DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... President Obama, before you try that gun grab, I have a WARNING for you…

So you think serving in the Military is all it takes to make a Patriot?

Ever read about Lee Harvey Oswald? He served.

OK. What's your excuse for not serving?

I didn't serve because all the Heroes before me got the job done and I was not needed. I was going to join the Marines when I graduated high school but the Vietnam war ended the year before. All was quiet for about 10 or 15 years after that.

What is your excuse for squealing to the government on your own fellow citizens because you are anti gun? You served. Was it the American Military?

Once again, I never said anything about home defense. I should be able to own one because I like to shoot it. It shouldn't matter if it's a government take over, natural disaster, zombie apocalypse, or alien invasion, I have a right to have a gun, and that includes any gun on the market.

So does every other lunatic.

You need to do some research. GE and Eaton for instance are US Based businesses right? WRONG. They are HQ'ed in Ireland meaning they pay tax on profit to Ireland. NOT THE USA.

Each has tiny staffs in Ireland to work in their "HQ's"

Everyone on the planet knows they do it, and it's perfectly legal, but please don't tell me they pay taxes in the USA... Not on Corporate profits they don't.

Now, they have a ton of employees in the US of course and certainly they pay the matching taxes for employees here. Obviously, that's certain. Probably some local taxes as well as State taxes and I would think that unless they have some kind of tax exempt status, they pay Sales Tax on things they buy. Not sure of that.

Bottom line, on Billions in profit for both GE and Eaton, they pay the USA Nothing.

Some other companies that do that are Oracle, Dell, Apple and Microsoft. Just to name a few. Estimates are that a large percentage of the top 1000 companies in the USA are set up like that.

Reason, Lower taxes elsewhere.

Funny, they'll donate to PAC's that support things they want supported... But they won't pay taxes here.

I'm all for giving them tax breaks to bring back those dollars. I see nothing wrong with that and for providing incentives to keep jobs in the US versus off shoring them.

Doesn't sound like that is going to happen.

Damn man, that's sounding racist......

But D, that's perfectly ok for some.

Make no mistake, if corporations could bring back indentured servitude, they would absolutely do it to maximize profits.

Not necessary since you and others assure me that Trump will be bringing back Slavery.

When has that ever came out of my mouth?

Lay of the ketamine

FBH:

You need to walk that comment back, bro. Come on man.

How else could he replace his Latino staff?

Ok, say what you want, but that right there was funny LOL

What's makes it even funnier is that it wouldn't surprise me that he ,may think that way...

Agreed. Heated conversation is fine but we don't even allow personal takes in the smack shack so it most certainly has no business on the forum.

On the topic itself, I went and bought an M&P15 Sport 2 over the weekend. I also bought a Marlin 22LR Rifle. Which one will I use to kill varmints on my property and which one will I plink at the range?

That being said, both guns are semi automatic rifles. I'm not sure other than looks and caliber what defines one as "worse" than the other. People want an Assault Weapon ban because some rifles "Look" scary.



But "Assault Weapon" is a made up word. It only entered our lexicon because Congress invented it. What makes the rifle on the right "ok" for me to own, but not the one on the left? It can't be the adjustable stock or pistol grip because those don't make the gun any better at shooting what you intend to shoot. It can't be the caliber because I can easily buy a rifle just like that marlin in larger loads than the 5.56x45 NATO AR15 I got. Both guns are semi-auto action. Both guns have detachable magazines, etc, etc.

What I'm getting at is, saying no one needs an AR15 may very well be an accurate statement, but the only way to legally ban one is to either invent words or ban rifles altogether.

True....

the term assault weapon is sometimes conflated or confused with the term assault rifle. In the United States "assault weapons" are usually defined in legislation as semi-automatic firearms that have certain features generally associated with military firearms

Calling me a lunatic, huh? Shouldn't you be banned for that?

That's what the real problem is here. You are so anti-gun you think that anyone that owns something you disagree with is a lunatic.

Exactly, Congress defined an "Assault Weapon" roughly as a rifle that has a detachable magazine, semi auto function, and one or more of:

- Barrel Shroud (the part of the gun you hold with your non trigger hand)
- Pistol Grip
- Adjustable Stock
- Flash Hider

the first two items only exist to make the gun on the left different from the one on the right (in my picture). Adjustable stock may have some basis in fact because of concealment, but if someone wanted to modify the stock themselves it's pretty easy to do that. Just making it illegal doesn't mean no one with hand tools could do it themselves.

The only item I could see making a difference is the flash hider, but if my Marlin had a flash hider I highly doubt people would be clamoring for it to be banned, because the flash hider isn't really what makes the AR look scary. What makes the AR scary is the fact that we see military and police people use them.

