RobertNashville

As I understand this "terrible sequestration" is does NOT apply equally to the entire budget; the Congress and the White House in their infinite wisdom didn't do it that way; two-thirds of the Federal Budget (well, the continuing resolutions budget since the Senate hasn't passed a budget in over four years) is totally exempt from these pretend cuts and naturally, Obama and his cronies will cut what scares people the most (i.e. planes running into each other, people dying of food poisoning).   IT'S ALL F*****G HOGWASH.

How are they getting away with using what at first glance looks like the NRA's registered trademarks and probably trademarked images as well?   Anyway, while the NRA is hardly a perfect organization; their main problem are those in leadership who think that the only proper use of a firearm is for hunting and sport shooting and are willing to give away the farm so long as new regulations don't impact "their" favorite use. ;)

I don't believe the answer is to just do away with it...there IS a better answer than just saying, sorry...it's gone; go starve to death. I've looked at government spending enough to know, not just believe, that doing away with it is not the only answer - it's a question of choices more than a question of ability.  

Maybe you missed a little reality...many, perhaps even most elderly haven't saved all their lives because they barely got buy or even if they were diligent about saving couldn't save enough to cover everything without SS; that's partially because for decades, all the financial planning seminars, some put out BY the government, always included Social Security as part of the planning process.  Since the government GUARANTEED (that's called a promise where I come from) it would be there, the people who are not on it or very close to SS age thought that the benefits would be there...silly them I suppose. I also wonder, anyone who would say "they should have saved"; how is your nest egg?  If you keep saving at your current rate will YOU have enough to live once you are too old to work? If the answer is no or I don't think so then I wouldn't throw stones at the elderly for not "saving enough". Also keep in mind that even for those elderly who had good savings many of them have seen half of their value wiped out in the last few years turning what was a comfortable nest egg into something that can longer support them.   Medicare hardly covers what most people think, out of pocket just for the medigap policies are more than many here probably pay for their own, better coverage and I know many elderly whose monthly out-of-pocket expenses are more per month that many here likely make working full time; one friend's monthly out-of-pocket outlay for their medicine is approaching $3,000 per month and that's WITH medicare coverage and that isn't an extreme example.   With as many members as TGO has here I would suspect that at least some have elderly parents or other relatives (or are themselves) that are either wholly or mostly dependent on SS for their very lives (i.e. to cover food, clothing, shelter, etc.) - if you want to just cut it all off...are you going to take your parents into you home and support them until they pass or are you just going to say, sorry; you aren't my problem because you didn't save enough or couldn't see 40 years ago that SS wouldn't be there?   We don't need to cut it all, we need to cut a lot but it should be done while using our heads for something other than a hat rest...this country made promises to your parents and grandparents and it sure as hell needs to do ALL it can to keep those promises; even if it's painful. It may be painful for many but I'd rather go through some pain than face the shame of telling some 80 year old that you'll just have to go and die because I don't want to pay in any more knowing I won't get any out.

Yes...but you'll won't hear anyone in the Obama administration saying that or many Republicans for that matter.   This is a game and it's a game that everyone is going to lose except of course the ones who make the rules - they'll be Okay no matter what they make the rest of the country suffer.

It didn't "roar over my head"  :-\   I guess I can understand some confusion but my "automobile" comment wasn't in response to or directed to your post about "Fords and Chevy's" - I was referring to a prior comment about the number of vehicles on the roads as an example of the government being capable of keeping a registry.   Also, I didn't respond/wasn't responding to your post in part because I didn't see a need to; I don't disagree with you as I see little difference between Democrats and Republicans and have been saying so for a while now.   However, since you brought it up I do disagree with your contention about the GOP not being turncoats. When a person proclaims support for certain core beliefs but then seems to abandon them is that not being a turncoat? Many Republicans, perhaps even most of them present themselves as being "conservative" and that they honor the Constitution and want  a smaller government, less spending, living within our means, etc. etc. but when they are in office they often do the very opposite.  There are many words than can apply to such duplicity but I think "turncoat" fits well.

