except obama was just endorsed by a gun-rights group.

Hehehehehe.....

That's awesome. I wish these two would come out and say, "Look, if guns are your number one voting issue, you're an idiot and not likely to vote for me anyway."

Honestly- that CAN'T be the most important thing. It simply can't be.

golf clap.

burndtdan: except obama was just endorsed by a gun-rights group.

A guy that back the DC gun ban got a gun group to endorse him? He may be a better BSer then I give him credit for.

what_now: Honestly- that CAN'T be the most important thing. It simply can't be.

Well if we are going totally open border and we are going to start moving all our troops home, then the 2nd amendment may become more important in the coming days.

I didn't know Dennis Miller was a farker

burndtdan: except obama was just endorsed by a gun-rights group.

there are plenty of gun-rights groups. i can name three in pennsylvania alone. and some of them are nutty and have unique positions. endorsements mean nothing--actions and records do

burndtdan: except obama was just endorsed by a gun-rights group.

Mr. No-Conceal-Carry-Permits got endorsed by a pro-gun group? Which one? (No snark - really curious.)

burndtdan
except obama was just endorsed by a gun-rights group.


Source?

Nestea Plunge: We need guns to shoot the illegals as they cross the border.

The "Minutemen" are way ahead of you on that one.

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Well if we are going totally open border and we are going to start moving all our troops home, then the 2nd amendment may become more important in the coming days.

Great. Call me when your right to own a firearm is denied. Call me when a law abiding citizen can't buy a gun.

The NRA is fantastic at making you think Democrats are going to take your shotguns away, but it's not realistic.

those two things you mention: Iraq and immigration- are much bigger issues that where you can buy a gun, and how much firepower you can own. Sadly, that's what a lot of people will focus on, just like another huge group of people will vote on abortion.

Keep voting AGAINST your economic interests people, eventually you may need those guns.

Please refrain from straying the stereotype imaging.
It confuses the narrow-minded.

what_now: Keep voting AGAINST your economic interests people, eventually you may need those guns.

Oddly, I think he just proved Obama's bitter comment correct. He seriously votes against his economic issues in favor of guns.

The Stealth Hippopotamus: golf clap.

burndtdan: except obama was just endorsed by a gun-rights group.

A guy that back the DC gun ban got a gun group to endorse him? He may be a better BSer then I give him credit for.

do you know the difference between state, municipal, and federal government? obama does, and so does the gun rights group that endorsed him.

what_now: Great. Call me when your right to own a firearm is denied. Call me when a law abiding citizen can't buy a gun.

The NRA is fantastic at making you think Democrats are going to take your shotguns away, but it's not realistic.

those two things you mention: Iraq and immigration- are much bigger issues that where you can buy a gun, and how much firepower you can own. Sadly, that's what a lot of people will focus on, just like another huge group of people will vote on abortion.

Keep voting AGAINST your economic interests people, eventually you may need those guns.

Ring Ring

cameroncrazy1984: what_now: Keep voting AGAINST your economic interests people, eventually you may need those guns.

Oddly, I think he just proved Obama's bitter comment correct. He seriously votes against his economic issues in favor of guns.

I know. People made a big deal about the "bitter" comment, but guess what? He was right.

burndtdan: do you know the difference between state, municipal, and federal government? obama does, and so does the gun rights group that endorsed him.

Which "gun rights group" was it?

friendinpa: burndtdan
except obama was just endorsed by a gun-rights group.


Source?

it was on fark yesterday

News: Hunter and shooter group endorses candidate for democratic nomination. Fark: They endorse Barack Obama becuase "he gets it" Bonus quote: "To say that he is an elitist is patently ridiculous." (new window)

what_now
Keep voting AGAINST your economic interests people, eventually you may need those guns.

This. For the last decade or two, the GOP has done an amazing job of getting poor and middle class people to vote against their own self interest. For example, it's quite astonishing when millions of people who will never have to pay the tax oppose the estate tax instead of focusing on a disastrous war.

