philoshop

I find it interesting that I was looking at that exact quote when I was formulating my earlier response to this thread, precisely because Roosevelt was arguably the first to promote a progressive ideology. I can assure you that today's interpretation of "progressive" ideology was not what our earlier presidents had in mind. The subtleties of interpretation have caused great confusion among those who have been appeased and wish to further the current agenda. The poor are taken care of, the wealthy are taken care of, those in the middle who have sided with the current ideology are taken care of. Those who disagree with the ideology are continuously punished, under the guise of regulation, by the bureaucracy that supports that ideology. And that bureaucracy grows stronger every day. Never before in the history of our country have so many consistently voted, albeit subconsciously, in favor of being ruled, as opposed to being governed. Some of us are pi**ed about that and we want our country back.

Her nomination is a given within the party. She has been chosen as heiress to the throne by those who wish to be ruled. Take her out of the equation and the extreme-left socialists (aka the modern progressive democrats) have no candidate. The argument is no longer about Republican vs Democrat in this country. It's about the basic concept of governance vs rule.

I can remember when opening day of deer season was considered a 'holiday'.

It's all a big, fun, play-pretend world with no grasp of the real consequences. Edit: My apologies. I thought I was commenting in the political section.

Now wooly. Is that a doat or a gonkey in that picture?

And just to be fair with the details, law enforcement and military weapons are exempt. This might certainly extend to some of the quasi-miltary organizations that are used to protect government officials and certain 'important' celebrities. Opens up a whole new concept of the 'throw down' gun.

Well said Born! It's not about race, religion, sex, or even economic status. It's about control, regardless of those things. Go along or just go away.

The only people with any current interest in this are the hard-core anti's, either in government or with an 'ear' in government. The patent-holders themselves have said it's not a truly workable concept at this point, but that won't stop the anti's. It's been used to make law in CA!!! How far behind will NY be? In CA it's currently limited to new semi-auto handguns. The next step there will certainly be ALL new guns, then all guns retroactively. The goal for the anti's is NO GUNS FOR ANYONE. They're very happy to settle for the idea of simply "no guns in public hands". There are plenty of lawmakers in NY who think this way.

Mark Dice's stuff is very funny. And extremely disturbing. ETA: Although he tends to work among a very select group of people, he is certainly the most informative poll-taker in the country.

Simply refusing the Socialist Kool-Aid has worked for a lot of people in the past.

Sorry I missed it. Happy birthday, and many more!

Hmmm...Sure is quiet around here all of a sudden.

Allen West is definitely not afraid to speak his mind and get right to the heart of the matter.

Rule number one in any internet discussion forum is (or should be): attack the post, not the poster. This keeps the discussion civil, on-topic and informative. I find the politics section here to be valuable and insightful as it's a somewhat local group with some common interests. Knowing how someone from Oklahoma feels about NYS gun laws may be interesting but it isn't as helpful to me as knowing what my 'neighbor' thinks.

A Federal District Court judge appointed by Obama made the ruling. It's not hard at all to see the direction this is intended to go.

Damage on the RF's is not limited to broken firing pins. If the pin is extending enough to contact the breech face you'll end up with an indentation that can cause misfires. Replacing a barrel is a lot more expensive than replacing a firing pin. It depends entirely on the gun. Ruger actually recommends dry-firing the 10/22 as a training procedure. Partly because the pin stops short of the breech face.

Very true. But the ballistics labs currently have to have both the case and the gun to make a match. The thinking is that a unique mark on the casing that has been cataloged in a database will lead directly to the person firing the weapon. The fact that criminals rarely use legally purchased firearms and generally find a way to avoid being cataloged in the 'potential criminal' database is being overlooked by the lawmakers. The whole ploy and it's supporting argument is asinine. That alone leads me to believe that it will be tried here in NYS.

Great idea my friend!

A California district court judge has upheld that state's microstamping law. http://www.newsmax.com/US/handgun-microstamping-law-California/2015/02/27/id/627419/ For a few years now a handful of anti-gun NY legislators have been continually unsuccessful in their persistent push for exactly this kind of legislation. Will this court decision reinvigorate that push in NY, and maybe change the minds of enough legislators to allow it to pass? For those who don't know: Microstamping involves laser engraving of the firing pin and bolt face that will imprint unique identifying marks on the brass case when fired. The theory is that spent casings left at a crime scene will be immediately traceable to the gun's owner. The biggest problem is that the technology simply doesn't work. Beyond that basic fact there are so many other pitfalls that I won't even begin to lay them out here, but I'll be happy to discuss them if you want. Of particular concern though is that major gun manufacturers aren't likely going to comply, choosing instead to simply not sell their affected products in California. The law has effectively banned the sale of new semi-auto handguns in the state. Think about it.

Why are they called apartments when they're usually so close together?

Without knowing what's actually in the regulations, that are for some reason being kept secret, it's really all speculation at this point. But one thing is certain when it comes to any sort of government regulation: changes happen veeeeery slowly. If these regulations are going to require FCC permission before implementing new technology, whether in the grid system or at the server base, changes will take months or years instead of hours, days, or weeks. My RR connection gets better almost every day right now. That could stop. If these regulations are going to require equal bandwidth distribution/usage/consumption, such usage will have to be monitored in some way by the government in the form of in-line hardware that will create an obstacle in the pipeline. Like a sewer inspector camping out in your toilet drain. If these regulations are going to require that someone with a brand new and innovative idea about how to improve speed or accessibility go through red tape hoops before those ideas can be implemented there will never be any innovation. The tinkerer in his garage won't have the money for the process. Barring nefarious intent on the part of the government, which many suspect, there is simply no reason for the government to be involved in this matter. It's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

Wooly, you're having waaay too much fun with the new camera. Send it to me immediately so that you can begin re-hab. God help us all if you ever get into Photoshop! Awesome photo my friend!

I wonder how long we'll have to wait before we can actually read what's in those 317 pages of regulation. Maybe they'll just keep it secret until they've fully identified all political dissenters for a mass roundup.

If the young people today realized that the "zombies" they so fear are actually here in the form of bureaucrats making the laws we'll have to live with we might get somewhere.