DaVinci

SkyDekker posted the information... JR just made it a link.

And if you bothered to look it up, you would have your answer. Go ahead and try if you really care. Permit to carry handguns? Yes You have to have a permit. So it is not allowed, unless you have a permit. Still waiting for you to answer which Govts are older than the US.

He does not even provide it for his office staff.

Ever had US Govt HC??? I have, no thanks.

Still against FEDERAL law.

So, you would support an abortion up to the point the baby pops out?

Name me Democratic countries whose Governments are older than the US. I also never said that the US will not fail. Name me a State that allows a person to carry a gun at a voting location.

I have a pilots license. The point is that he discounts the NRA, yet wants to claim the AOPA is a good source. And the public does see pilots as rich, just as anyone that has "fun money" is rich. But lets face it, Kallend has a "fun" car and a Mooney... according to the majority of Americans... He is "rich". So I am merely pointing out his hypocrisy of: NRA = Bad source AOPA = Good source And The "rich" should pay taxes... Just not this one since it will affect me.

Well, at least you can identify my positions and I answer questions you ask.... You avoid and dodge and refuse to answer anything. I am still just waiting for you to back up your claims.

Saying "it isn't" does not make it true. Don't blame me for your inability to understand two simple sentences.

Time after time you claim the NRA is not a good source. But somehow when the SAME type of organization created to do the SAME thing but in a hobby YOU participate in it should be listened to? Hypocritical scale off the chart.

Fact is that you have an altruistic motive..... But REFUSE to take any steps that would help the problem that would hurt your business. You claim you want to people to have health care... But you don't provide insurance to any of your employees. Yes, you contact politicians, but you DO nothing to help your employees when you COULD. You claim that the lack of HC bankrupts people. Yes, you advocate a single payer system, but AT THE SAME TIME ALLOW UNINSURED PEOPLE TO JUMP. So yes, you do write a few letters. But you also fail to act in the ways you could TOMORROW to help the situation.

I think all of the rights play in harmony with each other. If you remove any ONE of the rights, or limit it so that only a few can exercise those rights, then the system will eventually fail. You mentioned three of the rights Voting (V), Speech (1), Firearms (2).... So I will just use them as an example, but I feel that all of the original Constitution and first 10 Amendments are included (being that a large number of the other Amendments are clarifying the other two... Blacks right to vote, Womens right to Vote.. Etc). So lets say that the Govt is starting to act "tyrannical" maybe along the lines of the SC Gov that proposed (She claims in jest): "You have to have more ability from Congress, I think, to work together and to get over the partisan bickering and focus on fixing things. I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won't hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover. I really hope that someone can agree with me on that. The one good thing about Raleigh is that for so many years we worked across party lines. It's a little bit more contentious now but it's not impossible to try to do what's right in this state. You want people who don't worry about the next election." You can hear it for yourself here: http://media2.newsobserver.com/smedia/2011/09/28/10/28/11veHD.So.156.mp3 Lets assume she was serious. So, right now we have three options: 1. Vote her ass out. Option 'V' 2. Ask WTF were you thinking? And verbally bitch slap her. Option '1'. 3. Arm up and storm the mansion and remove her. Option '2'. So using the 1st Amendment people were able to say "Huh? Are you freaking serious?" Her office was quick to answer that she was just using 'hyperbole'.... I must admit, that I don't buy that... Do you? Listen to the audio again and her inflection, then read the words again. At any rate, the other side replied already with: “Now is a time when politicians need to be held accountable more than ever. To suspend an election would be removing the surest mechanism that people have to hold politicians accountable: the right to vote. Does the Governor not believe that people of North Carolina have the ability to think for themselves about whether or not the actions of elected officials are working?" Would you agree? I do. So, the issue should die right there... Free speech WINS! But lets say that somehow the Gov was able to prevent that little clip from making it out and suppressed any opposition to her evil plan. Well then how would the people know about it till she tried to get legislation? And when the people found out they ran to the polls and tried to punish those idiots. Horrah, voting (option 'V') WINS!!!!! But lets say that they actually managed to pass the law.... Well that is when the armed citizens come in. But remove any one of those three and it does not work. 1. Remove the ability to vote her ass out.... And free speech would not matter. Yes, appealing to the Congress and the SC might help... But if you could not vote Congress out and they all appoint the SC... See the issue? Only '2' would work. 2. Remove free speech and no one would know until their ability to vote was already gone.... And without free speech organizing a resistance to her would be difficult. But again, only '2' would work. 3. Arming up and throwing her ass out is the LAST option; the one that protects the right to speak against her and vote her ass out. I can tie many of the other provisions into this as well.... The 4th protects the right of the citizens to have materials that speak out against her and to have weapons. The 5th protects the right to due process, and prohibits self-incrimination and double jeopardy. So they have to use due process, not just lock you up and throw away the key. The 6th is a speedy trial BY JURY and in PUBLIC. So you will not just "disappear" one night. The 8th prevents them from just locking you up or killing you for an opinion. The 9th protects the citizen from other infringements The 10th limits the power of the Federal Govt and gives it to the States or the people. Important since that the FEDERAL Govt covers these rights and protects them. So trying to not let people vote, not be able to speak freely, or have arms.... Is a FEDERAL right and the State can't prevent it (according to the Constitution anyway). So, is any ONE more important that the others? I tend to think that they are ALL important and ALL needed. But the 2nd is the ONLY one that provided direct power to the people. The others require a process of Govt. The 2nd is the only one INDEPENDENT of govt process. Many of these issues can be solved by the 1st Amendment, if it is not solved by it, then you can vote... but if you can't vote and can't speak out against it.... What do YOU think is the only other options?