Here I thought it was "the economy, stupid". Apparently it's the gays and the guns instead.

The Stealth Hippopotamus DC Gun ban issue:

You used an example of an unconstitutional law that was passed, and how the court system fixed the problem. Basically, you proved my point that we are in no danger of having guns removed from us.

Thanks!

I, for one, think the entire CONCEPT of the District of Columbia is unconstitutional, but that's me. Taxation without representation and all that.

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Well if we are going totally open border and we are going to start moving all our troops home, then the 2nd amendment may become more important in the coming days.

My god, it takes you like 5 seconds to assemble a strawman the size of the Chrysler building. That's farking incredible.

patrick767: For the last decade or two, the GOP has done an amazing job of getting poor and middle class people to vote against their own self interest.

Exactly. Like the so called "death tax". There are very few people in this country that will leave more than $2million in liquid assets when they die, but yet the GOP managed to make people overwhelmingly opposed to this law.

Obama keeps talking to people like their adults- it's refreshing.

what_now: patrick767: For the last decade or two, the GOP has done an amazing job of getting poor and middle class people to vote against their own self interest.

Exactly. Like the so called "death tax". There are very few people in this country that will leave more than $2million in liquid assets when they die, but yet the GOP managed to make people overwhelmingly opposed to this law.

Obama keeps talking to people like their adults- it's refreshing.

i'll worry about that after i finish worrying about the horrible capital gains taxes. it really stifles my investments.

oh wait, that's right, i can't afford to invest because all my money goes to gas.

burndtdan: friendinpa: burndtdan
except obama was just endorsed by a gun-rights group.


Source?

it was on fark yesterday

News: Hunter and shooter group endorses candidate for democratic nomination. Fark: They endorse Barack Obama becuase "he gets it" Bonus quote: "To say that he is an elitist is patently ridiculous." (new window)

Oh, the American Hunters and Shooters Association? Yeah, calling that a "pro-gun group" is a bit of a stretch. There are some questions about that group, especially since it's rather small and founded by people with a track record in the anti-gun lobby. I mean, after Hillary voted against the Vitter amendment and Obama for, I can see the rationale, but the AHSA is, well, perhaps not what they hold themselves out to be.

what_now: You used an example of an unconstitutional law that was passed, and how the court system fixed the problem. Basically, you proved my point that we are in no danger of having guns removed from us.

Thanks!

I, for one, think the entire CONCEPT of the District of Columbia is unconstitutional, but that's me. Taxation without representation and all that.

You said "Call me when your right to own a firearm is denied" and it was. The fact that the court later overturned it does not take away the fact that some people in DC were trying to take away gun from people whos only sin was living in DC. For some time the right own a fire arm was denied. Thank goodness that we have stacked the Court with some pro-gun people.
However someday that could change and the people writing the laws in DC could try it again.

what_now: Exactly. Like the so called "death tax". There are very few people in this country that will leave more than $2million in liquid assets when they die, but yet the GOP managed to make people overwhelmingly opposed to this law.

And in addition, inherited wealth on a gross scale goes against every bit of the American ideal of the level playing field; plus, you really shouldn't want to leave that much for your kids, as the children of the rich continuously prove.

Nabb1: Oh, the American Hunters and Shooters Association? Yeah, calling that a "pro-gun group" is a bit of a stretch.

that's why i called them a "gun-rights group".

and it seems to me they are pro-gun, simply not blindly and stupidly so.

what_now: Honestly- that CAN'T be the most important thing. It simply can't be.

It's not. Gun rights are just the bellwether for other civil rights, because the right is really about self-defense and not so much about the method. In fact, "guns" are not mentioned in the second amendment. really, "let's kill all the gun nuts" is about the same strategy as "lets kill all the lawyers." What you're really saying is "let's make it easier to make the government more important than the people, and lets make individual rights look silly." If gun-grabbers would realize that they do themselves a great disservice by buying into their "nut" part of the "gun-nut" appellation, they'd be better able to make arguments. As it is, making an assumption that your reasonable and intelligent opponent is a "nut" colors your arguments so that no rational person will take them seriously.

