Mr VJP

Did you not understand what I said in the post you quoted and attached above? The cartoon was printed in response to Obama's refusal to enforce DOMA. How does that not reference my point? What point does your confused mind think is obviously referenced that I am trying to avoid virgil? I think if you look back on my prior posts, I'm totally clear on any point I choose to make. See muzzy's post above for more on why this refusal to enforce laws is a threat to US citizens.

I agree. But it's still good to have time to gather the money, rather than shell it out today.

I understand his point perfectly. But maybe that's because I'm logical and analytical.

Just trying to post things in a manner you might be able to understand them. ;D

I see no deception here at all. My issue is with a sitting President who is acting like a dictator to impose his will on the entire American populace, with full disregard for the rule of law, on any issue he so chooses. Especially when more than half of the country is not in agreement with him.

"Attorney General Eric Holder announced that President Obama had concluded that the administration would no longer defend Section 3 of DOMA [Defense of Marriage Act]. ... As he has in so many other areas (EPA, the offshore drilling ban, IMF), Obama has usurped the authority of the other two coequal branches of government to make himself, in effect, not just chief executive but super-legislator and a supreme judicial authority. Holder admitted in his statement that the Justice Department 'has a longstanding practice of defending the constitutionality of duly-enacted statutes if reasonable arguments can be made in their defense,' but not otherwise. But it is preposterous to suggest there are no reasonable arguments to defend the statute when 5,000 years of human history and the express act of Congress fly in the face of that statement. According to professor John Yoo, 'in the few cases that the Supreme Court has heard gay rights cases, it has never adopted (the standard Obama is applying).' In announcing a new standard, Obama claims that the legal landscape has changed in the 15 years since DOMA was passed. You know the drill: Society has 'evolved.' ... t is not Obama's place to make this determination, especially when the people have already done so in such emphatic terms through their duly elected congressmen. ... [W]e have an imperial president who is refusing to enforce a law passed by powerful congressional majorities while persisting in enforcing a law (Obamacare) that two federal courts have already invalidated. The only common denominator is that Obama believes he is the law." --columnist David Limbaugh "One of the most insidious practices of the insidious Obama Justice Department is the sabotaging of litigation -- i.e., DOJ purports to defend some statute or government policy so that it can appear to be moderate, but uses its resulting control over how the case gets litigated to forfeit some of the best legal arguments supporting the statute/policy. This way, DOJ can steer the case toward the radical outcome the Obama base desires rather than the outcome DOJ is ostensibly pursuing. On balance, I far prefer that Obama's Justice Department openly advocates for the outcome desired by Obama's base, as it is finally doing with DOMA [Defense of Marriage Act]. This way, the court can appoint lawyers who will truly defend the statute with the best legal arguments available. ... Regardless of where the DOMA litigation goes from here, what's interesting is the administration's political calculation as the president gears up for the 2012 campaign. Obama has clearly decided that it's more important to be publicly aligned with his base -- which he desperately needs to drum up enthusiasm for his reelection -- than to pursue the more subtle (and effective, albeit unethical) strategy of masquerading as DOMA's defender while actually undermining the statute." --columnist Andrew C. McCarthy

Being able to see a predictable disaster isn't paranoia. If you were reloading bullets and smoking at the same time, would you call me paranoid if I told you I wasn't going to let you do that?

Welcome aboard.

You need to get the snowshoes out for rabbit and grouse this time of year.

Though the lands in the Catskill Park itself are very similar to areas of the ADK Mtns, the climate isn't as cold, the amount of acreage is less and the amount of activity is higher, due to its closer proximity to populated NYC. Based on past history, I believe the way the DEC currently manages the deer herd in the Catskill Park is the correct way to do it.

Welcome. Glad you found us.

[table][tr][td][/td][td]True, governments can reduce the rate of interest in the short run. They can issue additional paper money. They can open the way to credit expansion by the banks. They can thus create an artificial boom and the appearance of prosperity. But such a boom is bound to collapse sooner or later and to bring about a depression. Ludwig von Mises 1944 [/td] [/tr] [tr] [td][/td][td] [/td][/tr][/table] It's not new boys. History unstudied, will repeat itself.

And first he wants to make owning any gun ...... illegal. The man wants to be a dictator.

I was also told that. But the taxidermist also said they do bear rugs in between all of the deer heads they do too. So the rug will most often be the last thing they finish. I don't mind though. It gives me time to save the money to pay for it.

It's true the magazine can cause a problem with feeding in a semi rifle and Remingtons do have this issue sometimes. It's easy to check though. Buy an extra magazine, don't mess with the lips on either and see if they both work well. If one does and one doesn't, it's most certainly a magazine issue. It also points out why you have to be careful how you handle and store your detachable mags as well. If they get beat up, you may have problems.

They have different priorities, true. But what those priorities are can very well make them wrong and bad for America.

Assuming we have enough time left. P.S. A lot of the elected officials that pushed Obamacare through are still there. What does that tell you about what many Americans think? I also don't think you will find a poll listing all of the issues I listed and asking Americans their thoughts on it. I don't think the administration would allow it.

It seems you side with those who want to stop certain freedoms more than those who want to increase them. You're right, you do not belong in the NRA.

The majority agrees with which points? Certainly the majority does not believe that any of the things constitute an imminent threat that would collapse America and life as we know it, as I have heard espoused here. It is not that any one of the issues I listed will bring the country down, but that the total of them, which is an unprecedented amount of trouble, the likes of which America has never seen before, will bring it down. Even during the Great Depression, American did not face such an extensive list of outside threats. And the depression alone almost sank the country by itself. I believe the majority of Americans are worried America is on the brink of falling.

The chart listed as direction of the country is the most telling about public opinion.

That does not mean that I cannot, or should not, consider some comments as treasonous. The revolutionary tone that I have heard from the right wing nuts is uncalled for.....and smacks of treason, IMO. That, to me sounds pretty radical too. Perhaps it would be better to address the right wing issues directly to alleviate their fears if you can. Suit Yourself. I'm fighting for your freedom of speech too, no matter how much I disagree with it.

Once again I'd like to remind everyone the 5 year membership is a better value at $100. Is $20 a year too much to send in to an organization with a long history of proven 2nd Amendment results?

I'll send him a postal money order as I prefer to remain anonymous. I don't agree with his decision to let the county off the hook financially though. I think they would've lost the appeal, if they even filed an appeal, which I don't think they had the resources to actually do. I also believe they will find a way around the ruling with legal jargon to come up with another oppressive law that will be just as bad for gun owners. What's done is done, but it's time to play these fights out to the end without mercy. I would've been inclined to send him more money if he was still in the fight.

Stock up on guns and ammo and do not let the Government take them from you. It may be all you have left that will be of any value to you when everything collapses. Hopefully you are right and things will not fall as bad as I think, but better to be prepared just in case it does. This is why I feel any infringements on gun owners rights may be a major threat to your future survival, and unless you commit a violent crime with a gun, you should have a right to currently own whatever gun, and whatever amount of ammo, you like. You mentioned the Cuban missile crises of the 60's. I lived through that. The scenario could've turned on a dime. And believe me, nobody had a glass half full opinion of the issue at the time. Any of the issues I listed above have similar potential to turn on a dime. Look at the Middle East today. Two years ago no one would have thought today's events were possible either. It pays to use foresight and be prepared. I don't see it as wasted energy, because it invigorates me. Men born to freedom naturally rebel against threats to liberty. It's good for my health to stay sharp and alert. It's not stressful, because it's not a surprise, it's expected and prepared for.