I don't see a lot of correlation between Automobiles and firearms - there is approximately 250 million vehicles on the road but we know that because they are registered and MUST be registered at the time of purchase since they must have a title...while the mechanism has changed over the years it's been around a very long time.   On the other hand, the best "guess" about the number of civilian (as opposed to military/law enforcement) in the U.S. is 200 million; basically none but a tiny fraction of which are currently registered.   IF everyone who has firearms complied with an order to register them then there MAY be a chance that the government could keep track of them but I highly doubt it. First simple because many will not comply, second because of their track history (as I mentioned, the NFA registry, even with some 70+ years to work on it isn't accurate and that's only about 200,000 firearms) thirdly because the government is rarely good with maintaining such details. Of course, the best thing is to stop this ridiculous stuff in its tracks.

I agree...looking under every name I could think of I couldn't find a listing for it anywhere in the current BB so very difficult to place a real value on it but yes, going by what used G20 normally goes for in the same condition is probably the best guide.

You know the answer to that...most politicians, regardless of party and any declared "core principles", are only truly concerned with obtaining and maintaining power and are loath to do anything they don't have to do or be forced into taking any sort of stand on something because doing so means that they will alienate some group and therefore lose votes and campaign donations. We no longer have a representative republic; we have a ruling class of elites who get elected to what essentially becomes life-long careers and a slightly less elite class of life-long bureaucrats...as long as that exists we cannot have the freedom and liberty our founders intended for us to have.

Does anyone really think that the federal government is capable of keeping an accurate database for the millions (likely in excess of 200 million privately owned in the U.S.) of weapons in the country?  To the best of my knowledge (and actually I know of more than one specific example); the government can't keep the current NFA registry accurate and up to date even with about 70 years to get it right and with a tiny fraction of weapons to keep track of...if they can't do that how are they going to do it when the work expands exponentially? More to the point, people will be people...some people WILL NOT COMPLY and never think a thing about it. I'm not saying the government won't try, especially when you have useful idiots like Bob Pope out there extolling the problem of the non-existent "gun show loophole" but the government actually making it work?  I don't think so.

I've never bought pmags, only emags but that seems like a pretty decent price to me even before the current craziness.   Frankly, so long as you have a use for them and can afford to make the purchase I'm not sure the price is really a big issue. ;)

I think what we all struggle with is that we know, intuitively, that someone who truly has significant mental health issues, whether they are recent veterans returning from war or just ordinary civilians, should not have access to firearms; the problem is "WHO" makes that determination and can we trust that it will be done honestly and impartially/fairly.   Many of us simply don't trust "government" with that kind of power but at the same time, somebody has to do it and power can corrupt anyone.  It's the proverbial rock and a hard place.

Yes, they did. Ramsey will deny it but this bill is better called Ramsey's "lose your job" bill.

But isn't that just the point, not everything needs to be funded; in fact, there are whole departments with huge staffs and assets that need to have not just a budget cut but completely eliminated. No matter what program or department is cut it's going to hurt but it has to be done. They could go a LONG way with SS and Medicare if they just converted it to private operations for those who still have enough working life left to prepare for their old age/retirement.  The military and likely everything that isn't done away with will need to be cut and cut significantly.   The country needs to do something because the house of cards IS going to fall...something as simple as interest rates rising to historical averages would be enough to cause us to collapse because were the country paying almost nothing (%) on the debt right now it would take the entire revenue of the U.S. just to pay interest on the debt leaving ZERO to fund anything else.

I don't have much doubt that the GOP establishment would be happy with Christie. I've appreciated the way he's taken on some of the entrenched liberal BS in New Jersey and he seems to have a decent fiscal head on his shoulders but he is not anyone I could ever support and won't support.   The problem is, for those who don't want him or someone like McCain or Romney or any of the other candidates with "wide appeal" that the GOP will try to force on us, we had better find someone NOW that we can support and keep pushing for...that might be Rand Paul or is might be someone else but I do know that if we don't find someone better that we can make the nominee; 2016 will look exactly like 2012 and 2008.   This "appealing to the electorate" is a theory that doesn't work...we know it doesn't because it hasn't.  I mean my God, with the economy the way it is and the unpopularity of Obama care there shouldn't have been any way in hell that Obama should win reelection - the republicans should have been able to run a dime store mannequin and win. True conservatives CAN win if they aren't afraid to run as a conservative but the GOP doesn't want to run a conservative because at the end of the day, the GOP establishment aren't conservative...all they care about is power and even as a minority they have a lot more power than the great unwashed, unintelligent, electorate.

