles because my own children were not considered mature enough to make logical decisions at very young ages. I gues I want gun control for the safety aspects but not the denial of gun ownership for those who are stable and sound mentally. I don't see that the normal citizen needs a Water cooled Browning Maching Gun or a anti aircraft or anti tank gun. And I am somewhat against the general public should be permitted neclure weapons. So yes, you can put me down for a measure of gun control.
Buckrub I agree with your last paragraph. that the downfall of america will come because of divisions which cannot be reconciled. My question is why constantly work on widening that chasm you speak of. BTW, my comments here are not meant to destroy our relationship. I just want to expose both sides of this pancake. Ozark

[Buckrub]

I love ya man. I love America where we can disagree.

But China doesn't have a Bible. Here is what WikiPedia says about Religion in China:
Religion in China has been characterized by pluralism since the beginning of Chinese history. The Chinese religions are family-oriented and, unlike Western religions, do not demand the exclusive adherence of members. Some scholars question the use of the term "religion" in reference to Buddhism and Daoism, and suggest "cultural practices" or "thought systems" as more appropriate names.[1] The questions of who should be called religious in China, and what religion or religions they should be called are up to debate. Generally, the percentage of people who call themselves religious in China have been the lowest in the world.

And stating that Chinese are atheistic (Do not believe in God) is not telling anything about ME. It is telling about them. I am not making denigrating statements. I am merely telling the truth. They would admit to being Atheists.

And to believe in "Universalism" is against the Holy Bible. If you don't want to believe the Holy Bible, that is your right as a citizen. I will fight hard against all enemies so that you can have that belief. But there is but One Way, as bad as some folks fight against that concept.

The LORD said "I am the Truth, the Way, and the Life. NO MAN comes to the Father except by me". It isn't me that's narrow minded, it's God. He demands strict adherence to Christianity. Don't shoot me for merely reading and quoting what a book says that I didn't write.

You keep asking why we think Obama wants to ban guns. You don't seem to believe that's true. I have quoted the Democratic Party Platform to you. We have all heard Obama and his minions state what they think personally about gun ownership. Obama has stated that he thinks hunting is ok but no one should own an 'assault rifle'. Well, every rifle I own is an assault rifle. Besides, that is immaterial. We have a RIGHT to own any gun we want, it's not a privilege. The purpose of what we want to do with the gun is immaterial. I am against all measures of gun control. We disagree there again. If you want a nuclear weapon, and can afford it, that's your American Right to own one. That's my opinion. If you misuse it, then we can fry you. You can own a Sherman Tank. Why do I think that? I think that because the REASON for the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that no government has enough guns to take the FIRST Amendment away from you, that you can defend that Amendment against any rogue government that might occur. That's my opinion.

If you have no objections to the government making a test for who should own guns, then we part ways on that subject. If the tests seem reasonable to you in 2009, then by 2025 it is possible a new government might make ridiculous tests for gun ownership. That's not a power I wish to grant to any government. They will abuse it, in time. That's a terrible idea.

We can always disagree and I'll fight for your right to do so. I'll buy you coffee and treat you as a man, with respect, and honor. I will 'love' you as best I can. I will always do that. But I will not feign agreement with you if you espouse error. I cannot do that. I will not. There is compromise for so many things, and we should do that. But there are truths that cannot legitimately be compromised.

If that upsets the powers that be for this Board, I will leave if that's asked. But I can't back down from the truth, or be silent if I think I can further the truth. That's just not acceptable to me.

I do appreciate you and would never be upset or mad at you, or anyone, for disagreeing with me on any subject.

[edge]

Since Obama believes that the 2nd Amendment is NOT a right of the citizen, but rather a States Right for the Militia, then clearly you are too old to serve ( as am I ) and have no right to own any firearms!

I hope he FAILS in this, but I think that it may take him at least ONE Supreme Court appointment

"The Brady bill stemed from an attempt to kill a Republican president."

Sarah Brady is a Left Winger, why do you attribute this bill to Ronald Reagan?

Ronald Reagan saw the error of his Liberal ways, the way most grownups do ;D

Just because a Majority wants something does not make it right!
I suppose if you really put things to a Democratic vote, The People would probably only vote in their best interests...

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.

Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"

edge.

IMO, Obama is wrongheaded in his plans to move our soldiers from Iraq to Afghanistan!

While many thought that Bush was dumb, they have misinterpreted him!

