HeloDude

So by that same argument, I can marry my brother? What about a willing 12 year old? There is nothing anatomically different than a white guy and a black guy...gender makes it a totally different ball game. This is the problem that people have with Liberty...they want to take it one way, but not in other ways. I still believe the framers, and thus The Consitution means what it says in the 10th Amendment. Someone a lot less lazier than me should put this in its own thread as its a worthy debate. I vote for Vertigo to do it.

It is a thread derailment, but I'll bite... As a Libertarin I could give 2 fvcks who people want to fvck. And as for gay marriage, I could care less if 2 dudes or 2 chicks want to marry and thus have a State recognized contract with each other that allows them to see each other in the hospital after an accident, file their taxes together, etc. However, marriage--whether gay or straight is not a 'right' and thus not protected under The Constitution. Marriage is a contract set up by each individual State, so even though I personally don't care if there is gay marriage and would vote for it in a ballot measure, I respect each States' decision. The 10th Amendment allows everything not specifically defined to the federal government to be decided by individual States as long as it's not prohibited by The Consitution. And for all those that bring up "Equal Protection", it's just that--equal protection. So a gay guy can marry a chick in Oklahoma if they want, but I can't marry my brother in Oklahoma or Massachusets. There's also a reason I can't marry a 12 year old if she is willing to, or have multiple wives--equal protection doesn't apply there either unless a State allows it. Back to the 2nd Amendment...pretty clear, especially when your read The Federalist Papers as to what the framers intended. I think we should have a thread on Liberty, Rights, and The Constitution. This would be a perfect place to argue gay marriage...along with all the other crap the federal government is trying to pull on the States and its citizens.

Mine too. All those scary magazines and scary back rifles--all gone <tear>.

Haha--don't know about that, though I'm sure I could make some money off the purchase if I really wanted/needed to. I rarely see the point on selling anything gun related. I buy my 'toys' to own them, not to make a profit. There is an important lesson out of all of this...if you love firearms, shooting, the 2nd Amendment, etc then you should always be buying within what your budget allows. M2 is sitting very pretty right now, and good on him. He, like many others, understands that there are plenty of sheep who would love nothing more than to limit our Rights (and I'm not only talking about the 2nd Amendment Rights). Again, I don't think the GOP House will allow for any new 'bans' on magazines, AR's, or anything else for that matter--if they do, they are finished as then there truly is little to no difference between the 2 parties. So after this quiet downs in 4-6 months you'll see the availability of AR's, AK's, mags, etc...no doubt they'll be a little bit higher priced than before September, but unfortunately, that's just the market doing its thing. I refuse to pay 1.5-2x the price of anything right now.

I bought 80 for less than $800 last week... If someone pays $100 for a single PMag then they are a fool. I'm pretty confident you'll still be able to buy them 6 months from now.

I also have a 442 and carry it often. The +p rounds are a bit snappy, but have favorable ballistics. I got mine last year for $290 (final price) using Buds LE site. The trigger is a bit heavy but a gunsmith can lighten that up a bit. If you get a revolver, it takes a bit more training and practice--I use speed-strips for reloads which is not as quick as a speed-loader but is much easier to carry for extra ammo.

I used to frequent CTD as well (never purchased), though hadn't gone to their site much the last 6-9 months because I found that their prices and shipping to be more on the high side. From now on though, I won't even bother looking at their site. As for the picked over shelves, yep, unfortunately not surprised. I saw PMags going for 10/$99 (free shipping) on Friday morning, planned on buying some after work...thankfully the deal was still there after the event and let's just say I took advantage of the deal. The time to buy/prep is before the shelves get picked over.

Yeah, that's downright overpriced. I'm fairly confident (and hoping) that things will calm down somewhat a few weeks after the holidays. The Dems will keep preaching their AWB/Gun Control talk, and hopefully when that gets killed in the House (if it even gets passed in the Senate), that will quiet things for a while. Like M2 and Hacker mentioned, if you were truly concerned about your Gun Rights, you probably have been buying for a while. I listed the deal on the S&W MP-15 a couple of months ago from Bud's LE section. $600 when it was all said and done and it shoots like a champ...hopefully some others on here jumped on that deal.

