# Should new wealth be confiscated?



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)




----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

No. I do think that those who believe that other peoples' money should be confiscated should just try to take it themselves. Having the IRS do it for you doesn't put you on the moral high ground.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

LMAO. Where does he think that money came from? It came from stimulus checks and inflated unemployment beenies. If anyone needs to be held accountable it would be him and his associates who allowed this. 

J. Paul Getty once said that if you took all the money in the world and equally distributed it, In one year or less the wealth would still be in the same number of hands. Does anyone not think this is true?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

They know what they are doing is wrong and they still do it. 









Cuomo calls on wealthy to return to New York City: ‘You got to come back!’


New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) is calling on the wealthy to return to New York City from their weekend homes in the surrounding suburbs, fearing they may choose to stay and file taxes there. “…




thehill.com





_New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) is calling on the wealthy to return to New York City from their weekend homes in the surrounding suburbs, fearing they may choose to stay and file taxes there. 

I’m not going to let Washington off the hook,” Cuomo said. “They have to deliver. ... Don’t pass a piece of legislation that doesn’t restore New York’s funds. _

They just want the money. I bet many NY'ers don't come back. I know of 2 that moved permanent to Houston just yesterday. They loved everything about NY too and I didn't think they would ever leave. Turns out if you tax them just enough, they will leave.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> LMAO. Where does he think that money came from? It came from stimulus checks and inflated unemployment beenies. If anyone needs to be held accountable it would be him and his associates who allowed this.
> 
> J. Paul Getty once said that if you took all the money in the world and equally distributed it, In one year or less the wealth would still be in the same number of hands. Does anyone not think this is true?


I can't stop laughing! A tenant gave me a flat screen TV because the remote didn't work. It's in my bedroom with a new four dollar remote...


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

mreynolds said:


> LMAO. Where does he think that money came from? It came from stimulus checks and inflated unemployment beenies. If anyone needs to be held accountable it would be him and his associates who allowed this.
> 
> J. Paul Getty once said that if you took all the money in the world and equally distributed it, In one year or less the wealth would still be in the same number of hands. Does anyone not think this is true?


Thirty or forty y/a, when they first started running the big state lotteries, it soon became apparent that many of the big, multi-million dollar winners quickly blew it all. Some psychologists did a study on this. They found that it's mostly losers in life who play those lotteries, so odds are more of them wind up having their numbers picked..but that doesn't make them winners in life.

Anecdotally, I once won The Big One, but ran thru the fortune rather quickly...I spent half of it on fast cars, hard liquor and wild women...The other half, I spent foolishly.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

TripleD said:


> I can't stop laughing! A tenant gave me a flat screen TV because the remote didn't work. It's in my bedroom with a new four dollar remote...


Or it was Rent-a-center's TV and they haven't found where it went....yet.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Hiro said:


> Or it was Rent-a-center's TV and they haven't found where it went....yet.


That was two years ago...


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

No, wealth shouldn't be confiscated by government. It should change hands only in voluntary transactions.


----------



## Sebastian C (Jul 23, 2017)

So it looks like I'm in the minority here but, as far as I understand, most of Bernie's proposals you gotta be pretty darn rich to be affected by them. Like, richer than you, me, and probably anyone who reads this website. And then it's like "tax everything after a certain point" when someone would already have more money than they'd ever need for the rest of their lives.

So why should besos, Gates, Trump, and any of these other ultra rich *ucks have more personal cash than whole countries when there are seriously poor people?

You don't earn money like that by working hard. You earn money like that through connections and playing the game. People who work hard can pay their bills if they're lucky and maybe get a few nice extras. But you're not going to lay block or drive trucks into the one percent.

And poor people work hard. Being poor is very hard work. Ask my farmhands and I pay comparatively great and my farm is a relative cakewalk. And these guys are not going to get very far ahead working for me or anything similar but it's their available opportunities.

To clarify, I'm not poor. But I'm nowhere near what would be targeted by these taxes. So why are y'all's defending those that profit from an unfair game and have more money than is conceivable? All these guys do is come up with new and creative ways to enslave their employees. Low wages, debt, etc.

Why do you care about besos? Why do you care about trump? This transcends politics, those guys don't care about you


----------



## georger (Sep 15, 2003)

Sounds like the very communist ideas my ancestors ran from.

Communism here? Over my dead body.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Sebastian C said:


> So it looks like I'm in the minority here but, as far as I understand, most of Bernie's proposals you gotta be pretty darn rich to be affected by them. Like, richer than you, me, and probably anyone who reads this website. And then it's like "tax everything after a certain point" when someone would already have more money than they'd ever need for the rest of their lives.
> 
> So why should besos, Gates, Trump, and any of these other ultra rich *ucks have more personal cash than whole countries when there are seriously poor people?
> 
> ...


I don't care for Bernie or his thoughts! I take in more than I spend, drive a 20 yr old truck and live way below my means. At some point " they" will just drop down to the next level...


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

Fascist have always supported industry over people.
Fewer masters.


----------



## Sebastian C (Jul 23, 2017)

Well I said my piece. There's a big difference between taxing the ultra rich harder and being a full on commie. I'm not a commie.

When y'all's hit the way way big-time, please remember to take care of those who need a little help.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

Yes, from those that advocate doing so and @SLADE just because


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Sebastian C said:


> Well I said my piece. There's a big difference between taxing the ultra rich harder and being a full on commie. I'm not a commie.
> 
> When y'all's hit the way way big-time, please remember to take care of those who need a little help.


Pay the farmhands more and share the wealth? Then they might just have a chance... Of course you did build that?....


----------



## random (Jul 23, 2020)

mreynolds said:


> J. Paul Getty once said that if you took all the money in the world and equally distributed it, In one year or less the wealth would still be in the same number of hands. Does anyone not think this is true?


Not only that, but most likely in mostly the SAME hands.

Hard work is only part of the equation. Ideas, and execution of ideas, plays a large role too.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

random said:


> Not only that, but most likely in mostly the SAME hands.


Mostly. 

Control your own destiny or someone else will. I can't say it plainer than that.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Sebastian C said:


> So it looks like I'm in the minority here but, as far as I understand, most of Bernie's proposals you gotta be pretty darn rich to be affected by them. Like, richer than you, me, and probably anyone who reads this website. And then it's like "tax everything after a certain point" when someone would already have more money than they'd ever need for the rest of their lives.
> 
> So why should besos, Gates, Trump, and any of these other ultra rich *ucks have more personal cash than whole countries when there are seriously poor people?
> 
> ...


What makes you think that your level of wealth is conceivable to some people around you? How about conceivable to someone setting in a gang filled slum neighbor hood in some city? Instead of offering other peoples money to be taken how about you start the process personally. Sounds like it would be the right thing to do for you to balance that out. Divide up your assets or sell as needed so those below your wealth level can have a understanding of a better life style. It’s only fair. No need to worry in the long run because there is a a good chance they will waste their money (or should I say your money) and you can earn it back.