Did not. Not true. In the words of Donald Trump. You misconstrued what I said.

So, you meant not to include me in 'every other'? Someone doesn't speak the queen's so well.

You hit the nail on the head with that one.

Totally missed. But whatever cowboy.

Well now you're making me wonder Tex.

People get hung up on word play.

The reality is that we don't need to ban anything. I just scoff at this notion that anybody needs one.

Regardless, as I said, we don't need a ban, but we need to take prevention measures to ensure not just anybody can get one.

The current methods clearly isn't working.

The current methods work just fine if we could only get the Liberal Democrats in our Nation to stop shooting people.

Actually, most are against additional restrictions. And by and large most are against additional gun control because we see firsthand how it disproportionately impacts law abiding citizens. We know when a law is just a "feel good" law, and when it is a law that will make a difference. We know that the most dangerous American cities to live in aren't dangerous because of a lack of gun control laws. We know that the people who talk about needing tougher background checks, are the same people who don't actually know how the current background checks work.

So liberals are the only ones shooting each other?

Yo how disrespectful and unpatriotic can you possibly get? Violence in this country is a bipartisan issue.

You're just as much of the problem as you claim government to be. Pathetic.

Which current State background check are you talking about here?

Take out all the violent gun crimes involving Liberal Democrats and you will see for yourself we have no gun problem in America. We have a people problem. Not all, just some.

Yea, never mind the mass murders and such, right? Or the gun lovers who let their kids pop them in the minivan. Or now the abortion clinic shooters.

That's false, and you should be ashamed of yourself. It's a bipartisan issue, gun violence affects everyone.

Pathetic. And unamerican.

I have posted the stats from the US government many many times on here and if they didn't include suicides, Moderate/Conservative Republicans and Democrats would barely register. You know you have seen it. But the reply I get from the Liberals is mostly just name calling and such.

Look it up for yourself and the Truth will set you free.

See, you're making your argument incredibly worse.

You just blatantly admitted that you have to play around with the stats in order to prove your point.

It's so sad it's hilarious.

When it comes to gun violence, you don't get to separate. Gun violence is gun violence homey.

It's funny how you, mr conservative, mr responsibly, is blaming other people for the problems in our country.

Pathetic dude, you're putting the real conservatives around here in a bad light.

In your own words.

Thanks for suggesting lower corporate tax rates here.

When you wish to truly understand the problem and possible solutions, you will look at the facts.
Until then, play your games. Close your eyes and keep your head deep in the sand.

But until then, like the guy said in the opening letter to this thread, NO!

Blame everybody else.

Party of personal responsibility strikes again.

And the Party of the blind is once again lead by the blind.

That was weak. But not surprising.

Pick one.

And if you know, good on you. You'd be further ahead than most people on the subject. The problem with the "we need tougher background checks" crowd is that we've pretty much gotten to the point already where there really isn't any room left before you start getting in tot he realm of invading people's privacy and violating their Civil Rights.

And then we have the other crowd that wants to limit a person's Rights based on what they might do, or a subjective belief of what they feel defines a "responsible" gun owner.

Let's take the Orlando shooter. Why is anyone talking about new laws and restrictions before they've gone back and looked at the timeline of events with this guy?

He worked as an armed security guard. The company should have done a background check. Did they? And what did they find?

He's been interviewed by the FBI. They determined the incident he was being investigated from was unfounded. Was it because there was nothing there? Was it because what WAS there didn't violate any laws? Was it because of orders within the organization and from above to not investigate it fully because he was apparently Muslim?

What was the FBI/ATF's response when the gun shop reported that he was trying to by high level body armor and bulk ammo? Did they take the report seriously? Did they have enough manpower to take it seriously?

But before all that has been looked in to, we're already trying to ban a gun that had nothing to do with the incident. Can you honestly say that makes sense to you?

Violating civil rights?

It's funny hearing you make this argument as if the police force and justice system doesn't already do that.

The NSA nonsense, civil forfeiture, I can go on and on.

Show some balance. The only time I've ever seen you speak out against these things is with regards to guns.

Everything else? Not a word.

Living
In
Bullcrap

HA! U.S. corporate tax rates have lowered steadily since the 50's.

Tax avoidance through offshore tax loopholes is a significant reason why corporations, which paid one-third of federal revenues 60 years ago, now pay one-tenth of federal revenues.

At present 90 billion U.S. tax dollars a year are lost because U.S. corporations are allowed to hide their profits overseas. All while the American middle class pay the damages of this despicable practice.