Did y'all notice that Obama is sharing the wealth with the major networks????????? Then, of course, his wife had a $500.00 lobster lunch at the Waldorf Astoria, complete with Iranian caviar!!!!!!!!!!

If a company (university) produces inferior products (graduates) people (employers) quit buying them. I've seen it happen here. One "electronics school" produced graduates that no one would hire so it went out of business. Competition drives improvement.

Welcome to the forum Claymore [I think]

In one of your last posts, you said that you replied to a "right wing thought"

This entire thread was started by an example that could have been taught in school about Socialism. It was neither left nor right. Socialism is what it is, and my little story was right on the mark.
Even my 12 year old Twins laughed and knew EXACTLY what was said.
In all of your many, many, many, words, you NEVER could strike down my example of the lesson that I gave all the good liberals at my table.

My Wife is still voting for Obama, because she wants "Change" and is a teacher, so when I asked her what type of change etc,etc, she gets mad at me.
She is just like the rest of the folks that will vote for the Dems.
She has NO logical idea what the hell she is talking about, and who the hell she is voting for.

Nothing personal Claymore, but I think that YOU are in the same category.

I also would like to know Claymore, what your views are about the Gun Control that Australia imposed on their fine folks.
The answer to this will determine if I want you around my campfire, or back with Obama's Marxist Professor friends.

Eric

With regards to gun control, I see a valid point in restricting fully auto's (category D?) and weapons such as LAWs, RPGs and such (Category E?) and to an extent, large capacity semis and concealable weapons.

Australia has developed some sort of 'evil gun' hysteria. Following the shootings in Finland, there were calls for even further gun control measures (by people [many politicians] who knew stuff all about existing laws, in many cases calling for restrictions that were already in place) and people lapped it up.

On facebook, people saw my joining of an Aussie hunting group, many commented, what is wrong with you? Why do you want to kill things that have done nothing to you?
The response is a simple, what did all the cattle, lambs, chickens, etc do to you? You sentenced them to a life of imprisonment, then in some kind of sick joke, have them executed by the thousands for your eating pleasure?
Most times they just look at me blankly as if they don't really believe that supermarket meat actually comes from animals...
Ironically, vegitarians seem to be far more accepting of hunting than people who eat meat (go figure?).

There was a study recently that looked at the effectiveness of Howard's gun buyback on all firearm related deaths (multiple homicide, homicide, suicide, etc). The conclusion was that at a cost of $700m it nothing except piss of a lot of gun owners and make life much harder for those with a genuine need for their firearms. More disturbing though is that it has served to progressively alienate the shooting community from mainstream society, feeding all sorts of misconceptions and hysteria regarding guns.

The one thing that none of the politicians seemed to notice is that the person responsible for the Port Arthur massacre was suffering from severe mentally illness and was not properly treated. The age old saying; "guns don't kill people, people do," didn't rate a mention. A crusade to assist in the treatment of the mentally ill would have yielded far more positive results, not only in murders, suicides, etc but also in tackling the much wider effects of mental illness such as worker absenteeism, crime, alcohol abuse, etc. But then, nobody wants to hear about mental illness, gun control on the other hand...

In short...
-Firearms should be exposed to the wider community with as many people involved and educated about them as possible.
- All people should be trained in the safe use of a firearm before being able to buy one. Military weapons, assault rifles and such should require military training to own.
- People with previous firearms offenses should be re-assessed as to their likelihood of re-offending before being able to own a firearm (or having them confiscated).

It took me about 4 months to buy my first firearm (Weatherby Vanguard SS, .30-06), and numerous 'fees' and 'charges' for 'processing.' No wonder the wider community often regards us as 'crazy,' actually waiting 4 months to buy a firearm is absurd. I support a 'cooling off' period, but getting a letter from the police and thinking 'what the !@#$ is this for?' 'oh my firearm application has finally been processed,' (three times), again is absurd.

Having said that, I'm now packing for a weekend away spearfishing. I simply cannot fathom why a spearguns are fine (easier to buy than booze or cigarettes) and guns are 'evil.' But then, politics very rarely makes logical sense does it?

Dave

Any law that restricts or forbids the ownership of ANY firearm is against the 2nd Amendment and will not stop the criminal. Only law biding citizens are restricted by these laws. Why restrict law biding citizens of what is rightfully theirs when criminals won't obey those same restrictions. Less restrictions will not cause crime to increase. This is a proven fact.

One of the reasons that Australia is in the position that it is with firearms restrictions is because a lot of people (maybe like you) let what you think is no matter to you become "law". Next they figure [they] (the liberals) will take something else away that a few don't think is importent because it doesn't effect them. Pretty soon you are like England...Next to no guns and those that they have are very highly regulated. Oh...That's right. You aren't allowed handguns either unless you belong to a club and then you have to keep the handgun at the club. Which country was it? Australia or England. Where the Olympic pistol shooters had to go to another country to get ready for the Bejing Olympics.

No thank you. If vint2 or Elyboy wants a submachine gun, full auto AK-47 or any of the rest in the liberal invented lingo "assault rifle". He should be able to buy one. I, personally, would like to get a Thompson partially because I reload .45 ACP anyway...