----------



## MichaelZ (May 21, 2013)

A guy I know that does remodeling made a snide remark about how the wealth of the owner of the place he was working on. I asked him what he would be doing if that owner didn’t have the money to hire him!


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

If we all had "connections and knew how to play the game" would we all be rich? No.
I don't think those that advocate wealth distribution and more taxes believe that either; it is more envy than anything.
And a way to garner votes. 
And divide.
And create class warfare.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GTX63 said:


> If we all had "connections and knew how to play the game" would we all be rich? No.
> I don't think those that advocate wealth distribution and more taxes believe that either; it is more envy than anything.
> And a way to garner votes.
> And divide.
> And create class warfare.


Bingo Ringo


----------



## ijon1 (Feb 27, 2014)

They never think of that.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Sebastian C said:


> So it looks like I'm in the minority here but, as far as I understand, most of Bernie's proposals you gotta be pretty darn rich to be affected by them. Like, richer than you, me, and probably anyone who reads this website. And then it's like "tax everything after a certain point" when someone would already have more money than they'd ever need for the rest of their lives.
> 
> So why should besos, Gates, Trump, and any of these other ultra rich *ucks have more personal cash than whole countries when there are seriously poor people?
> 
> ...



You need to think that through. Bernie's ideas appeal to you only because they would not affect you. You're not one of the ultra rich, right? You are wrong. There are billions of people on earth that do consider people at your level ultra rich and that people like you have more than you need. They would also take everything you have by force if they were able and feel just like you do about how justified they were for taking it. You are communist whether you realize it or not and living under communism is far worse than our system.


----------



## Macrocarpus (Jan 30, 2018)

Sebastian---I go along only so far as to impose an inheritance tax on fortunes over X millions of dollars--that X to be adjusted by the cost of living. I would impose this to prevent dynastic accumulations of power. Other than that I'd never go commie.


----------



## Fishindude (May 19, 2015)

MichaelZ said:


> A guy I know that does remodeling made a snide remark about how the wealth of the owner of the place he was working on. I asked him what he would be doing if that owner didn’t have the money to hire him!


I've hear this kind of B.S. before too.
So, I guess they'd prefer to work for a poor broke boss?


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Sebastian C said:


> Why do you care about besos? Why do you care about trump? This transcends politics, those guys don't care about you


It isn't about who I care about. It is about taking something that isn't mine. Stealing from a rich person isn't any more justified than stealing from a poor one. No matter who you steal from, you are still a thief.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Sebastian C said:


> There's a big difference between taxing the ultra rich harder and being a full on commie.


Only in your mind. Anyone who would take an extra million from a rich man would try to take a extra thousand from a poor one. Raising taxes isn't the way for a government to balance their debt, spending within their means is the only way.


----------



## random (Jul 23, 2020)

Macrocarpus said:


> Sebastian---I go along only so far as to impose an inheritance tax on fortunes over X millions of dollars--that X to be adjusted by the cost of living. I would impose this to prevent dynastic accumulations of power. Other than that I'd never go commie.


Given that 70% of wealthy families lose that wealth by the second generation, and 90% by the third, it seems that it's not an issue for the most part. From what I see, the "dynastic accumulations of power" you're concerned about tend to happen more with politically-connected families (i.e. Kennedy)









70% of Rich Families Lose Their Wealth by the Second Generation


A little honesty might help preserve the family fortune.




money.com







muleskinner2 said:


> It isn't about who I care about. It is about taking something that isn't mine. Stealing from a rich person isn't any more justified than stealing from a poor one. No matter who you steal from, you are still a thief.


A couple years ago, my niece was always going on about how we should help pay her bills because "we have more" than she did. Then she got a job at a restaurant where the owners made the servers pool their tips and divide them equally at the end of the day. THIS was "not fair" because she got as much in tips as all the rest combined. The others didn't deserve to share the money that SHE earned.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

random said:


> Given that 70% of wealthy families lose that wealth by the second generation, and 90% by the third, it seems that it's not an issue for the most part. From what I see, the "dynastic accumulations of power" you're concerned about tend to happen more with politically-connected families (i.e. Kennedy)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I always heard as a teen it takes two versions to make and one to lose it! I'm third generation and only been adding to it
..


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

TripleD said:


> I always heard as a teen it takes two versions to make and one to lose it! I'm third generation and only been adding to it
> ..


I meant two generations to make it. New phone!


----------



## sweetbabyjane (Oct 21, 2002)

SBJ


----------



## audacity (Feb 14, 2020)

I like how so many people think massive wealth comes from "building that" and working hard.

With the exception of a handful of technocrats: It's inherited.

And generally, even technocrats inherited their starting cash.

I, too, would like to run a successful real estate empire or corner an entire retail market through the sheer power of being able to take sustained losses while I hold prices down long enough to kill off any other competitors. But first, I need my great-great-great long-lost uncle to please die and leave me his 900 million to spite his own kids so I can actually afford those things or, at the very least, give off the impression that I deserve the credit required to do those things.

And yes -- future generations can lose wealth, but the economy is changing and it is a lot easier to hold on to and build cash simply by investing it.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

audacity said:


> I like how so many people think massive wealth comes from "building that" and working hard.
> 
> With the exception of a handful of technocrats: It's inherited.
> 
> ...


What type of real estate do you want to invest in? It's all fluid if you choose wisely. I've been doing it since I was 12. There's nothing I can't do on a single family home. But I do pay for what I don't care for....


----------



## oregon woodsmok (Dec 19, 2010)

Gotta love how people with no money love to give all the reasons why it isn't possible to become wealthy.

Go talk to the crowd that has wealth and almost all of them started with nothing, or at the very most, a parent who could put them through college. But many put themselves through college.

Lots of excuses available for those who won't do it and insist that it is impossible, so why try.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

audacity said:


> I like how so many people think massive wealth comes from "building that" and working hard.
> 
> With the exception of a handful of technocrats: It's *inherited.*
> 
> ...


Like Gates, Besos, Zuckerberg, Buffett

You been saying this under various names


----------



## audacity (Feb 14, 2020)

HDRider said:


> Like Gates, Besos, Zuckerberg, Buffett
> 
> You been saying this under various names


Three of those are technocrats, which I directly referred to in my post, and _none _of them started poor, or even lower middle class, which is where your typical American who struggles paycheck to paycheck generally comes from.

Buffett's dad was an investor with his own brokerage firm and in politics. Try again.

Also, I only have one account. You just don't like hearing someone point out that "rags to riches" isn't a feasible reality no matter how hard you work if you don't have the starting capital to do anything. In fact, Buffett himself acknowledges this and has spoken many times on the opinion that the ultra filthy rich should be taxed far more seriously.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

audacity said:


> Three of those are technocrats, which I directly referred to in my post, and _none _of them started poor, or even lower middle class, which is where your typical American who struggles paycheck to paycheck generally comes from.
> 
> Buffett's dad was an investor with his own brokerage firm and in politics. Try again.
> 
> Also, I only have one account. You just don't like hearing someone point out that "rags to riches" isn't a feasible reality no matter how hard you work if you don't have the starting capital to do anything. In fact, Buffett himself acknowledges this and has spoken many times on the opinion that the ultra filthy rich should be taxed far more seriously.