IMO, Afghanistan is not even a Third World nation! They can't be beaten by any conventional means...these people live in tents, caves, etc. They are willing to kill their own children and you think that you can beat them with an army that wants to live!

www.vbs.tv/full_screen.php?s=DGFE2305DC&sc=1363196

[ozark]

I think going into Iraq was a mistake to begin with. We went in saying they had weapons of mass distruction which proved to be false. At least we didn't find any. We bombed their infrastructure to the ground and have spent billions rebuilding it. Supposedly we are in a war against terrorists. They are everywhere and we can't justify bombing England because it contains some terrorists. The people who are killing people here at home are terrorists and we believe that they should have a right to have these arms. Buckrub we are not even on the same page if you think we should be able to own a Sherman tank or an atomic bomb. Don't tell me the 2nd ammendment would classify those as firearms. I personally believe this thread has ceased to be anything benefitual to anyone. Your opinions are set in concrete and IMO past being altered by reason or facts. Your bible says thou shalt not kill but you still need a firearm. Perhaps you are right.

[Buckrub]

Not sure why you keep arguing only with me and not Edge or others, but ok. That's fine.

My Bible doesn't say not to take a life. If you properly translate that passage it says "Do no Murder". War isn't murder, though it is killing.

Not sure how bombing Iraq got into this discussion anyway. ? We are going from Chinese religion to Iraq war to American Constitution to 2nd Amendment to Foreign Policy........what is it you'd like to discuss exactly? I'm getting more than confused (easy for me I admit.....I'm a bit slow).

I also am a bit confused about opinions being firm. Aren't everyone's opinions set in concrete? Shouldn't everyone have a reason for their convictions and not be a 'reed blown in the wind' Why is it bad that I am convinced of this or that? I'm open if you can dissuade me, and I admit I'm wrong many times daily. But you haven't done so yet. You have stated your opinions. That's good, that's great, but your opinions are not an argument against my opinions. They're both just opinions. I have many thoughts that are not firm convictions, that I'm unsure of. We just happen to be discussing some that I DO believe strongly in.

I realize my 2nd Amendment beliefs are not mainstream, in some respects. But my point is simply that the Constitution framers didn't have any set limits in mind when they wrote the 2nd Amendment, and the purpose was indeed to ensure Americans could fight back against a rogue government. Not sure how to do that today. It can't be done. But the LAW itself does not preclude private ownership of anything, nor provide for any restrictions. What restrictions do you read in the simple one sentence 2nd Amendment??? I don't see any.

Again, I'll be happy to leave and not bother you or this place if you want. Just say so.

But I can't change my mind simply because a man doesn't agree with me. Have to do better than that, have to have some semblance of logic.


Opinions are like elbows and a$$holes. Everyone has one or two.

[edge]

Apr 7, 2009 16:11:18 GMT -5 ozark said:

I think going into Iraq was a mistake to begin with.

SNIP

Since Osama is most likely in Pakistan, then why should Obama build up the military in Afghanistan? Even the Soviet Union had more of a stomach for losses than the USA....and they left in defeat!

In Iraq WE WON the war long ago.....the sign Mission Accomplished was correct...it is the Peace that we have not kept and pulling our troops out prematurely is foolish!

BUT, Obama promised his buddies so off they go...and probably to our detriment!

edge.

[petev]

Ozark, once again I agree with your balanced view on gun control. The right to own arms is tempered by the public's right to be protected from those who would misuse them, as much as is possible. You know, I live about 25 miles from the Binghamton massacre, and there has not yet been any suggestion of increasing gun control by the local press, which is impressive. Senator Gillibrand who took Hillary Clinton's spot suggests to just do better mental screening for gun control permits.
By the way whats a neclure weapon, an Arkansas Nuke?

[edge]

Three people were killed in a murder suicide last night. It was about 1/2 mile from my house.

The weapon was a knife, and so far the press has not urged the masses into a frenzy to outlaw the private possession of the same!

edge.

[ozark]