/rant

Obdicut: what_now: Exactly. Like the so called "death tax". There are very few people in this country that will leave more than $2million in liquid assets when they die, but yet the GOP managed to make people overwhelmingly opposed to this law.

And in addition, inherited wealth on a gross scale goes against every bit of the American ideal of the level playing field; plus, you really shouldn't want to leave that much for your kids, as the children of the rich continuously prove.

Isn't it my decision what to leave my children, and not yours? What's "un-American" about leaving your property to your heirs? I'm sorry, but my financial decisions regarding my children are none of your damned business.

burndtdan: Nabb1: Oh, the American Hunters and Shooters Association? Yeah, calling that a "pro-gun group" is a bit of a stretch.

that's why i called them a "gun-rights group".

and it seems to me they are pro-gun, simply not blindly and stupidly so.

Really? Until you read that the AHSA endorsed Obama, had you ever heard of it, and do you know where it stands on issues like hand guns, assault rifle bans, waiting periods?

Nabb1: founded by people with a track record in the anti-gun lobby.

You see, that's the kind of polarizing statement on gun ownership that really doesn't help-- calling it the "anti-gun" lobby, for one thing.

I'm for completely unfettered access to guns, myself. However, I am also for complete registration of all guns and ammo. Does this make me anti-gun? According to the NRA, yes. According to the mothers against handguns or whatever the hell they call themselves, it makes me extremely pro-gun.

Perhaps one doesn't have to have a polarized opinion on this issue? Perhaps we can talk about solutions for gun crime and gun safety without using scare tactics-- on both sides?

The Stealth Hippopotamus:

You said "Call me when your right to own a firearm is denied" and it was. The fact that the court later overturned it does not take away the fact that some people in DC were trying to take away gun from people whos only sin was living in DC. For some time the right own a fire arm was denied. Thank goodness that we have stacked the Court with some pro-gun people.
However someday that could change and the people writing the laws in DC could try it again.

You stacked the court of appeals with pro-gun people? Or people who had read the farking constitution?

Look, that law was crap, and the system worked as it was designed. The only people who wanted the Court to uphold that law was the Mayor of DC, DC criminals and the NRA.

Yes the NRA- they would have had the fund raiser to end all fund raisers over this.

So...maybe voting for a POTUS based on this one issue is self defeating?

Obdicut: Perhaps one doesn't have to have a polarized opinion on this issue? Perhaps we can talk about solutions for gun crime and gun safety without using scare tactics-- on both sides?

GOOD LUCK

Nabb1: burndtdan: Nabb1: Oh, the American Hunters and Shooters Association? Yeah, calling that a "pro-gun group" is a bit of a stretch.

that's why i called them a "gun-rights group".

and it seems to me they are pro-gun, simply not blindly and stupidly so.

Really? Until you read that the AHSA endorsed Obama, had you ever heard of it, and do you know where it stands on issues like hand guns, assault rifle bans, waiting periods?

lol, i was just passing along some information, i'm not a spokesman for the farking group.

Obdicut: Nabb1: founded by people with a track record in the anti-gun lobby.

You see, that's the kind of polarizing statement on gun ownership that really doesn't help-- calling it the "anti-gun" lobby, for one thing.

I'm for completely unfettered access to guns, myself. However, I am also for complete registration of all guns and ammo. Does this make me anti-gun? According to the NRA, yes. According to the mothers against handguns or whatever the hell they call themselves, it makes me extremely pro-gun.

Perhaps one doesn't have to have a polarized opinion on this issue? Perhaps we can talk about solutions for gun crime and gun safety without using scare tactics-- on both sides?