You are blinded by envy

No matter what anyone says you will discount it to keep your narrative alive.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Sebastian C said:


> So it looks like I'm in the minority here but, as far as I understand, most of Bernie's proposals you gotta be pretty darn rich to be affected by them. Like, richer than you, me, and probably anyone who reads this website. And then it's like "tax everything after a certain point" when someone would already have more money than they'd ever need for the rest of their lives.
> 
> So why should besos, Gates, Trump, and any of these other ultra rich *ucks have more personal cash than whole countries when there are seriously poor people?


Because it's theirs.



Sebastian C said:


> You don't earn money like that by working hard. You earn money like that through connections and playing the game. People who work hard can pay their bills if they're lucky and maybe get a few nice extras. But you're not going to lay block or drive trucks into the one percent.
> 
> And poor people work hard. Being poor is very hard work. Ask my farmhands and I pay comparatively great and my farm is a relative cakewalk. And these guys are not going to get very far ahead working for me or anything similar but it's their available opportunities.


This is a land of opportunity. Some are definitely born with a leg up. But, nowhere in the world will you find more "rags to riches" stories than here.
That said, there are numerous reasons why some remain poor. Some people are happy where they are. Some lack ambition or know how. Some are lazy. Some just suck at life. 



Sebastian C said:


> To clarify, I'm not poor. But I'm nowhere near what would be targeted by these taxes. So why are y'all's defending those that profit from an unfair game and have more money than is conceivable?


I suppose the game may appear to be unfair for people who don't know the rules and how to play it. They are at a significant disadvantage. 



Sebastian C said:


> All these guys do is come up with new and creative ways to enslave their employees. Low wages, debt, etc.


They're employees are not working for them against their will. They can get a different job.



Sebastian C said:


> Why do you care about besos? Why do you care about trump? This transcends politics, those guys don't care about you.


It's all about politics. Divisive politics. Class warfare.
I don't have anything against rich people and see no reason to demonize them. Besides, Bezos, Trump, these guys have provided society with something of value. What has Bernie really done for society to "deserve" his wealth? What about the game he plays? He has gotten rich off of fomenting class warfare.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

audacity said:


> Three of those are technocrats, which I directly referred to in my post, and _none _of them started poor, or even lower middle class, which is where your typical American who struggles paycheck to paycheck generally comes from.
> 
> Buffett's dad was an investor with his own brokerage firm and in politics. Try again.
> 
> Also, I only have one account. You just don't like hearing someone point out that "rags to riches" isn't a feasible reality no matter how hard you work if you don't have the starting capital to do anything. In fact, Buffett himself acknowledges this and has spoken many times on the opinion that the ultra filthy rich should be taxed far more seriously.


You are missing something! It can be done if you can work hard. You didn't quote me but let me tell you something. Mom and dad are divorced over 30 years. I did build this. Their little social security check is probably around 5 percent of their income! Go get it . I am not allowed to deal in excuses or play kids games!!! Just jump in the water...


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

muleskinner2 said:


> It isn't about who I care about. It is about taking something that isn't mine. Stealing from a rich person isn't any more justified than stealing from a poor one. No matter who you steal from, you are still a thief.


Exactly. And getting the government to do it for you doesn't place you on the moral high ground.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

Kissing hiney of the rich does not put money in ones pocket but it can lead to a lingering stench.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Envy does not make it yours to put in your pocket.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

OMG - don't people know money is how you keep score....


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Wolf mom said:


> OMG - don't people know money is how you keep score....


That is absolutely true. No one person needs a bazillion dollars, but their quest continues.

Not everyone, but many just cannot get enough. I truly cannot understand it.

Maybe they rationalize a few positives. They create jobs. They give to charity. All true things.

What a world it would be if a person could labor purely for the betterment of mankind. Sure make your first billion, even your second, but when is enough, enough?

Governments and greedy small people taking away what ANYONE earns is wrong when they try to take a greater percentage of a greater amount.

How can anyone hope for fairness in giving if there is no fairness in taking?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Sebastian C said:


> So it looks like I'm in the minority here but, as far as I understand, most of Bernie's proposals you gotta be pretty darn rich to be affected by them. Like, richer than you, me, and probably anyone who reads this website. And then it's like "tax everything after a certain point" when someone would already have more money than they'd ever need for the rest of their lives.


So, equal protection under the law means nothing? Laws that affect only certain folks, are anti-American. 



Sebastian C said:


> So why should besos, Gates, Trump, and any of these other ultra rich *ucks have more personal cash than whole countries when there are seriously poor people?


You seem to have fallen for the great fallacy that because some have more, others have less. It is false. Wealth is created, as a farmer, you should understand that more than most. 


Sebastian C said:


> Why do you care about besos? Why do you care about trump? This transcends politics, those guys don't care about you


I don't care about Besos, or, Trump past their humanity. I care about their fundamental rights, in our system. If theirs can be endangered by wanna be Communist dictators, so can mine, and so can yours. Learn history. Most all great shifts in governmental power were sold to the masses as "only going to affect the "rich"", the Federal income tax being a shining example.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

HDRider said:


> How can anyone hope for fairness in giving if there is no fairness in taking?


Who promised anyone "fair"?? 

What does that word mean anyway? I've heard multiple definitions, depending upon who I ask.....


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Wolf mom said:


> Who promised anyone "fair"??
> 
> What does that word mean anyway? I've heard multiple definitions, depending upon who I ask.....


I knew someone would question my use of that word.

No one is promised fair. Does that mean we should not try to be fair?

We are all face unfair circumstances. Should we be unfair in our dealings with others?


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

HDRider said:


> I knew someone would question my use of that word.
> No one is promised fair. Does that mean we should not try to be fair?
> We are all face unfair circumstances. Should we be unfair in our dealings with others?


How about giving your definition of fair like I asked? Unless you define "fair", one can't answer your unfair dealings question....


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Wolf mom said:


> How about giving your definition of fair like I asked? Unless you define "fair", one can't answer your unfair dealings question....


It is not a new word. I did not make it up. It has a standard meaning.

*Definition of fair*
(Entry 1 of 5)
1a*: *marked by impartiality and honesty *: *free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism a very fair person to do business with
b(1)*: *conforming with the established rules *: *ALLOWED
(2)*: *consonant with merit or importance *: *DUEa fair share
c*: *open to legitimate pursuit, attack, or ridicule fair game


----------



## audacity (Feb 14, 2020)

HDRider said:


> It is not a new word. I did not make it up. It has a standard meaning.
> 
> *Definition of fair*
> (Entry 1 of 5)
> ...


Yes, but if I use that definition, I'd argue that Bernie's policies are indeed very fair.