And by the way...Here in the United States of America I can still buy one today. I would have to jump through a few hoops, but I could get a fully automatic weapon...I DO realize that you don't have a Contitution or Bill of Rights, but even still. You do vote in your representitives don't you?

I do respectfully appologize to my many Aussie friends for a lot of the above ranting...

Bushmaster wrote:

Any law that restricts or forbids the ownership of ANY firearm is against the 2nd Amendment and will not stop the criminal. Only law biding citizens are restricted by these laws. Why restrict law biding citizens of what is rightfully theirs when criminals won't obey those same restrictions. Less restrictions will not cause crime to increase. This is a proven fact.

I agree entirely. The licensing system should basically be a process of educating shooters, and should serve to encourage gun ownership and involvement in shooting activities, not suppress them. An interesting example of the complete failure of government regulation has been the introduction of serious criminal charges for carrying knives in the CBD. Violent crime and the number of deaths has remained fairly stable (or gone up if you believe the media). Sadly, nut jobs that want to cause problems are going to do so whether they use a knife, bottle, or whatever (although I cannot forsee any 'need' to carry a knife in the city, it illustrates that such regulation is generally ineffective).

The main reason that these laws get passed so easily is our high city population concentration, in combination with existing restrictions means that the vase majority of Australians have never actually seen a firearm (except in the movies) let alone fired one. As a result we get these wild misconceptions of guns and gun owners and a culture of 'gun hysteria.'

Bushmaster wrote:

Which country fwas it? Australia or England where the Olympic pistol shooters had to go to another country to get ready for the Bejing Olympics.

This must have been Britain as you can store a handgun in an 'approved safe.' The 'approval' process is an absolute pain in the neck though.

Bushmaster wrote:

I DO realixe that you don't have a Contitution or Bill of rights, but even still. You do vote in your representitives don't you?

We have a constitution, however there was a lot of talk in the lead up to the election last year of passing a bill of rights. Thus far nothing has happened, ironically it is actually Australia's 'right' that has fought very hard to prevent the passing of a bill of rights. For example in Australia people don't have the right to withhold comment prior to legal advice in several instances.
The Democrats (no reflection whatsoever of the US Democrats) were about the only political party (except for nationals although their following is typically rural) who were opposed to further regulation of firearms. It is a viscious cycle; No shooters means no facilities and tighter laws resulting in even fewer shooters (and so on). As you said, the people that suffer are those with a genuine need for firearms.

As a last thought;

Bushmaster wrote:

No thank you. If vint2 or Elyboy wants a submachine gun, full auto AK-47 or any of the rest in the liberal invented lingo "assault rifle". He should be able to buy one. I, personally, would like to get a Thompson partially because I reload .45 ACP anyway...

I am a leaning a little either way on this, and I guess it comes down to why the individual 'wants' the firearm and how you can regulate this. If you want a Thompson to shoot at the range and as a working antique (for want of a better phrase) I have absolutely no problem with that. On the other hand Mr Joe X who's wife just left him for another man wants to buy an M4 (or any gun) and 1 clip of ammo RIGHT NOW... I guess it is where you draw the line, which itself opens a whole new can of worms.

Nothing personal Claymore, but you are a stinki'n bleeding heart liberal, and I have had my belly full of them during this USA Election, so I see no more point in trying to converse with you on this subject.
Most liberals can't be talked to, or reasoned with, because A] they think that they are smarter than us clear thinking Conservatives, and B] they are just too damn dumb. The reason that I call them dumb, is because if they had any brains, they wouldn't be liberals in the first place.
I would have put a smilie face after that remark, but, like I wrote before, I'm liberaled out, and see nothing funny about those Godless SOB's at this point in time.

Eric

ElyBoy wrote:

Nothing personal Claymore, but you are a stinki'n bleeding heart liberal, and I have had my belly full of them during this USA Election, so I see no more point in trying to converse with you on this subject. Most liberals can't be talked to, or reasoned with, because A] they think that they are smarter than us clear thinking Conservatives, and B] they are just too damn dumb. The reason that I call them dumb, is because if they had any brains, they wouldn't be liberals in the first place. I would have put a smilie face after that remark, but, like I wrote before, I'm liberaled out, and see nothing funny about those Godless SOB's at this point in time. Eric

Now now Eric....you will give yourself an ulcer mate...or you will end in the bed beside mine in the Cracker Barrel...the Funny Farm....the Nut Factory.

Liberal, National, Labour or Democrat (the major aussie political parties)....right, wrong or indifferent, Claymore is entitled to his views. Some of the points he makes are actually fair, pretty good and pro-gun given the state of firearms affairs in this country.

There is a bit of a difference between the liberals and the conservatives in Australia...and it is different to what you guys have in the USA.

Sit down mate, take some deep breaths, relax....chant the mantra...OOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMM....have 15 beers and say to yourself, STUFF 'EM !!, I'm havin' another beer.

Cheers, Vince

Catching Wild Pigs -

A chemistry professor in a large college had some exchange students in the class. One day while the class was in the lab the Professor noticed one young man (exchange student) who kept rubbing his back, and stretching as if his back hurt.