Huh, I am just using the SAME logic you use on just about every other issue that does not affect you. Ah, yes... An organization made up of small plane owners built with the intent to lobby the Govt. So, I'll make you a deal: Ill accept the AOPA's opinion about small aircraft as soon as you start accepting the NRA's position on firearms..... Deal?

Yes, I am just waiting for you to back up your claims. YOU said, "No, it's about paying a reasonable contribution towards the cost of running the country based on what the country has given them" How is that NOT "From each according to his ability"?

So, you would support an abortion up to the point the baby pops out?

So, you would support an abortion up to the point the baby pops out?

Maybe I see having no debt but my house being preferable to having neater toys? Besides, I have a 50" Sony DLP.

Have proof of that? Fact is that praying for the gun to not work... Didn't No one is saying the slain man didn't have faith.... I am saying that faith didn't prevent the gun from firing and killing him. If the bullets had stopped in mid air and then dropped.... I'd have given credit to God for saving the mans life.... But the gun fired, and the bullets hit the man and he died. Thinking that praying will stop a violent attack... Clearly didn't work.

Why is either right more important than the right to keep and bear arms?

See my post to Pops about the three points I am making. Citizens in Egypt forced a change with a VERY small group and action. To their credit, they did it mostly peacefully. But small actions can bring big changes. only 10% of the population in the colonies fought for independence. 15-20% were loyalists. And ask US citizens how we feel about Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

But the "security of a free State" is not just about FEDERAL tyranny. And that is one of my points. Point #1: The freedom does not only apply against FEDERAL tyranny. Ah, but one was against the Federal Govt..... The ability of the South to be armed allowed them to try. 2M hunters in just four States. 1.5M Armed forces. Not all of the hunters would fight, but not all of the Army would fire on civilians. In the revolutionary war, 15-20% remained loyal to the King. 40-45 percent of the white population supported the Patriots' cause and only 8-10% actually fought. While there are 1.5M in the active Military, how many FORMER soldiers do you think are in the US? In 2004, 36.5% of Americans reported having a gun in their home. At this time there were approximately 44 million gun owners in the United States. This means that 25 percent of all adults owned at least one firearm. These owners possessed 192 million firearms, of which 65 million were handguns. 44 MILLION have firearms. The whole intent of the founding fathers was to make sure that the citizens as a whole were able to fight against a tyrannical govt. Point #2: There are 44 M firearm owners in the US. Even if just 10% armed themselves, it would be 4.4M. And while the TOTAL US forces are 1.5M... Many of them are not combat arms and many of them will not fire on civilians.... Even if you had 100% decide to fight... 4.4M VS 1.5M. And we have seen in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq how effective an insurgency can be. Point #3: Just like in Egypt.... It does not take a LARGE event to elicit change. Look at how many Americans are sick of the US fighting in Afghanistan..... You think they would be supportive of US troops killing AMERICANS in AMERICA?

Which DC did in the Anacostia Flats encampment on July 28, 1932. 4 dead; 1,017 injured

Really???? EVERYONE???? "Let me be clear -- if you are a family making less than $250,000 a year ... you will not see your taxes go up," Obama July 2008, Springfield, Mo. So the top Lefty in the Country is not saying that everyones taxes should go up.

Fact is Kallend and others have proposed that the "rich" pay more. Well, people that have several thousand dollars in equipment to be able to spend several thousand dollars a year to "play" are pretty rich in most peoples eyes. Seems they support the "rich" paying more... TILL the "rich" become them and the added taxes seem poised to hurt their hobbies. Kallend is for more regulation on guns from the ATF, but against more regulation of rockets motors from the ATF. Kallend is for additional taxes, except where he would have to pay them.