They do no real harm to those who would be affected by it (they'd see absolutely no drop in their quality of life, nor will their legacy be in any danger) while simultaneously providing great benefit to society; that 'great benefit', in turn, supports those billionaires by providing them with better access to great talent and investment opportunities.

From the philosophical point of view of "the greater good", this is _extremely fair _if the goal is to have a happy, prosperous, and long-lived society.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

audacity said:


> Yes, but if I use that definition, I'd argue that Bernie's policies are indeed very fair.
> 
> They do no real harm to those who would be affected by it (they'd see absolutely no drop in their quality of life, nor will their legacy be in any danger) while simultaneously providing great benefit to society; that 'great benefit', in turn, supports those billionaires by providing them with better access to great talent and investment opportunities -- from the philosophical point of view of "the greater good", this is _extremely fair _if the goal is to have a happy, prosperous, and long-lived society.


I do not think taking from one person by force to give to another person is at all fair.

Nowhere in the definition does it say taking by force is considered fair.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

audacity said:


> Three of those are technocrats, which I directly referred to in my post, and _none _of them started poor, or even lower middle class, which is where your typical American who struggles paycheck to paycheck generally comes from.
> 
> Buffett's dad was an investor with his own brokerage firm and in politics. Try again.
> 
> Also, I only have one account. You just don't like hearing someone point out that "rags to riches" isn't a feasible reality no matter how hard you work if you don't have the starting capital to do anything. In fact, Buffett himself acknowledges this and has spoken many times on the opinion that the ultra filthy rich should be taxed far more seriously.


I did it. Started with $5000. I worked 2 jobs, so did Erin to save for our new business venture. We had a plan and took a chance. Went from my wife and myself to over 300 employees. My wife and i took the financial risk. It absolutely can happen, no question. Those that say you can't, never tried.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

In the view of the green eyed envious when you go room temperature Uncle Sam should taxe the piss out of your estate, because, after all, your kids didn't earn it; it was given to them, and the poor and the disadvantaged need that money more than some rich trust funders. So things are fair, let your kids start from scratch like everyone else, not counting politicians of course.


----------



## audacity (Feb 14, 2020)

HDRider said:


> I do not think taking from one person by force to give to another person is at all fair.
> 
> Nowhere in the definition does it say taking by force is considered fair.


Doing something by force doesn't make it unfair, it just means that you had to do it because one party wasn't willingly going along with it.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Who determines what is "fair"? 
Why do so many liberal socialist ideas require force in order to implement them?
Shouldn't one's own reason and common sense conclude it is the best idea above all others?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

audacity said:


> Doing something by force doesn't make it unfair, it just means that you had to do it because one party wasn't willingly going along with it.


So it's acceptable to steal from others? Because most people aren't willing to part with their property.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

audacity said:


> Doing something by force doesn't make it unfair, it just means that you had to do it because one party wasn't willingly going along with it.


You mean like a mugging or armed robbery?

I see.


----------



## audacity (Feb 14, 2020)

no really said:


> So it's acceptable to steal from others? Because most people aren't willing to part with their property.


Not sure why you keep saying it's stealing, when it's not.

Tax belongs to the government and the government's primary purpose is to safeguard the society.
We gave the government the right to set tax.

You are free to suggest that we abolish taxes altogether.



HDRider said:


> You mean like a mugging or armed robbery?
> 
> I see.


Being fair isn't the same thing as everyone liking your decision, or even willingly participating in it.


Let's say you have two toddlers sitting in a room. One repeatedly steals toys, food, and blankets from the other, and hoards them in a corner. Maybe that kid was in that room first, and decided the whole playroom was his. You can ask them nicely to share, and even do a big lesson on sharing, but if that toddler is cranky and he's not going to cooperate, _period, _then you have to be the adult in the room and make sure that both children have equal time with toys. If you put the toddler in time-out, that's *by force*. If you take one of the blankets and give it to the other child so they can take a nap, that's *by force*.

Just because you are doing something that one party doesn't like, that doesn't make the action itself _unfair_, and painting it as assault and armed robbery is just being facetious.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

audacity said:


> Not sure why you keep saying it's stealing, when it's not.
> 
> Tax belongs to the government and the government's primary purpose is to safeguard the society.
> We gave the government the right to set tax.
> ...


It always amazes me how intelligent people feel the government has a right to seize money and property to redistribute to their pet projects. No matter how much a communist/socialist government takes it will never be enough. And guess what the money ends up in the hands of the oligarchy. And it's stealing when the people don't have a vote.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

audacity said:


> Doing something by force doesn't make it unfair, it just means that you had to do it because one party wasn't willingly going along with it.


How about you just put on your grown up clothes and go answer my post I quoted you on? I'd like to see..


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

HDRider said:


> You mean like a mugging or armed robbery?
> 
> I see.


Guess the largest armed force are the winners.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

audacity said:


> Yes, but if I use that definition, I'd argue that Bernie's policies are indeed very fair.
> 
> They do no real harm to those who would be affected by it (they'd see absolutely no drop in their quality of life, nor will their legacy be in any danger) while simultaneously providing great benefit to society; that 'great benefit', in turn, supports those billionaires by providing them with better access to great talent and investment opportunities.
> 
> From the philosophical point of view of "the greater good", this is _extremely fair _if the goal is to have a happy, prosperous, and long-lived society.


Fair to me in this instance would be not having the politicians spending it corruptly. Just as soon as fair Bernie takes from them, he and his other comrades will be the first to get paid. Then their buddies and family. The rest will be used as a token for the next vote.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

JeffreyD said:


> I did it. Started with $5000. I worked 2 jobs, so did Erin to save for our new business venture. We had a plan and took a chance. Went from my wife and myself to over 300 employees. My wife and i took the financial risk. It absolutely can happen, no question. Those that say you can't, never tried.


Yeah, but didnt you inherit that 5k?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

audacity said:


> Doing something by force doesn't make it unfair, it just means that you had to do it because one party wasn't willingly going along with it.


That almost sounds like a definition of rape. Is that fair? 

I dont think so.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

audacity said:


> Three of those are technocrats, which I directly referred to in my post, and _none _of them started poor, or even lower middle class, which is where your typical American who struggles paycheck to paycheck generally comes from.
> 
> Buffett's dad was an investor with his own brokerage firm and in politics. Try again.
> 
> Also, I only have one account. You just don't like hearing someone point out that "rags to riches" isn't a feasible reality no matter how hard you work if you don't have the starting capital to do anything. In fact, Buffett himself acknowledges this and has spoken many times on the opinion that the ultra filthy rich should be taxed far more seriously.


So? I like people who say that something can't be done. I have been doing those things all of my life.


----------



## audacity (Feb 14, 2020)

mreynolds said:


> That almost sounds like a definition of rape. Is that fair?
> 
> I dont think so.


Is that really how you're going to try to argue this?

If we go back to my original example, I guess taking a toy from a child is also a form a rape. 

Coming up with the most vile thing you can possibly imagine and then going, "See!? It's the same!" doesn't make it so.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

audacity said:


> We gave the government the right to set tax.