First of all, I am in agreement with you about gun registration, but I have a real problem with an organization that was founded by a lawyer who did, in fact, work in DC for a variety of groups that were far more hostile to gun ownership rights, including the advocacy of suits against gun manufacturers for gun crimes. On top of that, Obama has a track record of being opposed to a number of gun ownership rights, such as concealed-carry permits.

Sgian Dubh: It's not. Gun rights are just the bellwether for other civil rights, because the right is really about self-defense and not so much about the method. In fact, "guns" are not mentioned in the second amendment. really, "let's kill all the gun nuts" is about the same strategy as "lets kill all the lawyers." What you're really saying is "let's make it easier to make the government more important than the people, and lets make individual rights look silly." If gun-grabbers would realize that they do themselves a great disservice by buying into their "nut" part of the "gun-nut" appellation, they'd be better able to make arguments. As it is, making an assumption that your reasonable and intelligent opponent is a "nut" colors your arguments so that no rational person will take them seriously.

I didn't call anyone a gun nut, but maybe I should have.

Look- you want to talk about "civil rights" then maybe just maybe you shouldn't vote for the party that has had fun suspending Habeus Corpus?

burndtdan: lol, i was just passing along some information, i'm not a spokesman for the farking group.

Sorry, look, the AHSA is considered by many as a front for the anti-gun lobby. It may not be, but it's small, came out of nowhere very, very recently, and many of the people involved don't exactly have a history of standing up for gun ownership rights.

While the gun issue shouldn't be a huge issue it should be in people's minds. It is a direct example of how the person interprets and probably will interpret the constitution and I for one want the president to use the constitution and not disregard it like the current one.

I'm not saying this should be the only issue in the election but I want a president who realizes that just because a law makes someone safe doesn't mean it is constitutional.

Nabb1: Isn't it my decision what to leave my children, and not yours? What's "un-American" about leaving your property to your heirs? I'm sorry, but my financial decisions regarding my children are none of your damned business.

THIS.

Nabb1: burndtdan: lol, i was just passing along some information, i'm not a spokesman for the farking group.

Sorry, look, the AHSA is considered by many as a front for the anti-gun lobby. It may not be, but it's small, came out of nowhere very, very recently, and many of the people involved don't exactly have a history of standing up for gun ownership rights.

obama also said last night that he believes the constitution grants individual rights to bear arms (and not militias).

his only caveat was that much like a local government can set up zoning ordinances that restrict our right to private property, local governments can put some conditions on gun ownership.

/it was also a stupid question, it isn't the president's prerogative to dictate policy to municipalities.

Nabb1: Isn't it my decision what to leave my children, and not yours? What's "un-American" about leaving your property to your heirs? I'm sorry, but my financial decisions regarding my children are none of your damned business.

No, you misunderstood me. I didn't say it was unamerican to leave them your money-- though I do think it's deeply foolish. I said that "inherited wealth on a gross scale goes against every bit of the American ideal of the level playing field". We do have an ideal in America that, in a certain sense, we're a meritocracy. That this is largely true is shown by how often the children of the rich fail, which is nice schaedenfreude, but what I mean is that the kid who gets to go to all of the best schools, get private tutoring, and never have to worry about being evicted, is going to have an easier time getting into college, all other things being equal.

The thing is that the existence of children is a major weirdness in any economic or legal policy. It's really hard to know how to handle the divide between parent responsibility and governmental protection of citizenry, for example.


In addition, property rights and death are another oddity; the tenant of ownership persisting after death is a somewhat odd one, when you get right down to it. The legal entity that you are expires with your passing, and all rights should expire as well, philosophically; instead, we have a kind of ghost of a legal presence for a period of time. It makes me kind of uncomfortable, but I definitely see the necessity of it.

You see, I'm one of the few people, the very, very few people, actually affected by the estate tax. My grandfather, who always lived at the junction of Lucky and Smart, bought a nice big house in Presidio Heights in San Francisco in the late 1950s. There was probably no better investment at the time-- it grew a hundred times in value since then. When my parents pass on, it'll be inherited by my brothers and I, an asset worth more than five million dollars.

