Didn't you hear? CNN is only credible when it's bashing Bush... Otherwise it just spreads propoganda...

Why do you say that?

There is some truth to what he speaks, just as there is some truth to what we speak. There is much misinformation on both sides and i'm sure we are all preaching some of this misinformation as though it were fact.

The best we can do is the best we can do...

because when all the fluff is boiled to the top and removed, the only thing that remains is the federal reserve and the cronies that own it. these are the absolute cause of all of our problems. the federal reserve is shooting these problems out like octo mom and no one is keeping focused on the issue of it. i am keeping extremely focused on them. i could go for pages and pages of what problems the federal reserve caused in our history and give timelines and show where one problem is linked to the other and how it goes back to the practices of the federal reserve.

our attention is kept off of the federal reserve and the policies it creates. every thing that you can complain about links back to the federal reserve, that i promise. it's very simple. every problem that we have in our society is either due to lack of money or too much money. it all flows back to the money. and the money flows back to the federal reserve.

Oh, i agree completely. The Federal Reserve is like a cancer speading throughout the country. It must be removed. There is no disputing the logic behind this.

I think everyone knows there is something fishy going on. Federal Reserve, Trilateral Comittee, CFR, Bilderberg, etc. You canprove these groups exist. We can prove that the Federal Reserve has an underlying extremely negative affect on our economy. We can prove that CFR owns the media (most of it).

But i will admit, many of the accusations do seem a bit far fetched. This doesn't mean they aren't true. That could be applied to the skeptical side of the argument too.

i'd rather err on the side of caution. but no one can dispute how money is made. ron paul put it out there in the congressional meeting for ben bernanke to dispute and ben didn't dispute it. there have been court cases where the plaintiff won becuase the money was fake and derived out of thin air. jerome daly vs. first national bank of montgomery is one of them. if anyone disputes that fake money isn't bad for our economy i would have no choice but to realize that they are just not informed and will not let themselves be informed. we have to realize, some people are afraid to know what's really going on. they will argue with you till they are blue in the face, won't do the research, all because they don't really want to know about it. ostrich with his head stuck in the sand syndrome. they think that if they don't know about it, it won't effect them.

Obama says one thing and does another. He kept saying he was pro Second Amendment, yet he got a grade "F" from the NRA, and which is why you see a movement among some twenty-odd number of states to protect the rights of gun owners in state legislatures. Here in Montana, they have made it illegal for the feds to come in and take your guns away. It's all part of "states rights".

All those guns on Obama's list are protected in Montana.

I think it is good that they are addressing this problem. The states that defy the rules will have to do without the federal funding that they would get otherwise. They will just tax their residents a little bit more to compensate for the denied funding.

The list did not list all weapons so it is not defying the second amendment.

Any gun that shows up on a ban list is a defiance of the Second Amendment. Voting and driving are privileges. Owning a gun and speaking out about it are rights.

There is no list of what guns can be owned by the second amendment so if he leaves them with pop guns then that is following the second amendment.

how about the states just stop sending tax receipts to the federal treasury?? that knife cuts both ways..



The second ammendement recognizes a basic human right, that to the means to defend oneself, as the first recognizes a basic human right, that to express oneself in whatever way he should choose.

The 2A doesn't "grant" us the right.. it PROHIBITS the infringement of the right..

hoepfully it never happens, but if the day should come when someone comes kicking in the door when the power's out, the land line is dead and the cell phone "has no bars", maybe then having a shotgun in the house might not seem like such a bad idea.

hopefully learning that lesson won't cost someone their life or some little girl her innocence.

I stand by my statement. This list just demonstrates that Obama's government has grown since the last government.

Right. Criminals aren't going to follow the laws or silly guns lists, that's why they're called criminals. The more guns that are prohibited by LAW ABIDING citizens to own, the more criminals are going to know that the next house they bust in to will be unarmed.

in fact, the more guns get outlawed, the more they will be able to criminalize anyone that doesn't agree with the ban. the more criminals, the more arrests, the more money the jails will bring in. it's all a money game based on greed.

of Course, the Forefathers were Speaking of Muskets! but they had the Fore thought to realize that Technology Would Change. that is Why it is Not Specific.

Indeed my friend, indeed. Our arsenal was never meant to be at any major disadvantage to the government's. The second amendments WHOLE purpose is to protect ourselves against the government IF WE NEEDED TO. In fact, The constitution isn't meant to apply to citizens as a whole.

It is a list of government restraints and boundaries can never be crossed.

would you please offer your elaboration on this point? what thoughts or reasoning do you associate with that statement?

First of all, what problem is there?

Second, you obviously don't understand how the tax system works. You don't stand alone on this, which is why i will elaborate.

Taxes are collected by the states and sent to the IRS for them to deal with. That's it. The Federal Reserve collects 100% of this. Then, it is somehow sorted out and money is sent back to each state respectively. If the Federal Government cuts funding, the states get ZERO income tax back.

If it didn't work that way, i would be happy to cut the federal funding to ALL states. But, that would also involve the State cutting the funding to the federal government. This is how our system is SUPPOSED to work.

Also the second amendment states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


"Infringe"

1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.

Basically, don't mess with it.


There does, however, reach a point where a particular weapon is considered a clear and present danger to the general population.

Many forms of high explosives.

Chemical weapons.

Nuclear weapons.

There ya go.

When it comes to guns, there is little to no danger that comes from law abiding citizens from being armed. In fact, statistics often show a that places with fewer restrictions on weapons have lower rates of crime. Violent crime in particular. In fact, some of the places in the U.S. with the lowest crime, allow you to carry a concealed weapon with no permit of any kind.

Other statistics show that gun control has no affect what-so-ever on crime.

So you have a choice. Either keep all these guns legal, and have no impact on the crime in the worst case senario. Or make them illegal, and have no impact on crime in the best case senario, and increase it in the worst.

Logically, why would one want to outlaw these guns other than to push their morality and fear on everyone else?

Why would the government want to get rid of guns if it makes crime rates go up?

I don't know the answer, but i do know that making them illegal would increase the need for law enforcement. The bigger the law enforcement, the bigger the government. The bigger the government the more money they spend. The more money they spend the less money we get to spend because of taxes.

I don't see a downside to leaving the second amendment the hell alone. But i see a whole crap load of downsides to tampering with it.

Ok, sorry i wasn't real clear. They are our RIGHTS. But when i made that statement i meant to point out that the RIGHTS are really LAWS against the government. Limiting their power. Keeping them honest. So our RIGHTS are really THEIR restrictions.

Basically they are laws that apply more to the government, than it does to the people. It's just a different way to look at it.

Oh, I've been Edited, How Original