We also told them to treat everyone equally under the laws.
No one gives them the "right" to take more from those who are most successful.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

audacity said:


> Is that really how you're going to try to argue this?
> 
> If we go back to my original example, I guess taking a toy from a child is also a form a rape.
> 
> Coming up with the most vile thing you can possibly imagine and then going, "See!? It's the same!" doesn't make it so.


Nice deflection. I was only talking about your definition.


----------



## ijon1 (Feb 27, 2014)

Its the old grasshopper and ant story.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

audacity said:


> You are free to suggest that we abolish taxes altogether.


Prior to 1913 most Federal taxes were voluntary. (User fees)


audacity said:


> Let's say you have two toddlers sitting in a room.


And that is how a socialist/communist government looks upon its subjects. 
Bernie's ideas(along with socialism in general) suck on paper and are immoral in practice.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> Prior to 1913 most Federal taxes were voluntary. (User fees)
> 
> And that is how a socialist/communist government looks upon its subjects.
> Bernie's ideas(along with socialism in general) suck on paper and are immoral in practice.


You ever get any farm related help or money from the govt?


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

You mean get back some of the money that was taken by the government?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

SLADE said:


> You ever get any farm related help or money from the govt?


Nope, I actively try to avoid such things.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

audacity said:


> Doing something by force doesn't make it unfair, it just means that you had to do it because one party wasn't willingly going along with it.


Willingly allowing someone to take your wealth? Sounds like a thief's request.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

mreynolds said:


> Yeah, but didnt you inherit that 5k?


"Worked 2 jobs"! 🙂


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

sweetbabyjane said:


> View attachment 90068
> 
> 
> SBJ


Maybe somebody in that family should have saved some money, or bought more camels.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Macrocarpus said:


> Sebastian---I go along only so far as to impose an inheritance tax on fortunes over X millions of dollars--that X to be adjusted by the cost of living. I would impose this to prevent dynastic accumulations of power. Other than that I'd never go commie.


So, it's ok to steal from some people? I mean, if you think they have too much money. How about if they had a homestead and raised their own food, and you lived across the road but didn't grow any food yourself. Would it be ok to steal some of their food, I mean if they had too much?


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Sebastian C said:


> So it looks like I'm in the minority here but, as far as I understand, most of Bernie's proposals you gotta be pretty darn rich to be affected by them. Like, richer than you, me, and probably anyone who reads this website. And then it's like "tax everything after a certain point" when someone would already have more money than they'd ever need for the rest of their lives.
> 
> So why should besos, Gates, Trump, and any of these other ultra rich *ucks have more personal cash than whole countries when there are seriously poor people?
> 
> ...


You are right, it isn't fair, it has never been fair, it isn't supposed to be fair. If it were really fair, everyone would be poor, nobody would be rich and we would all live at the same level of poverty. Without incentive there would be no reason to try for a better life. Complaining about all of those terrible rich people has never helped anyone. It has started a few wars and revolutions. It has caused shortages in the marketplace, starvation, homelessness, refuges, and extreme poverty. And poverty after all is the normal condition for humans. Trying to build a better life is always such a terrible thing to do. I mean, if you have a store that sells something people need, you are taking advantage of their need, and profiting on their misfortune. You are enslaving them for your own benefit. 

Oh, those terrible rich people. We should all just beat them up and take their stuff. Oh, I'm sorry that is what they are doing, in Seattle, Portland, and every other place the poor downtrodden have risen up to throw off their chains. I mean, because that always works so well for everybody.


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

I’ve wiped better things from the bottom of my boots after a long day working cattle than any Socialists,Communists or Progressive Democrats that have ever drawn a breath of air.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

audacity said:


> Not sure why you keep saying it's stealing, when it's not.


Debatable.



> *Tax belongs to the government *and the government's primary purpose is to safeguard the society.
> We gave the government the right to set tax.


Spoken like a true socialist. This "We gave the government the right to set tax" idea is completely false... there has never been a referendum on these taxes. 

Taxes belong to the people... an originalist view of the _Constitution_ says that the federal government owns nothing. We weren't even meant to have a standing army. The primary role of the government is to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity." (Preamble of the U.S. Constitution)

Taxes were meant to be this: ""The Constitution, Article I, section 9, clause 4, requires that a “direct *tax*” must be *apportioned among the states* by population. For the Founders, a necessary element to be a direct *tax* is that *apportionment among the states* by population must be *reasonable and just*.""

Apportioned among the states means that the tax is collected from each _state _by population.. _States_ were to collect levy's from and by consent of their population and turn over a certain portion to the federal government to fulfill their mandate _as stated in the preamble_. Federal taxes (SS, income taxes, estate taxes. etc.) were enacted by statute and therefore are arguably unconstitutional. The Constitution was never amended to change any of this.



> You are free to suggest that we abolish taxes altogether.


O.K., thanks for the permission... I strongly suggest we abolish all taxes not set forth as written in the Constitution!



> Being fair isn't the same thing as everyone liking your decision, or even willingly participating in it...


The Constitution doesn't use the word "fair" but........ it does say that taxes are to be by the consent of those being taxed (the levy) and that they are to be reasonable and *just.*


----------



## audacity (Feb 14, 2020)

homesteadforty said:


> Apportioned among the states means that the tax is collected from each _state _by population.


We actually tried to do this, and it was a major failure, because some states were not actually contributing to the federal coffers when they were supposed to. (They also weren't contributing to defense, and were making their own international trade deals that directly competed with neighboring states.) The failures of this system was one of the many reasons why we moved away from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution in the first place, but some ideas died hard.

Turns out, trying to make a country out of mini-countries doesn't really work.





homesteadforty said:


> Federal taxes (SS, income taxes, estate taxes. etc.) were enacted by statute and therefore are arguably unconstitutional. The Constitution was never amended to change any of this.


First: The US government doesn't necessarily need a power to be precisely defined in the Constitution to have that power - it just needs to show that having that power is necessary in order to fulfill it's responsibilities or use it's defined powers. A super common, but less hotly debated, example of this is the government's control over interstate commerce. 

But more importantly: The 16th Amendment actually _does _give the federal government the right to levy taxes without the apportionment from the states, and a Constitutional Amendment _is_ a part of the Constitution -- unless you'd like to make the argument that women's suffrage, the abolition of slavery, or things like term limits also isn't any of the federal government's business.



homesteadforty said:


> it does say that taxes are to be by the consent of those being taxed (the levy)


You give consent every time you elect your Congressman and House Rep back to his or her seat. They can write new amendments to overturn old ones, but they won't.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

AOC said "billionaires need middle class but middle class doesn't need billionaires."

While she was typing this on her iPhone and putting it on Twitter. 