Buckrub it isn't your position that I disagree with. It is your brand of logic that I am unable to understand. One of the ten commandments says: Thou shalt not kill. You translate that to mean Thou shalt not murder. You add that war is not murder. You support citizens owning all types of killing instruments including Sherman tank and nuclear bombs. I would guess you could explain how a human could live for three days in the belly of a fish. You can no doubt explain why the Holy Bible is isspired by God and the book used by Moslems is just a creation of opinions. All that we believe is without value unless it meshes with facts and truth. We can't use a book on religion to prove itself.
I think we all know the folly of arguing politics and religion and this topic seems filled with both. Let me apologize here for stooping to this level. Let me state clearly that no one living today can know what the frameer of the consstitution had in mind beyond what was written.
Why do I argue with you rather than edge. You strike me as a radical who believes that you have the answers and that they should not be questioned. I am not at all surprised that you get confused on what we are attempting to discuss. Your viewpoint is that Obama and the Democratic party has brought America to the point of collaspe. If you need to place blame on gun control or abortion you just automatically throw it at the Democrats. There has been many problems caused by the Democratic party and equally amount caused by the Republican party.
For the past several years we have had lunitics use firearms to shoot up schools and other gatherings and slaughter innocent people. These incidents cries out for better control of firearms. We cannot have part of our citizens unarmed and at the mercy of these animals. I cannot see where any sane person can truly believe that these killers have constituional rights to thus arm themselves and randomly kill children and adults alike. Guns don't kill-People kill. But people armed with guns does the job easier and with more lives taken. If, as a people we cannot be trusted with guns then as a people we must be controled. If we cannot control our firearms then our Government must do so because they are sworn to protect us. Petev, a neclure weapon is my latest invention. It makes obsolete all weapons of mass distruction prior to Feb. 2009.

[ozark]

edge, I have the equipment and the skills to bring the edges of knives to a long lasting razor sharp condition. I am against cutting people with a dull knife. Blunt instruments should be controled. I hate getting hit with a blunt instrument.

[161]

If law abiding citizens were not hindered in their right to carry they would not be the defenseless sheep unable to defend themselves from the wolves who (WILL) get guns no matter who tells them they can't. This,, is a fact. The more (sensible gun control) we have will only affect the people willing to obey the law.

[petev]

Apr 7, 2009 20:12:55 GMT -5 161 said:

The more (sensible gun control) we have will only affect the people willing to obey the law.

161 I've heard this one too many times. Sensible gun control such as preventing felons and the criminally insane from owning guns has no ill effect on the rest of us. As a matter of fact the NRA has always supported that level of gun control. We need to keep our house (of gun owners) clean, lest we lose the right. You're right about us being defenseless sheep if we lose the right completely.
Edge, we both know where each other stands on Iraq/Afghanistan, but to answer one of your points, the President has already sent drones into Pakistan, and authorized some strikes, so it seems obvious to me that Afghanistan will be used also as a base for strikes to wherever necessary. If we cannot defeat this enemy (Al Queada and Teliban), then we are no longer the number one power, in my opinion. I am convinced we can defeat them and should. Just my opinion. And in case I might have said something confusing, I am glad that the massacre in Binghamton did not get used by the anti-guns to push their points. Frankly, there is an air of confusion here, since he had a permit, and the only reports from those who knew him didn't think he would ever do such a thing, unlike the Virginia Tech shooter.

[edge]

Apr 7, 2009 21:35:12 GMT -5 petev said:

Apr 7, 2009 20:12:55 GMT -5 161 said:

SNIP

If we cannot defeat this enemy (Al Queada and Teliban), then we are no longer the number one power, in my opinion.

SNIP

IMO, we can't cure "the common cold" but that does not mean that we are not a great power!

It depends on what you mean by "defeat"!
If you mean that we change their hearts or kill them all, I think that that will never happen.

Some things can't be accomplished by brute force!
Sure, a few nuclear weapons in Afghanistan, Iraq, Indonesia, Iran, England, France....a few places in NJ, MN, NY and a few more States will probably get most of them...but not all!

edge.

[chuck41]

This week in the news the Messiah "O" told the Turks that "America doesn't consider itself a Christian nation". (Seems he never read Am History, or asked my opinion for that matter.)

Within 24 hours of N Korea launching a long range missile that has the potential of striking Hawaii or Alaska he proposed America's unilateral nuclear disarmament.

He also just cut a couple billion out of the defense budget that was directed for missile defense just at the time N Korea, and Iran are trying to develop nuclear weapons and a way to deliver them.

Now those three wise actions are just a few picked from this weeks news events alone! The man is more of a disaster than Jimmy Carter.

As far as his recent poll numbers, the mind numbed idiots responding to that poll haven't got a clue. It's only two months into his presidency and at this stage in a new administration most incoming presidents have numbers in the 60s or 70s. His ain't that high and they are slipping. Check again in a few months when the results of some of his ridiculous proposals have come to pass.