Reason for posting this? Or just a friendly safety reminder...like, "Don't forget to wear your seatbelt next time you drive"?

I'm a .40 guy--the research I've read throughout the years makes me a fan of the caliber. I have 2 Glock 22's and an MP40c. The Glocks are great firearms of course, however, I'm more of a fan of the S&W MP series--they just feel a little better in the hand and I like the trigger better. Either way, as a military member, you can get both the Glock and MP's at a significantly reduced price via law enforcement dealers. As for the new gun legislation, it won't go anywhere anytime soon. I doubt the GOP House would even let the leglislation come to a vote (unless it was some random amendment attached to an unrelated bill). As for the Senate, I doubt they could even get much of any new legislation passed--Dem Senators from WV, MT, ND, SD, AK, AR (among others) would likely vote no on most legislation limiting ammo sales, magazine capacities, 'AWB', etc. That being said, I hope they allow something to come to a vote in both houses--like many other Americans, I want folks on the record of whether they want to limit and 'infringe' on Constitutional Rights or not. It's easy for politicians of the most anti-gun states to scream for more gun-control, but will the rank and file in their party support it? The shame is that the election results scare was somewhat beginning to subside and then this happens, most likely causing a spike in demand once again. Lesson that needs to be learned--if you support and enjoy your gun rights, you should always be purchasing ammo, mags, and firearms.

OJ was able to get off...even with his blood at the crime scene. Casey Anthony also got off...and she didn't report her daughter missing for over a month.

Biggest understatement of the year given what you just wrote. AFI 11-402 governs all the questions you're asking. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but if you 'turn in your wings', then you automatically go to an FEB...typically under the 'fear of flying' category. FEB's can take up to/past a year to complete. Unless Flight Docs think that you're 'sick' for failing numerous checkrides, you won't go DNIF, you'll eventually go to an FEB. I'm just breaking your balls a little bit here man, so please don't take offense. I just wanted to relay to the non-rated types that the Air Force doesn't look at 'not wanting to fly' in a light way.

You just repeated what I said...congratulations. The GOP is using the debt ceiling debate as leverage to reign in on spending. You're as bad as one of my prior students that would bring things up in a debrief...that was previously debriefed. The budget (or lack there of)/out of control spending is what is causing the debt ceiling to be continually raised--but now it's having to be raised more often and at much higher amounts because of....wait for it...that's right--out of control spending! The one directly affects the other. If the debt limit is not raised (which I know will not happen), cuts are automatically put in place because the government could only the spend with the revenue they take in--what a concept. It's not like the GOP is tying the debt limit debate to abortion laws. Again, do some research on the issue. Also, research what happens when you have unlimited borrowing/ever growing debt.

The GOP got slammed in 2006 by their own party for increased spending. The GOP isn't saying they won't raise the debt ceiling (try doing some research), rather they are saying the reason we are having to do this so often and to such an extreme amount is because of the out of control spending and entitlement increases...so they are using it as leverage to get cuts. Remember the smoking analogy? They aren't suggesting quiting cold turkey, but they are trying to reduce the amount of cigarettes being smoked everyday. It's like a parent telling their kids that they'll stop paying their tuition if they don't shape up and improve their grades. What I find sad, just like Rainman said, is that a lot of you guys don't care that the country is spending like drunken sailors to an unsustainable amount. You either support irresponsible behavior or you don't understand what is happening.

Dude, you're extremely naive or you are just trying to outplay a used car salesman and sell a piece of crap. Are you really trying to say that raising the debt celing has nothing to do with future spending? It's all about future spending--the country does bring in revenue. It actually brings in a lot of revenue. The GOP, currently the only party legitimately talking about cutting spending, cannot reduce appropriations by themselves since they only hold 1/2 of the legislature...however they can in fact tear up the credit cards. The country has enough revenue coming in to continue to pay interest on the debt, pay SS checks, etc. If you lay off a bunch of government employees and close a bunch of a parks, that is not 'not paying your debts', it's called laying people off. The Dems either negotiate with the GOP on cuts or risk shutting down parts of the government. Personally I think the GOP will cave, though I wish they would hold their ground. Clinton negotiated with the GOP, this President doesn't seem to want to do that. This is what the GOP gets for spending like Democrats for 6 years--karma is a bitch.