How many people buy from Amazon and Walmart then turn around and crucify the owners? Who created these terrible billionaires? Who keeps them living in the lap of luxury?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> AOC said "billionaires need middle class but middle class doesn't need billionaires."
> 
> While she was typing this on her iPhone and putting it on Twitter.
> 
> How many people buy from Amazon and Walmart then turn around and crucify the owners? Who created these terrible billionaires? Who keeps them living in the lap of luxury?


I think it is normal to expect the rich to help the poor. 

*Proverbs 19:17 *
Whoever is generous to the poor lends to the Lord, and he will repay him for his deed.
*Proverbs 22:9 *
Whoever has a bountiful eye will be blessed, for he shares his bread with the poor.
*Proverbs 14:31 *
Whoever oppresses a poor man insults his Maker, but he who is generous to the needy honors him.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

Sorry to say, HDR, not as many people follow what you quoted these days. 
Lots of those that do, give with strings attached - look at the democratic party - they give of your tax dollars with the expectation that you'll receive those gifts and vote democratic.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Wolf mom said:


> Sorry to say, HDR, not as many people follow what you quoted these days.
> Lots of those that do, give with strings attached - look at the democratic party - they give of your tax dollars with the expectation that you'll receive those gifts and vote democratic.


The wedge gets driven deeper


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

audacity said:


> First: The US government doesn't necessarily need a power to be precisely defined in the Constitution to have that power - it just needs to show that having that power is necessary in order to fulfill it's responsibilities or use it's defined powers. A super common, but less hotly debated, example of this is the government's control over interstate commerce.








Welcome americanusconstitution.com - BlueHost.com


Bluehost - Top rated web hosting provider - Free 1 click installs For blogs, shopping carts, and more. Get a free domain name, real NON-outsourced 24/7 support, and superior speed. web hosting provider php hosting cheap web hosting, Web hosting, domain names, front page hosting, email hosting...



americanusconstitution.com





Check out "Clause 3". 
The Constitution is there to LIMIT government. Your Prog/Socialist lies about its content not withstanding. I cringe every time I hear some elected idiot say that the 2nd amendment doesn't grant the right to X gun. Well, the Second amendment doesn't "grant" rights to any gun. What it does is to forbid government from infringing upon a citizens right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

Wolf mom said:


> Sorry to say, HDR, not as many people follow what you quoted these days.
> Lots of those that do, give with strings attached - look at the democratic party - they give of your tax dollars with the expectation that you'll receive those gifts and vote democratic.


Look at the other party. They don't give at all.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

You are wrong, but you know that. 
Lots of finger pointing and excuses by the apoligists when public school proponents should be bragging over the condition the system is in nationwide. 
But, they can't. So bla bla bla....


----------



## audacity (Feb 14, 2020)

Farmerga said:


> Welcome americanusconstitution.com - BlueHost.com
> 
> 
> Bluehost - Top rated web hosting provider - Free 1 click installs For blogs, shopping carts, and more. Get a free domain name, real NON-outsourced 24/7 support, and superior speed. web hosting provider php hosting cheap web hosting, Web hosting, domain names, front page hosting, email hosting...
> ...


It does limit government, but it also gives the government the right to exercise implied powers. That's a universally accepted fact agreed to by Constitutional scholars from both sides of the isle.



Farmerga said:


> Your Prog/Socialist lies about its content not withstanding.


At this point, you're just disagreeing with whatever I said purely because I was supporting a progressive position earlier. I bet if I said, "The sky is blue", you're going to go, "NUH UH! LYING COMMIE!!"



Farmerga said:


> I cringe every time I hear some elected idiot say that the 2nd amendment doesn't grant the right to X gun.


Well, it says the right to bear arms. It doesn't explicitly say the right to bear _any _arms. A lot of right-wing Republicans agree with this even if they won't admit it; hence why things like armor-piercing ammunition and "undetectable guns" (aka, 3rd printed ones that can't be picked up by metal detectors) are illegal.

It doesn't infringe on your rights for the government to tell you you can't hunt geese using missiles.

But in any case, the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with the government's _right_ to levy federal taxes.

.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

audacity said:


> (aka, 3rd printed ones that can't be picked up by metal detectors) are illegal.


They are not illegal. There is no law that requires guns to be made of steel.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

audacity said:


> It doesn't infringe on your rights for the government to tell you you can't hunt geese using missiles.


The 2nd amendment doesn't have anything to do with hunting. It was not written to protect the right to hunt. "Arms" means all weapons even missiles. I don't want a missile and I wouldn't want gang bangers to have them, but that is what it says.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

audacity said:


> It doesn't explicitly say the right to bear _any _arms.


 It doesn't have a list of the arms you can't have, so it implies that you may keep all arms. At the time, smooth bore muzzle loading muskets, and smooth bore muzzle loading cannon, were state of the art military arms. Today self loading rifles with thirty round magazines are state of the art military arms. Laws have been passed to regulate which arms may be used to hunt with. But these laws do not restrict which arms may be owned. Full auto weapons, silencers, and explosive devices may all be owned. They are regulated and taxed, as a means for the government to raise money, and keep track of it's citizens.


----------



## audacity (Feb 14, 2020)

muleskinner2 said:


> They are not illegal. There is no law that requires guns to be made of steel.


Yes they are. Get caught by the feds with a gun that can't be picked up in a airport security scan or metal detector and see what happens. I am not going to go diving for specific laws, but I think the bulk of it can be found in the "Undetectable Firearms Act." Even the NRA has supported this law.


Also, your interpretation that the law allows you to own any kind of explosives is incorrect (unless you are properly licensed, which _is_ a restriction).


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

SLADE said:


> Look at the other party. They don't give at all.


Either delusional or stirring the stew pot.

Nonprofit Quarterly says Republicans give more donations, but Democrats donate more to unions. Like I've said before, Democrats give with expectations of getting something back.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

audacity said:


> Yes they are. Get caught by the feds with a gun that can't be picked up in a airport security scan or metal detector and see what happens. I am not going to go diving for specific laws, but I think the bulk of it can be found in the "Undetectable Firearms Act." Even the NRA has supported this law.
> 
> 
> Also, your interpretation that the law allows you to own any kind of explosives is incorrect (unless you are properly licensed, which _is_ a restriction).


I said that explosives were regulated and taxed. Can you even read? The undetectable firearms act, requires that the firearm registers an image of a firearm on a scanner. If you are trying to smuggle a firearm on to an commercial aircraft, you have much bigger problems than what kind of firearm it is.


----------



## audacity (Feb 14, 2020)

muleskinner2 said:


> I said that explosives were regulated and taxed. Can you even read?


They're more than "regulated and taxed." All guns are regulated and taxed.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

audacity said:


> They're more than "regulated and taxed." All guns are regulated and taxed.





audacity said:


> They're more than "regulated and taxed." All guns are regulated and taxed.


They are regulated and taxed, and legal to own, unless the person is some kind of prohibited possessor. What exactly is "more than regulated and taxed", what more could they do?


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

audacity said:


> All guns are regulated and taxed.


