Posts Made By: Jim Johnson

Jim McSheehy said:

Now that the elections are over, the Shadow Government is wasting no time:

Generals Petraeus & Allen, purged,
Boehner purges uncooperative House committee members,
Senator DeMint announces his resignation. Lindsey Graham and Harry Reid smile.

As the Chinese might say, "May you live in interesting times".

Rod Kaufman said:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/07/politics/fiscal-cliff-senate-maneuvering/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Tony Aguire said:

Not sure where to put this, but since it is political in nature.

To go over the cliff or not? Is it worth it to get some things done?

Greg Shaffer said:

THIS MAY MAKE YOUR DAY!

Vermont State Rep. Fred Maslack has read the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as Vermont's own Constitution very carefully, and his strict interpretation of these documents is popping some eyeballs in New England and elsewhere.

Maslack recently proposed a bill to register "non-gun-owners" and require them to pay a $500 fee to the state. Thus Vermont would become the first state to require a permit for the luxury of going about unarmed and assess a fee of $500 for the privilege of not owning a gun. Maslack read the "militia phrase of the Second Amendment as not only the right of the individual citizen to bear arms, but as 'a clear mandate to do so'. He believes that universal gun ownership was advocated by the Framers of the Constitution as an antidote to a "monopoly of force" by the government as well as criminals.


Vermont's constitution states explicitly that "the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State" and those persons who are "conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms" shall be required to "pay such equivalent.." Clearly, says Maslack, Vermonters have a constitutional obligation to arm themselves, so that they are capable of responding to "any situation that may arise."
Under the bill, adults who choose not to own a firearm would be required to register their name, address, Social Security Number, and driver's license number with the state. "There is a legitimate government interest in knowing who is not prepared to defend the state should they be asked to do so," Maslack says.

Vermont already boasts a high rate of gun ownership along with the least restrictive laws of any state .... it's currently the only state that allows a citizen to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. This combination of plenty of guns and few laws regulating them has resulted in a crime rate that is the third lowest in the nation.

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." This makes sense! There is no reason why gun owners should have to pay taxes to support police protection for people not wanting to own guns. Let them contribute their fair share and pay their own way. Sounds reasonable to me! Non-gun owners require more police to protect them and this fee should go to paying for their defense!

I LIKE IT!!! How about you?

Rod Kaufman said:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/55416130-78/snow-ski-winter-industry.html.csp
I don't think they have anything to worry about because their elected representatives don't worry about it. What does their ski industry know about it anyway?

david elosser said:

Just suppose that, during WWII, we sold dozens of B-17's to Fascist Italy. Just suppose we had given millions of dollars of aid to Nazi sympathizers in France. Would anybody be upset?

"[Apostle] Hillary Clinton has admitted that Al-Qaeda is supporting the Syrian rebels, who are backed by the Obama administration with $200 million dollars in aid. According to McClatchy Newspapers one of these groups, Al Nusra Front, an Al-Qaeda affiliate, is now conducting "the heaviest frontline fighting" in Syria and has been responsible for terrorist attacks."
http://www.infowars.com/syrian-rebels-pledge-allegiance-to-al-qaeda-group-that-killed-u-s-troops/

"Despite instability due to the new Islamic government in Egypt, the US is sending more than 20 F-16 fighter jets to Egypt as part of a $1 billion foreign aid package."
http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-fighter-jets-egypt-856/

But hey, who cares? As long as we raise taxes on the filty rich and get our Obama-phones!

David E

Patrick Keafer said:

I was just looking over the last few well-known mass shootings we've had in the US, and it got me wondering. Would any type of gun control, outside of outright bans and years of attrition, have stopped the shooters? Almost all mass shooters seem to have one thing in common: mental illness. Is it even possible to screen these people out during a background check without violating someones personal rights? What is the line between a little odd and dangerously crazy?

Out of respect for the victims of the most recent incident, lets try to keep it civil.

Patrick Keafer said:

I remember Rod making fun of the people who went out and bought guns after Obama's election and re-election.

But after the recent events in CT, weren't those people ultimately correct? At first chance, liberals jump to ban guns or restrict access to them when politically expedient.

When asked "where he was" on the issue for the past four years by a Fox News reporter, the President basically said he was "busy".

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/12/19/abcs-jake-tapper-challenges-obama-in-gun-control-presser-where-have-you-been-the-past-4-years/