Very nice!!! My dentist has one framed in his office; I take a few moments to look at it every time I'm there.

No one said otherwise (that such a bill can stop anyone from being fired) but a bill can most certainly be written with some viable protections for employees and so that an employer cannot fire you for the cause of having a firearm in your vehicle against company "policy' (whether the parking lot is "posted" or not). There are other ways of accomplishing it but if the state says to an employer that you...   1. Can't ask an employee about firearms (whether he owns any or not or whether he has an HCP)   2. Seal the HCP records (as they already should be)   3. Disallow an employer from asking to search a vehicle or attempt to compel the search of a vehicle with threat of termination if they don't "volunteer" to allow the serach   No bill, in any state, can be written that will stop an employer from firing an employee they really want to fire, no matter what reason they have for wanting to but it can certainly be made more difficult to do so (and least protect the employee's UI benefits).

No, he isn't but I've yet to see anyone who is.  Anyway, and unfortunately, Ronnie can't run again even if he were still with us.  

I don't agree. Rand is not Ron and doesn't have Ron's baggage or negatives that have always kept Ron from getting close to the nomination. I do agree that the Republican establishment won't want Rand or anyone like him as the nominee but they didn't want Ronald Reagan either and I head a lot of "Ron will never get it" back then too. But, the people decided otherwise and ad the end of the day, the establishment didn't really have much of a choice but to support him - and thank God they did.

I do and frankly, I'll likely need it.  Even if I, very near the age where I'll start receiving it, didn't expect it or need it, we have some 40 million recipients on SS now who are age 65 or older (at least we do if I read the stat correctly)...for many of them, that's all they have. Simply cutting them off would be more inhuman that the Nazi death camps of WW2. Regardless of what happens to me or people of my age, this country OWES it to those already on SS to ensure they continue receiving it...if we can't do that then this country has no moral right to exist at all, in my always humble opinion.

I agree....my only point was that with Obama and his campaign staff (the media) who is actually to blame or not to blame is immaterial.

Cut it all??? So I guess our parents and grandparents who have paid into SS all their lives on the promise of receiving a retirement income should just go ahead and starve to death and decrease the surplus elderly population. We can just forget about the fact that if these people had simply be allowed to save the same amount of money stolen they could easily be millionaires...no, we'll just steel their money while they are working and then say...you don't get anything back; sucks to be you!   And for our soldiers and sailors who are lucky enough to actually server a career without getting killed should just go "f" them selves too.   And let's not forget the truly poverty-stricken who actually can't work or care for themselves...I guess they can just go die in the street...we can send along the meat wagons to haul their bodies off like they did during the black plague.   There are PLENTY of things that need to be cut including entire departments of the government that shouldn't exist at all but just "cutting everything" is about as helpful as saying "let them eat cake".

I've had the privilege of hearing the Surgeon General of the National Guard (who happens to be an Air Force officer) speak to the issue of our vets returning home and so very many committing suicide...the son of a friend of mine came home from war and killed himself.   Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not in any way suggesting that what is in the referenced story is good news or that there isn't the possibility of an ulterior motive behind this. BUT...there is a truly significant problem with our soldiers and sailors coming home and then committing suicide...it's a travesty and I do believe that the military and VA are actually trying to do something about it (and that they need to).   All I'm saying is, before we jump on the bandwagon that this is some grand back-door scheme to take guns away from citizens, we need to remember that there is a real problem that needs to be addressed and if someone really is mentally unfit to take care of their own affairs or to own a firearm it's in everybody's best interest that someone steps in.

It doesn't matter at all who owns it or proposed it...as long as Obama has the entire press in his back pocket (which he does) he can say anything he wants, blame the Republicans for anything that goes wrong or doesn't work and the bring-dead population (i.e. about 52% of the population) are going go believe him.

  Well, our illustrious governor would never do that because... 1. It would require a decision and given how long it takes for him to make one Magpull will likely have already moved and begun business in another state., and   2. He probably doesn't want any of those nasty, controversial "high capacity" magazines made in his state.