I'm not shitting on him...he has clearly laid out what he believes. I think he is hypocritical by saying he truly believes in reducing inequality, and then calls out how this country does not do enough to reduce inequality....but then won't say what he personally does to reduce inequality. Either he should lead by example or own up to the fact that he is similar to Biden. Again, he's the one preaching inequality. But to answer your question...the best analogy I can give is a smoker having another cigarette when they're already experiencing lung problems. Of course another pack one day might not make a big noticeable difference, but eventually, if they don't stop, it's going to kill them, and sooner rather than later. And it will be even worse if they increase their smoking habit. Anybody who thinks we can incur unlimited debt forever with no negative impacts to our country/economy is smoking crack. If unlimited debt was no problem, then every country would be doing it and flourishing. You don't have to look at Greece as the only example, look at several other European countries. Nsplayr talks about Congress capping their spending habits (which I fully agree)...unfortunately Medicare/SS spending is not voted on, it pays out whatever the bill is. Trust me, I blame the GOP for a lot of the problems as well, but right now they're the only ones even talking about reducing spending. I honestly hope sequestration goes into effect...right now it's the only spending cuts that are going to happen if you take the President and Dem leaders at their word.

I don't know why you sound so surprised...or maybe you're not, you're just disgusted and disappointed. I could have told you 9+ months ago that Nsplayr thinks this way. He's a classic liberal who honestly believes more and bigger government is the answer--he truly believes that government knows best and that government creates prosperity. He believes that poor people are poor, not because of bad choices, but because there are wealthy people keeping them poor. Never mind that study after study points to the fact that out of wedlock children are more likely to grow up in poverty (a bad decision), that drug and alcohol abuse (bad decisions) often lead to poverty, dropping out of high school...and on and on. The left has done a fantastic job in building their base by giving out handouts...again, their entire convention was based on it. The more people they get on the government dole, the better. Even the President campaigned on the fact that successful people are only successful because of the government...and therefore they owe the fruits of their labors to the government. And now the Dems, lead by the President, said that he won't give up any new spending cuts even when he gets increases in tax revenue/rates. And then when I call Nsplayr out on asking what he does for charity (time and monetary), he avoids answering the question. If he truly believes in wanting to help the less fortunate, then he should be living as close to a Mother Theresa in his free time as possible. But guys like him truly believe that bigger government is the answer....hence why he doesn't support States' Rights as that takes away from a larger federal government. At least I respect Nsplayr for being up front and honest. What's funny is that he serves in a military that practices inequality all the time with O's vs E's...just a side thought. The problem is...I don't think that 51% of the country was 'duped' this last election. I believe this is the era we are living in--that bigger government is the answer. I don't think I need to put up the stats again--the rising demographics are the majority of the folks on welfare and having out of wedlock children. It's the perfect recipe for those who want more people dependent on the government. It's not a question of when all these entitlements will bankrupt the country...the question is when.

Honest question here--what is the foundation of your belief that 'reducing inequlaity' is the job a massive government which requires taking from people to give to someone else? I don't personally mind if you go into religion on this one, however, I will call you out on hypocrisy if is warranted. Do you have a problem with people earning millions of dollars that you and I do not have? What about rich, wealthy people do you not like? Do you feel that taking wealth from someone else is 'righting' old wrongs from the past? Do you not believe that this country already goes above and beyond what is needed for someone to improve their social/fiscal status? I had avoided asking you this, but since you have always seemed like an honest/straight-up kind of a guy, I will ask (your call whether to answer): If are you are truly against what you say is income/wealth inequality, do you donate all of your money, outside of what you live on, to charities that directly help people/reduce this inequality you speak of? Do you forego having nicer things for you and your family so that you can use all of that extra money to help others in need? Do you do 10-20 hours of charity outside of work? The reason I ask is that I believe people when I see them in action--this is what inspires me. If you are legitimately against inequality, then in my book, you should be living your life as close to Mother Theresa as possible. Maybe you do? I know that I sure don't...then again, I'm not preaching how I believe reducing inequalities should be a high priority. It's easy to say that you support an organization doing something (ie a massive federal government that gives Trillions of dollars in welfare)...but what do you personally do? It's like hearing people over the last decade saying, "I support the Troops", and then when I asked what they personally did to 'support the troops', they just looked at me with a blank stare. This is when I explained to them that they could donate to the USO, send care packages, donate frequent flyer miles, etc. So what is it that you do? Honestly...inspire me here.