[161]

petev
I think we're on the same page. It is illegal for a felon to own a gun as it well should be. This IS sensible gun control. We need to enforce the laws we have, not encroach further on the rights of citizens. I don't think a felon should have the right to vote. However Iowa gave that right back to them about 4 years ago. Also if we go back to the original thread about re loadable brass I don't think destroying a reusable resource is going to make our country safer.
Warren

[Buckrub]

Ozark, I'm going to try one more time, because I love you and I respect you and I want to be clear. After that, I'm leaving this one alone regardless. I'll try to do it by points since we're getting off topic a lot.

1) I am not telling you my OPINION that "Thou shall not kill" should be properly translated "Thou shall do no murder". That's the facts, that's just my quoting Greek and Hebrew scholars that know what the original language meant. You are quoting a word that was translated by the 111 Translators hired by King James of England in 1611. They translated the entire bible, under threat of death if they got one word 'wrong'. Trouble is, they got some of it wrong anyway, being human. For instance, in the original language the word 'baptize' is 'baptizo' and it means to immerse or plunge or dip. But the Translators couldn't do that because it'd be political suicide to put the correct translation in there, because the traditions of the day were to simply sprinkle some water. So they did neither, they Anglicized the word and left it alone, with no translation into English. Thus, we that speak English came to start using a verb "Baptize" but everyone can assign whatever meaning they wish.........just not correctly!

The same is true for "kill" in Exodus 20. You are more than welcome to do a complete word study on the word in the original text and let me know what you find. This passage did NOT mean a strict and complete prohibition on taking a life, it couldn't mean that. It meant do not do "Murder with malice towards another". Murder and killing are not the same. In fact, in the NEXT FEW CHAPTERS after that Rule was given, God instructed these same people to go into the land of Canaan, starting with Jericho, and wipe out (kill) all the inhabitants so that they could have the "Promised Land". It wouldn't make sense for God to tell the people to never kill a single person ever, even in war, and then turn around and issue orders to do that very thing. So, the words are not translated correctly. That's why the very Bible itself tell us to study, study, study.... But please don't tell me I'm a silly old goat with radical opinions when I state facts. Feel free to continue to do so on my true OPINIONS, but when I tell you what the world has learned through education and study and observation, don't shoot me.

2) A human could live for 3 days in the belly of a fish because God made the fish and God made the human and God put him there, and God decided he could and would do that. That's not really hard. If you KNOW that that can't happen, you must be pretty smart. So tell me, where do babies come from? Where did you come from? Where did the first atom come from? Why does snow enhance the ground's ability to grow food? Why does an eclipse perfectly block out the sun and no more? Why don't you know all these things???

3) As for getting off topic, I don't think I did that. I think you initiated that. You brought up the Iraq war in the middle of a discussion on the President and then the 2nd Amendment. I just replied to each assertion you made.

4) Here is your quote on your opinion of the 2nd Amendment "If, as a people we cannot be trusted with guns then as a people we must be controlled." Just how are you going to decide who gets to be controlled? Who is "we as a people"? I think it's clear from your other arguments that you would have a test to decide who gets guns because you fear them falling into the wrong hands.

That is backwards logic. It's also unconstitutional. You can't test the legal, moral, law-abiding, sane population to ensure that they pass the test, just to catch a few that you'd like to prohibit. First, no test you can dream up would have caught any of these guys. You want to test for SANITY? I question your sanity if you want the government out there testing citizens for sanity before issuing permission to own a gun. Just imagine how that would work!!! What a joke that would be.

Second, you can NOT compare licensing for car driving with gun ownership. Car driving is a PRIVILEGE bestowed on my by the government. They can test me and my proficiency and my eyesight (but not my sanity!!), before issuance. But gun ownership is not a privilege, sir. It's a Constitutional Right.

I admit, and have already stated repeatedly (that you aren't reading, I assume) that if a person misuses the law (a Felon), he should not get a gun. Of course that's true. I agree. If he is somehow certified insane by a legitimate doctor (not as a result of a government test), then fine, don't let him own a gun. I agree. No problem. Just don't start testing ME, because I have done nothing to deserve having my RIGHTS (different than privilege) taken away. Innocent until Proven Guilty is a backbone tenet of this country and MUST apply here also!

5) You continue to support Democrats and attempt to fend off any attack on them. You seem to think that the Democrat and Republican Parties are sort of like two Americans, but one is blond and one is brunette, otherwise the same. I wish that were true. It was true in our lives at one time. It isn't now. The Democrats are the one that are trying to systematically destroy the 2nd Amendment, not the Republicans. Stating that there are some problems caused by both parties, while true, is immaterial. Of course that is true, but that isn't the argument against blaming the Democrats for Gun Contol. It's THEIR issue, not the Republicans. Counting up which party has made the most errors won't change the fact that Democrats, and Only Democrats, are to blame for attempting to destroy the 2nd Amendment. That's just another fact, a simple observation. It's irrefutable.