Regulated how? You must be 18 to purchase rifles and shotguns, and 21 for handguns. These regulations are for the person not the firearm. And pay sales tax if you purchase one from a retail outlet.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

The constitution says right to bear arms. Nothing about any limits of what kind, stick, rock, ar-15. No limits. 

Not surprising to have people want to forcibly take away wealth from some and give to others. Call it what ever tax you want its still a forced forfeiture. So no problem with taking your arms, your money, or what ever else is needed for what they think is best and spend as they think is best. 

I wish I had money or had more luck or was born wealthy or married wealthy. Not going to inherit either. Not happened and not expect it to. It’s life and no reason to expect it to be easy. Always surprises me even when I know better about greedy people doing what they think is best.


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

audacity said:


> It does limit government, but it also gives the government the right to exercise implied powers. That's a universally accepted fact agreed to by Constitutional scholars from both sides of the isle.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Shall not be infringed means exactly what it says. The 2A isn’t about hunting geese,it’s about killing tyrants.


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

audacity said:


> Yes they are. Get caught by the feds with a gun that can't be picked up in a airport security scan or metal detector and see what happens. I am not going to go diving for specific laws, but I think the bulk of it can be found in the "Undetectable Firearms Act." Even the NRA has supported this law.
> 
> 
> Also, your interpretation that the law allows you to own any kind of explosives is incorrect (unless you are properly licensed, which _is_ a restriction).


All gun control laws are unconstitutional.


----------



## audacity (Feb 14, 2020)

Kiamichi Kid said:


> All gun control laws are unconstitutional.


The Undetectable Firearms Act has been extended 3 times, by both Democrats and Republicans, and supported by the NRA -- the biggest pitbull on 2A that there is.

Somehow, I don't think that one is going to go to the Supreme Court.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

audacity said:


> supported by the NRA -- the biggest pitbull on 2A that there is.


That is, quite possibly, the most ignorant statement I have seen on these boards in a while.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

audacity said:


> Yes they are. Get caught by the feds with a gun that can't be picked up in a airport security scan or metal detector and see what happens. I am not going to go diving for specific laws, but I think the bulk of it can be found in the "Undetectable Firearms Act." Even the NRA has supported this law.
> 
> 
> Also, your interpretation that the law allows you to own any kind of explosives is incorrect (unless you are properly licensed, which _is_ a restriction).


I don't fly ...


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

audacity said:


> At this point, you're just disagreeing with whatever I said purely because I was supporting a progressive position earlier. I bet if I said, "The sky is blue", you're going to go, "NUH UH! LYING COMMIE!!"


No, I will agree when anyone is correct. If you said the sky was blue, I would agree, because that is a fact. The fact is that progs/socialists have a very tenuous relationship with facts.


audacity said:


> Well, it says the right to bear arms. It doesn't explicitly say the right to bear _any _arms. A lot of right-wing Republicans agree with this even if they won't admit it; hence why things like armor-piercing ammunition and "undetectable guns" (aka, 3rd printed ones that can't be picked up by metal detectors) are illegal.


I don't care if Ronald Regan came out of the grave and told me that the constitution says things that it doesn't, I am not going to believe it. The amendment says what it says. Any law that limits a lawful citizen from keeping and bearing any arm he/she desires is anti-constitutional.


audacity said:


> It doesn't infringe on your rights for the government to tell you you can't hunt geese using missiles.


 It does infringe if they say we can't have the missiles.


audacity said:


> It does limit government, but it also gives the government the right to exercise implied powers. That's a universally accepted fact agreed to by Constitutional scholars from both sides of the isle.


The power you listed wasn't implied it was enumerated.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Audacity is just having fun here. Playing games. I'd love to know what he/ she is actually good at on the homestead!


----------



## audacity (Feb 14, 2020)

Farmerga said:


> That is, quite possibly, the most ignorant statement I have seen on these boards in a while.


Look it up then.


----------



## audacity (Feb 14, 2020)

TripleD said:


> Audacity is just having fun here. Playing games. I'd love to know what he/ she is actually good at on the homestead!


Well, since I do everything around here myself, everything.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

audacity said:


> First: The US government doesn't necessarily need a power to be precisely defined in the Constitution to have that power - it just needs to show that having that power is necessary in order to fulfill it's responsibilities or use it's defined powers...





> ...unless you'd like to make the argument that women's suffrage, the abolition of slavery, or things like term limits also isn't any of the federal government's business.





> You give consent every time you elect your Congressman and House Rep back to his or her seat. They can write new amendments to overturn old ones, but they won't.


Structuralism (as defined by Marx... among others) vs. Originalism. We ain't going to solve that one here.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

audacity said:


> Well, since I do everything around here myself, everything.


If you say so.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

audacity said:


> Well, since I do everything around here myself, everything.


Gated community? Half acre lot, change tractor tires or weld? Build your own house, pull a calf or put in miles of fencing and water lines?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

muleskinner2 said:


> The 2nd amendment doesn't have anything to do with hunting. It was not written to protect the right to hunt. "Arms" means all weapons even missiles. I don't want a missile and I wouldn't want gang bangers to have them, but that is what it says.











High Power Model Rocketry Supplies | Advanced Model Rocket Kits


LOC Precision and PML offers high power rockets supplies with advance model rockets kits components and accessories. We have everything you need to get started with your us rocketry at any level 1, level 2, level 3




publicmissiles.com









__





Madcow Rocketry







www.madcowrocketry.com





I fly several times a month. It's been a long time hobby. I just love 98mm motors, spendy but awesome! Of course these are unguided!

O-motor


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

audacity said:


> Look it up then.


Look it up? Where? Some socialist swill rag? The NRA is the plain vanilla of gun rights organizations. More of a Yorkie than a Pit Bull.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

My sister's Yorkie dogs were coyote bait. I have more in one dog than the herd bull. That doesn't include the two that are outside.


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

audacity said:


> The Undetectable Firearms Act has been extended 3 times, by both Democrats and Republicans, and supported by the NRA -- the biggest pitbull on 2A that there is.
> “Shall not be infringed “ means just what it says. You’re only fooling yourself if you think that the NRA is the biggest pitbull on the 2A....


----------



## audacity (Feb 14, 2020)

TripleD said:


> Gated community? Half acre lot, change tractor tires or weld? Build your own house, pull a calf or put in miles of fencing and water lines?


Given you replied twice in a row, you _seem _to be really upset and trying to belittle me and my homesteading, simply because you don't like what I had to say about some political topics. I should hope you can be a better person than that.

Maybe I just toot around on my little lady lawn tractor, but at least I don't go looking for ways to try to make others feel small when an argument isn't going your way. What I have is self-sustaining for me and puts me in a position to take care of my parents. I am just as proud of it and work just as hard to keep it as I'm sure you do with yours.



Farmerga said:


> Look it up? Where? Some socialist swill rag? The NRA is the plain vanilla of gun rights organizations. More of a Yorkie than a Pit Bull.


Choose your own sources, friend. You can be angry about it all you want, but that law's had bipartisan support and has been around for several decades now. Yelling into the wind that you think it's unconstitutional won't make it go away. If you hate it so much, get your rep to fight it.


