Outrage after NY paper publishes names of gun permit holders

[RadarTech]

I cant remember EVER a thread going this hi this fast...

:laughing:
You never watch the chronicles on the front porch have you?

 

[toppop52]

Moss, have you ever been to Britain? Virtually nobody lives in fear of violence. You can certainly find exceptions reported but look at the statistics. A citizen of the USA has a MUCH higher risk of violent death than a Brit. I've lived in London twice and cannot think of a part of town I would not walk through at midnight.

I believe I would avoid Catford and Soho, of course the bet ***** houses and strippers are in Soho, but Catford has no redeeming value.

 

[kenmac]

Here's what my great State thinks about guns Proposed constitutional amendment would strengthen gun-ownership protections | al.com

If it gets on the ballot, it will have no problem passing :thumbsup: :cool2:

 

[IslandTractor]

I believe I would avoid Catford and Soho, of course the bet ***** houses and strippers are in Soho, but Catford has no redeeming value.

You might well choose to avoid them but even the ****** and strippers are non violent!

 

[toppop52]

It's not the ****** that scare me, it's colored pimps. I assume colored is recognized today as it was in the 80's, in any event I'm not being racist.

 

[IslandTractor]

It's not the ****** that scare me, it's colored pimps. I assume colored is recognized today as it was in the 80's, in any event I'm not being racist.

In the British context you are right.

 

[Gunny]

From Forbes, 12/28/2012 - a really good read, below is an excerpt:

Gun control advocates attempt to avoid the real issue of gun rights—why the Founders felt so strongly about gun rights that they singled them out for special protection in the Bill of Rights—by demanding that individual rights be balanced against a counterfeit collective right to “security” from things that go bump in the night. But, the Bill of Rights was not a Bill of Entitlements that people had a right to demand from government; it was a Bill of Protections against the government itself. The Founders understood that the right to own and bear laws is as fundamental and as essential to maintaining liberty as are the rights of free speech, a free press, freedom of religion and the other protections against government encroachments on liberty delineated in the Bill of Rights.

Basically - "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Anything or anybody that attempts to limit or prevent gun ownership is/are acting directly in defiance of the Constitution - and that used to be called Treason

 

[polo1665]

Uh-oh looks like more outrage on the way.

New York newspaper to list more gun permit holders after uproar - Yahoo! News

 

[dmccarty]

That really put's it into prospective, really quick!

The scary thing about Mark's post is that it only tells part of the story. The budget problem is going to get much worse with an aging population taking more government benefits as well as the ObamaCare costs that start to get in. We have a very serious spending and debt problem that is not going away and is going to get worse unless the politicians cut benefits.

One of Obama's spending commissions recommended for every $1 in tax increases there should be $2 expense cuts. The current discussions are around a 1 to 1 ratio.

IF there was a 2 trillion dollar tax increase followed by a 2 trillion dollar budget cut that is a whopping 4 trillion dollars! Who Hoo. Except that those numbers are spread over 10 years and most of the cuts are towards the end of the 10 year period and not likely to be realized. But lets just assume that the 4 trillion dollars was averaged out over the ten years so we would have $400 million improvement in the budget. The deficit over the last few years has been running around a trillion dollars. Sometimes a bit more, sometimes a bit less, let just call it a trillion. A $400 million expense reduction and tax increase still leaves a $600 billion deficit to add to the debt.

IF there was a 2 to 1 expense reduction and tax increase per Obama's commission's recommendation, that still leaves an average deficit of $400 billion a year IF there was a two trillion dollar tax increase. A $400 billion dollar deficit might be covered by a growing economy.... Maybe....

The problem with all of the above is that neither side is talking about a $2 trillion dollar tax increase or spending cuts. The last number I saw was around 1.6 billion and that was a starting point that will most likely decrease in time. Furthermore, they are only talking about a 1 to 1 expense cut to tax increase ratio and it is spread over 10 years so the savings are not likely to be realized.

The current budget talks are just kicking the can into the curb, not even down the road... We be in deep scat with just the current numbers. With the Baby Boomers retiring, many early because of this economy, the demand for government money is going to start increasing which is going to lead to more government debt meaning the scat is much deeper than it appears.

Later,
Dan

 

[RadarTech]

The scary thing about Mark's post is that it only tells part of the story. The budget problem is going to get much worse with an aging population taking more government benefits as well as the ObamaCare costs that start to get in. We have a very serious spending and debt problem that is not going away and is going to get worse unless the politicians cut benefits.

One of Obama's spending commissions recommended for every $1 in tax increases there should be $2 expense cuts. The current discussions are around a 1 to 1 ratio.

IF there was a 2 trillion dollar tax increase followed by a 2 trillion dollar budget cut that is a whopping 4 trillion dollars! Who Hoo. Except that those numbers are spread over 10 years and most of the cuts are towards the end of the 10 year period and not likely to be realized. But lets just assume that the 4 trillion dollars was averaged out over the ten years so we would have $400 million improvement in the budget. The deficit over the last few years has been running around a trillion dollars. Sometimes a bit more, sometimes a bit less, let just call it a trillion. A $400 million expense reduction and tax increase still leaves a $600 billion deficit to add to the debt.

IF there was a 2 to 1 expense reduction and tax increase per Obama's commission's recommendation, that still leaves an average deficit of $400 billion a year IF there was a two trillion dollar tax increase. A $400 billion dollar deficit might be covered by a growing economy.... Maybe....

The problem with all of the above is that neither side is talking about a $2 trillion dollar tax increase or spending cuts. The last number I saw was around 1.6 billion and that was a starting point that will most likely decrease in time. Furthermore, they are only talking about a 1 to 1 expense cut to tax increase ratio and it is spread over 10 years so the savings are not likely to be realized.

The current budget talks are just kicking the can into the curb, not even down the road... We be in deep scat with just the current numbers. With the Baby Boomers retiring, many early because of this economy, the demand for government money is going to start increasing which is going to lead to more government debt meaning the scat is much deeper than it appears.

Later,
Dan

I would rather be in deep kimchi as it is normally edible..... Ok... Sorry. Had to make a joke...