5) My argument about nuclear weapons was a bit 'tongue in cheek'. I guess I failed to make that clear. My point, which I keep trying to make, but not very well.......is that the Constitution doesn't prohibit anything. I see no restrictions listed. Do you? Where? I think the reason no restrictions are listed is that the Framers wanted this Amendment close to the First one, to ensure that the First One (the most important one) be forever upheld by the citizens against a rogue government. All, ALL, of your arguments make the assumption that we'll never have a rogue government, that all elected governments will always be altruistic and good, and that we can always trust them and we should always follow them totally. The Framers didn't think so.

6) Another quote of yours is "Let me state clearly that no one living today can know what the framer of the constitution had in mind beyond what was written."

If that is true, then let's shoot the Supreme Court, because those 9 humans have the sole JOB of interpreting what the Framers meant. They have to decide on every case what the Framers meant beyond what they wrote. They have to delve deeper and read their minds, based on their words. If they can do it, I can do it! It's absurd to think that no one can figure out what a document was meant to mean. If that's true, all words are meaningless.

Here is the real situation. I believe, based on your writings, that you are a Secular Humanist at best, or an Agnostic at worst, and a Liberal who doesn't mind the Government intervening into his life in those areas where he thinks it's "good". I believe that you can't imagine anyone having a contention with government intervention if it does "good things", like save lives. I think you translate that belief into a conclusion that almost everything the government does is good and good for us, and thus they can be trusted, so let's surrender whatever we can to them to ensure we all live safely.

I will close that point with the best quote I have ever heard, from Benjamin Franklin (the best American that ever lived, in my opinion) "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." So I'd conclude that since you advocate giving up essential liberties of ordinary Americans just to ensure we all have a little safety, that you deserve neither one.

I conclude my discussions with you. I admire and respect you and always will. But I'm a sane American, but a strong-willed one, and I won't surrender Truth to any living man. I do hope I do not offend you personally or impugn your character by my discussions with you. I wish they forever will be possible.

Thanks for the chance to discuss these things with you on this forum.

[ozark]

Buckrub, in your mind you have me, the political parties, the government, the bible, the constitution, the gun control issues and how people should think figured out. In your own mind you have how I believe and think figured out. You have stated you opinions which like you say everyone has one or two.
I regret that I have attempted to discuss these things with you. I beleve one thing is clear between us. Neither of us will learn anything from the other except how foolish we both are. I do wish you well Buchrub. Ozark

[dougedwards]

I am one of those guys who have prayed for our president in sincerity that he would have moral standards that would guide him through all decisions. I have been hopeful that there is more to what is going on in government that I can thoroughly understand and that maybe there is a bigger picture that is escaping me. But more and more I am losing hope.

There is one thing that my rational mind does tell me for sure. Jesus the Christ cannot be The Way, The Truth and the Life, the son of the living God and the only way to salvation and at the same time be just another good prophet. All religions can't be right. It is an impossibility. However, God Himself gives us the right to make our own choices and then reap the benefits of the reality of those choices. I don't choose to make anyone's choices for them but I do pray that my choice to bear arms (certainly an individual right as are all of the rights in the Bill of Rights) and live a life based on liberty will continue for myself and for my posterity. The hope for posterity is appearing much more gloomy the more I learn about what is going on with our current goverment and it is getting much harder to pray for the president and the current legislature with a heart of sincerity.

Most who know me personally would probably consider me to be a rather open minded person but I do know that sometimes two opposing ideas or theorums cannot both exist within the realm of truth. Truth by it's definition is exclusionary. We can discuss all day and night about the exact characteristics of truth but when someone says that he, as president will illiminate earmarks within the framework of bills from congress and then allows 1100 page documents to be voted on within a 24 hour period, my truth detector goes.......warning......warning.......there is danger.....warning!

I foresee that the NRA or some other gun rights group might make a stand on Washington DC with thousands of gun owners standing up in protest for what is going on within our legislative branch of government. This isn't just about the president. The president isn't granted enough power to over-ride the consitutional right to bear arms. This is about a conspiracy (which means a group of people) that has been successful at lying to us about what we can expect from them. We as individuals who gripe about the state of affairs will offer no impact on the state of the union. It will only be when we wake up to the fact that there are truths and that there also kinards. So far most of American has been swallowing and swallowing......and I am about to vomit.

Doug