Now, I have two feelings and trains of thought around this. The first one is a strange way of wanting to honor my grandmother by going out and making enough money to pay the estate taxes, whatever they may be at the time. That if I don't have the wherewithal to go out into the world and be as smart and lucky as my grandfather, that the house should pass on.

The other side of me agrees with what our family has, in fact, done, which is place the house in a land trust. It's complex, but basically through the land trust we assert that we will only use the house as a residence, never as a cash asset. We will not borrow against its equity, and if at any point we sell it, at that point we would have to pay the accumulated estate taxes, if they would be larger than the other taxes at the point of sale. I like this law because, other than this house, my family is not rich; it is our one asset.

But to me, it's not an asset, it's not money, it's the house, the memories of Christmas with my grandmother and grandfather. The only reason I want to keep it is as that, not as a chunk of wealth. This very smart law allows me to do that; this law has the compassion to look beyond the "you'd be a farking millionaire if you sold it anyway, so quit complaining", and makes a special exception for people in my position.

Forgive the Tolstoy, but as one of the very, very, very, very, very few people in America who would ever actually be effected by the estate tax, I wanted to share my story.

Nabb1: but I have a real problem with an organization that was founded by a lawyer who did, in fact, work in DC for a variety of groups that were far more hostile to gun ownership rights, including the advocacy of suits against gun manufacturers for gun crimes.

Do you also have a problem with him being an ex-NRA officer?

I, for one, think the entire CONCEPT of the District of Columbia is unconstitutional, but that's me. Taxation without representation and all that

It's hard for it to be unconstitutional when DC is in fact specifically provided for in section 8 of the constitution

I like it when a 23 year old cable company employee imply that the Harvard graduate that taught constitutional law doesn't understand the Constitution

Obdicut:



/i'll read it in a minute

Obdicut: Forgive the Tolstoy, but as one of the very, very, very, very, very few people in America who would ever actually be effected by the estate tax, I wanted to share my story

my sisters and i will be, too.

but when discussing positions based on a person's ideology or political views, one doesn't have to be affected by that position or program in order to have a view on it. just because someone may not have to pay the estate tax doesn't mean he is unjustified in opposing it on philosophical grounds.

Nestea Plunge: No I mean a .50 cal machine gun to mow 'em down like grass, then Paco will think twice about coming back.

Do you want to be the person killing unarmed men, women, and children?

albo: but when discussing positions based on a person's ideology or political views, one doesn't have to be affected by that position or program in order to have a view on it. just because someone may not have to pay the estate tax doesn't mean he is unjustified in opposing it on philosophical grounds.

And I never said he was unjustified. I explained my position; I did not attack him or assert anything negative about him at all. I didn't even call anyone bitter.

I just explained my philosophy around it; though a totally thorough explanation would take a lot longer, since my points about the status of children as citizenry and the legal status of a dead man are actually things I can talk about for hours.

Obdicut: we have a kind of ghost of a legal presence for a period of time.

the ghost of entity past?



is this an excerpt from dicken's little known work, the estate tax carol?

Democrats don't own guns, that is a widely known fact.

Obdicut:

Not really. That has existed as long as humans have submitted to some sort of authority. The government traditionally steps in when the rights of others are jeopardized, or more succinctly, when there is a risk to another's person or property.


In addition, property rights and death are another oddity; the tenant of ownership persisting after death is a somewhat odd one, when you get right down to it. The legal entity that you are expires with your passing, and all rights should expire as well, philosophically; instead, we have a kind of ghost of a legal presence for a period of time. It makes me kind of uncomfortable, but I definitely see the necessity of it.

It's a transfer of property rights, though, that is made while the owner is still alive. It's merely contingent on a suspensive condition - death of the testator. If someone has a will, clearly there is a testament to the person's desires for the distribution of his property. If someone dies intestate, we can only presume, but the law presumes that the dead would want their natural heirs to receive their property.