The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting Communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country's government and install a new Communist government.

In the midst of his story he looked at the professor and asked a strange question. He asked, 'Do you know how to catch wild pigs?'

The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line. The young man said this was no joke. 'You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat, you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd.

Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.

The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening to America . The government keeps pushing us toward socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc.. While we continually lose our freedoms -- just a little at a time.

One should always remember: There is no such thing as a free lunch! Also, a politician will never provide a service for you cheaper than you can do it yourself.

Also, if you see that all of this wonderful government 'help' is a problem confronting the future of democracy in America , you might want to send this on to your friends. If you think the free ride is essential to your way of life then you will probably delete this email, but God help you when the gate slams shut!

In this 'very important' election year, listen closely to what the candidates are promising you !!

Just maybe you will be able to tell who is about to slam the gate on America .

'A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.' - Thomas Jefferson

I always find the left/right debate amusing because people's definitions vary so widely. For example from one theoretic standpoint truly embracing the 'right' would be anarchy, fully embracing Marxist ideology. On the other hand, we have the 'left' which would be a fully controlled lifestyle where you are told when to eat, piss and breath.
On the other hand; we could consider the definition of right/left held in WW2. We had the Germans (and such) on the 'right' with a totalitarian regime, and democracy on the 'left.'
Then this altered somewhat with the rise in communism where we then had the Soviets on the 'left' and the US on the 'right.' I think this is probably one of the more dominant influence on our current perception of 'left' and 'right.'
A more contemporary view of 'left/right' is in law making, where the right favors deregulation, the left favoring more laws, regulation, red tape, etc.
Today, left/right seems to be largely dominated by fiscal policy, the left favoring government involvement, tariffs, subsidies etc and the right adopting a free market approach. This is seriously called into question following the Republican 'bailout' package, which is about as extreme 'left' economic policy as it comes.

If we have a look at 'communist' China, according to one of our earlier definitions of left/right, China is infact far more 'right wing' than the US, in terms of concentration of wealth and power (to the point that they dictate everything up to how many children a couple can have). On the other hand, from a 'regulation' standpoint, this could also be considered very 'left' in that there is a very large amount of government regulation.

Another interesting anomaly was the not so recent issue with the AWB (Australian Wheat Board) paying kickbacks to Iraq. This was branded as a very 'left' (evil?) action, but at the same time was in the truest sense a clear illustration of free market dominance and cost advantage of Australian wheat production and export over its competition.

An interesting thing to ponder is how much influence private enterprise media and other high profile organisations have had on our current perception of left/right and the ideal balance.

So after this, where do we actually stand?

Now after all of that, I can't help but feel a little sting Eric. Politics aside, in general the lower class benefits more from left wing governance, the upper class benefits more from right wing governance, neither gives an ultimate answer, pretending otherwise is just naive. If this balance swings too far, there is a change in Government. The only governance I have known has been 'right' (Liberal) and we are starting to see some serious social and economic problems arising in Australia as a result (politics and crap aside). With a booming economy I can't really dispute that the 'right' is probably a better focus to stimulate economic growth and improving the standard of living. With the current economic climate however, the focus is more on retaining skills, assets and productivity until demand grows once again, something the Liberal Party has categorically failed to prepare for and deliver. I can't help but cringe when political parties bring up what is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things such as wardrobe budgets, 'illegal immigrants' (keep in mind Aus isn't the easiest place to get to), and yes, gun control, in an attempt to distract people from the meaningful reasons to elect a political party.

Any regulation of firearms is bad. Registration of firearms is also bad and neither serves any purpose other then to have a list of who has the guns when it's time to attempt to confiscate them...

And NO the "lower class" do not bennefit from (left wing) socialism. Never has and never will. The "lazy" do though, only because they want a free handout and have little or no education or smarts to realize that only the rich hirer people to work. When the rich start getting poor (loosing money) they lay off the "lower class" (for a better word). Left wing (socialism) stiffles the growth of any sociaty and breeds tyrants...

Here's my addition to this conversation.

Cary

Sorry Vince, but us Americans have had enough of politics of the intelligent.
Claymore in his loooooonnnnggggg posts hits as many angles as a horoscope writer.
I have NO idea where he is coming from, because he is all over the place.
Nothing personal Claymore, but if you are married, you're wedding service must have lasted a loooonnngggg time.
Instead of a simple "I Do", I can see a recitation about as long as War And Peace, with at the end of it, the folks scratching their heads, wondering what the hell you just said.

I stand by my last post Vince.
I have learned to choose my battles wisely, and this is one time that I am digging in my heels, and not budging.

I'm right, you are wrong, and that is just the way that it is Claymore.
It's folks with your hair brained ideas that got guns locked up over there, and it's guys with my ideas, and backbone that will keep us happy and shooting over here for years to come.

Eric

Ooh-hummm...Let us remember that most good sites won't allow political treads because they tend to get out of hand.

We, on the other hand, are allowed to discuss politics and other sensitive subjects because we keep it and our tempers under control and don't start name calling. Right?

Continue....The spread of ideas