Got it...you want a more socialist type country and do not believe in States' Rights. It's cool dude, we even have a sitting Senator who is a self-proclaimed socialist. But you still didn't answer most of my direct questions: More than anything, I want to know if you believe everybody in the US is entitled to the exact same things--automobiles, housing, same education, food, etc? Also, if you were a Congressman and you were able to put in your $.02 on writing new federal tax rates, what would they be? What rate would someone making $75-100K pay? 100-200K?, 200K+?

So what exactly does this mean? What does 'reducing inequality' equate to? Should we collect all the money and income from every person in this county and then divide it up proportionally to population? We already spend nearly $700 Billion a year on welfare at the federal level...how much more should we spend? Should the federal government ensure that everyone has free housing, free food, free healthcare (ok, we now have that one so we can check that off of the list), free college education, free transportation, free clothes...? But ok...you are king for a day (more like a dictator, but I digress)...what are the new tax rates? List them out--I need to understand what a 'progressive tax code that reduces inequality' looks like. I'm curious as to what I would be taxed at on the federal level with your utopian plan.

You are correct--election is over. So tell me...what do you think will happen with the 'fiscal cliff'? Do you think the top rates will rise? If so, by how much? And what should the rates be (including capital gains, dividends, etc)? Do you think sequestration will go forward? I don't see how they even come close to cutting the deficit in half without gutting defense spending, even if Obama only raises rates on those earning $200+, it wouldn't be enough. The economy would need to see a pretty big growth increase (with increased amount of jobs) for enough revenue to come in to pay for all the spending he wants to have. And looking at jobless claim numbers on the rise this past month, I don't see how you can create more jobs (to offset requiring over 100K jobs a month just to keep the unemployment rate steady) with all the higher taxes coming down.

Dude, I think it's pretty apparent that we're talking about taxes and the debt/deficit on the national level, hence 'the fiscal cliff' in the thread title ...not at the state and local level. Unless you want to bring into the debate 50 different state tax codes, all local tax codes, property taxes, etc. When I turn on the TV, I don't hear too many people debating state and local taxes. That's like having a discussion about the NFL and bringing college football into the discussion. Of course college football indirectly affects the NFL, but people usually discuss those differently. I know you lose a lot of your argument with the chart you posted when you take out local sales taxes, etc...but I am not aware of Congress debating the tax code in terms of local sales taxes. Now if you want to discuss federal income tax discussions and how that relates to local property taxes, then you have an argument. Fair enough man...I was using as a past example. My bad.

It was a foul on you for bringing religion into the debate. Unless you want to discuss how there are many Christians who don't support abortion, gay marriage, etc and how you are now against those things? If so, we can start another thread for that debate. Stick to the issues without pulling in your religion or you'll get called out on it every time.

Once again Nsplayr, we're talking about taxes on the national level..please stick to the topic. Field is IFR, state intentions.

I was giving an example how both sides say they stand for 'X principles', but in reality, they do not--they only pick and chose what and where they see fit. And the Dems (take Nsplayr for example) bring up Christianity when trying to say how redistribution of wealth in the form of entitlements is a good thing because of religious morals, etc. I think a debate on fiscal issues is much stronger when leaving religious/emotional arguments out of the argument. I know atheists who are very liberal and who want to increase entitlement spending, and I know atheists who are fiscally conservative and believe we shouldn't throw money we don't have at local, social problems. Most people have an opinion on the subject....even those people who have no religion at all. So if you keep religion out of it, then everybody can join the debate in the same fashion. Just my thoughts...