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

audacity said:


> Given you replied twice in a row, you _seem _to be really upset and trying to belittle me and my homesteading, simply because you don't like what I had to say about some political topics. I should hope you can be a better person than that.
> 
> Maybe I just toot around on my little lady lawn tractor, but at least I don't go looking for ways to try to make others feel small when an argument isn't going your way. What I have is self-sustaining for me and puts me in a position to take care of my parents.
> 
> ...


 If I had a representative in Congress he’d be much more like Genghis Khan than any of the spineless characters that are currently in DC.


----------



## audacity (Feb 14, 2020)

Kiamichi Kid said:


> If I had a representative in Congress he’d be much more like Genghis Khan than any of the spineless characters that are currently in DC.


Oh, I certainly agree they're all spineless.

But people keep voting the same characters in each round we go. Maybe one day, things won't be so divisive.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

audacity said:


> I am not going to go diving for specific laws, but I think the bulk of it can be found in the "Undetectable Firearms Act."


Another silly law written to prevent something that never existed.


----------



## audacity (Feb 14, 2020)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Another silly law written to prevent something that never existed.


Eh? Fully plastic guns exist, and they're becoming very easy to make with the advancement of hobbyist printers. Your typical school, stadium, or city hall metal detector won't see them.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Does not make them undetectable. Technology exists that can find “plastic” guns. Actually its always existed. New higher speed technology is expensive.Problem is that it takes more money and time. Way simpler to pass a law to keep the honest people honest. The serious criminal will do as they please. Those caught breaking the law are usually just nitwits. It’s kind of like the mask issue we are dealing with. It’s known to have limited effectiveness but it might help, it might stop one or two people out of millions from having problems. But it makes many people think it is safe so its all ok and the politicians can be re-elected because they have done all that can be done. Allows them to continue their unofficial wealth building at our expense.


----------



## audacity (Feb 14, 2020)

Redlands Okie said:


> Technology exists that can find “plastic” guns.


Yes, there is. An x-ray scanner or any sort of visual materials scanner is going to show the outline of the gun, and an operator with more than 2 brain cells is going to see it. However, that technology is expensive and isn't a viable option for most places that need to have weapons security at the door. Meanwhile any teenager can put together a 3D printer, and the technology surrounding 3D printing is advancing forward in leaps and bounds each day. (Unlike the availability of security technology.)




Redlands Okie said:


> Actually its always existed. New higher speed technology is expensive.Problem is that it takes more money and time. Way simpler to pass a law to keep the honest people honest.


The point of laws isn't to stop people from doing something. 

The point of laws is to give people a way to address the crime. Laws provide actionable consequences.




Redlands Okie said:


> It’s known to have limited effectiveness but it might help, it might stop one or two people out of millions from having problems.


Masks are definitely not a cure-all, but they're definitely a little more effective than 1-in-a-million. People just need to wear them properly and stop acting like children.

In this case, any law concerning masks won't _make_ someone put one on if they are bound and determined not to, but laws give society a way to go, "Oh really? Okay. Well, then you can't come outside and mingle with the rest of us, then."


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

audacity said:


> Choose your own sources, friend. You can be angry about it all you want, but that law's had bipartisan support and has been around for several decades now. Yelling into the wind that you think it's unconstitutional won't make it go away. If you hate it so much, get your rep to fight it.


Oh, rest assured that my new representative will fight such laws. He owns a large gun store and has already fought and won against the IRS that illegally confiscated almost a million dollars from him simply to intimidate.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Having a weapon anywhere at anytime should not be a issue. A gun in a back pack on a airplane is nothing more than a gun in a back pack. Making a law against having a weapon in certain places does not ever provide a way to address a crime. Actually it might be best to REQUIRE everyone to have a weapon. What would happen if every airplane seat had a stun gun attached to it? But that’s another subject. 

What is considered a weapon for that matter ? If a crime is committed prosecute the crime, its that simple. Use that actionable consequence your talking about to punish the crime committed. 

For some reason people want to punish for how a crime was committed, or what was used to commit the crime. Silly beyond belief. Steal my money by waving some paper work in my face or waving a knife in my face makes no difference, the money is gone. If a person is murdered they are dead, does not matter if a car or a gun or a rope was used. For the criminal to spend more years in jail because a knife or gun was used instead of a computer or piece of paper is silly. I assure you I am more worried about having my limited wealth confiscated because of blue collar crime or a hacker than I am a thug on the sidewalk.

The current mask requirements are about as effective at stopping covid spread as the effectiveness of no guns allowed keeping the crime rates down in a variety of cities.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

audacity said:


> Eh? Fully plastic guns exist, and they're becoming very easy to make with the advancement of hobbyist printers. Your typical school, stadium, or city hall metal detector won't see them.












Feel free to consider this the reply to your next post also.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

audacity said:


> Eh? Fully plastic guns exist, and they're becoming very easy to make with the advancement of hobbyist printers. Your typical school, stadium, or city hall metal detector won't see them.


Are the bullets, cases and primers plastic too? Not so sure, but those may be metal and required for the gun to function?


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Typical pistol or revolver uses a metal casing to carry the explosive powder. The metal case can be ejected after the powder is burnt. Caseless ammo has been around for some time now (the powder is molded into the case shape and basically nothing is left after its burnt). Bullets can be made of non metallic materials (rubber bullets for example) but likely to be short range, still deadly up close. 

The averages security screen is only able to stop the average person regardless of the problem being a weapon or an attempt to confiscate something.


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

Laws can be made by the millions and will never stop a determined criminal .


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

audacity said:


> Eh? Fully plastic guns exist, and they're becoming very easy to make with the advancement of hobbyist printers. Your typical school, stadium, or city hall metal detector won't see them.


No they don't. So far nobody has come up with a plastic tough enough to be the barrel of a gun. Or a bolt for that matter. You can print some of the parts, but not the barrel, or bolt. But why go through all of that trouble, when you can purchase a box cutter in any hardware store with no license or registration.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Now you have gone and done it. Throwing ideas out there like that. We will soon have to get a permit for our box cutter or will have to use those box cutters you see the employees using at the box stores. Automatic blade retracting, you have to hold the blade slide button out with your thumb. Their also on a little coiled cable that is snapped to the employers clothing to ensure retention of the possible weapon. 

Sort of says something about the employment hiring policy’s of the business using these. With this level and ability of thought process its no wonder we have people wanting to take money from the “rich”.


----------



## Practical (Aug 18, 2020)

HDRider said:


>


No law shall be passed Ex Post Facto. Seems like I read that somewhere in an old, dated, document. Can't remember where tho!


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

How do you make the billionaires stay in the country?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

dmm1976 said:


> How do you make the billionaires stay in the country?


We need to imagine it like they are doing now at the DNC where they are asking us to imagine no prisons, no police, no ICE, no borders, free healthcare, free college. We just have to imagine and like magic, it will happen.


----------

