What abt Mt Best fridge?

[no spam]

BTW, your job logic doesn't hold anymore. Today there'll be an illegal

That is the purpose of a Top Secret security clearance.

Don't let anyone impress you with a top secret clearance, you can get a
monkey top secret clearance.

 

[no spam]

Add it up with a weapons law that makes it possible to buy an assault
Any your answer to the above question is. . .

Not in this part of the world where I've been buying and selling them;
I have a buddy who is a Class III dealer.

Where do you need a Class III to buy a semiauto weapon?

 

[no spam]

BTW, your job logic doesn't hold anymore. Today there'll be an

I was pretty surprised by some of the stuff I saw going on around the
house growing up. And the gossip from the family is pretty wild too. Let's
just say, it doesn't work the way most people think it does. But then, you
already knew that. 60% of the members of my family have TS.

One of the first things counterintelligence does is to get close to family
friends and find out what they know or have heard. At that point you have a
fairly good idea of how big of a mouth someone has.

 

[no spam]

think assault weapon. Not all AW's are full auto....

Semantics. I know the difference. You don't need III for semi. duh. I
have been told by my friend that the rifles I had were assault weapons.
Everyone from the local gun club, the sheriff's office, etc., even Bill
Clinton says a post-ban semiauto AK is an AW. I have never (until now)
heard anyone insist that an AW is ALWAYS full auto. Even our beloved
former prez will tell you an SKS is an AW.
I do know a little about guns. I've had AK's w/75-rd drums etc. I sold
my MAC-10 .45 to a guy on the West coast who disassembled it and makes
repair parts from copying it. If you need to fix yours, the parts came
from copying mine.

Which is why we are losing the battle. We have let the other side change
the rules in mid-game. According to them any weapon that LOOKS mean is now
an assault weapon and should be banned. It doesn't matter that there is no
difference in the way it works than a rifle with nice polished walnut stock
and bright blueing it must be banned because it LOOKS like bad. What
happens when they start calling your deer rifle a deadly, long range sniper
rifle and start trying to ban the sell of deadly, long range sniper rifles?
Are you going to start calling any scoped rifle a sniper rifle?

You need to start trying to stem the tide and inform your friends and any
other firearm ignorant people out there that you do not have an assault
rifle because it will not fire full auto. Then go on to point out to them
that, other than looks, there's no difference in your AR15 and the Remington
7400 the guy down the block owns.

Otherwise the next time we get the wrong people in control of the government
any 'ugly' weapon will become illegal just by calling it an assault weapon
and your deer rifle will be in danger.

 

[[email protected]]

I can't imagine washing clothes by hand so I can't comment there. They do line-dry
quickly. I have an indoor line that I can stretch from one end of my cabin to the
other. I hang clothes up on the winter to gain the moisture from them. Helps with
the try winter air.

so you do in fact have a regular washing machine at
your cabin then?

 

[Trygve Lillefosse]

IOW, all animals are equal some animals are more equal than others. In your
system you are rewarding people for being poor and punishing those who work
harder than others.

No, it is slipping some slack to those who are unfortunate or have
less abilities.
It also works as an insurance, if poor people are better off, they
will not be forced into crime.

Would it be fair if your boss gave everyone a bonus but he gives you less
because you make more because your job requires more skill than the guy who
sweeps the floor for minimum wage?

No.
But it would neither be fair if the bonus is possible only because of
the poor pay of the one sweeping the floor.

Then you have the same system as today. The politicians having the ability
to use the system to buy votes. Who do you think would have the better
chance of be elected:

Pol #1: If elected I will raise the deduction for so that the workers can
have more money in their pockets AND will set the new definition of rich to
$500,000 per year to make sure the rich pay their fair share.
Pol #2: If elected I will work for a system that encourages people to raise
themselves up, to do this I will allow the hard working business people to
keep the same percentage of their money as their employees.

I do not think that #1 is anything near reality, Although I see your
point. Anyway, my experience is that the great mayority are willing to
pay a share to keep the society running. I do not think that a system
where only the rich have to pay taxes is wanted from anyone.

The #2 option is an advantage to buisness people aswell. With less tax
for low incomes, the pressure for raising the pay may be lessened.
Those who are wealthy and does not try to hide their money, would get
a gain, while those who are using lawers to sift trough the tax-laws
would be worse off.
Also, as long as the tax rate is not to high, fewer will bother to
hide away money, as they cannot be freely used since that could get
the IRS on their butts.

BTW, I have NEVER seen a poor person hiring employees (unless you count the
huge number of government workers out there 'helping' them.)

I do not think that buisiness owners who hire, do it out of charity
either.
Both the employee and the employer are interdependent.

 

[Trygve Lillefosse]

That is the purpose of a Top Secret security clearance.

I do not belive that high IQ is nessesary to get a security clearance.
Dependability and the ability to not tell/brag is much more important.

 

[Trygve Lillefosse]

Nope, being ready.

But you are re

Mom and dad raised three of them, my uncles raised 3 and 5. I've raised 2,
my brother 2 and my sister 2. Loaded guns kept in each house and no
problem.

I think of that like a bit like the lottery. You know that someone is
going to win, but also that it will not likely be yourself.
Even though you have lowered your ods, you are still in "the lottery"
when you are keeping loaded firearms around children.

http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/infoparents.asp (Basic Gun Safety
Rules and Gun Owners' Responsibilities)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/29/AR2006052900755_pf.html

And have them comeback when I'm not at home and kill my animals?

After the first incident, you would probarbly sit in a window, with a
rifle ready in case they came back.
To have the gun more easily accessible until the dogs were killed or a
few weeks had passed would probarbly do the trick youst fine.

Which is my point. You think having loaded guns around is a bad thing no
matter what you have never thought that there are times when they are needed
much like a fire extinguisher. And like a fire extinguisher they are
nothing more than a tool that fills a need.

A fire-extinguisher cannot kill a human in an instant, at long range
by accident.

Might have but a dog is much harder to kick than you think. BTW, do you
live your life on 'might haves'? I don't.

I prefer to have margins against errors.
Also I would prefer that the horse got bitten with the following vet
bill, rather than expose myself and others to an unneeded danger.

And take a chance of killing or injuring my own dogs and cats?

There is no problem in giving poison to mice and rats without letting
dogs and cats get to it. There are specialy designed metal boxes just
for that purpose.

I might have sent the dog(s) after opossums. If not, I would probarbly
use a few minutes to ready a gun, before getting out. In the meantime
they would be partying on my feed.
I do not know how big a problem possums are, as I am not used to them.
But as far as I understand, they are not too hard to catch, and I
cannot imagine than an opossum (or a few) can eat great amounts in a
few minutes.

Depends on what you mean heavy. IIRC, you can own a muzzle loading cannon
w/o any federal permit.
Again if I recall correctly you can own a breach loader below 20mm w/o a
permit.

Assuming that breach loader means that you have to "break" it after
shooting once or twice, that does not sound like an unreasonable rifle
to let people buy easily if one does have laxed gun-laws.

A selective fire weapon chambered for a medium powered round.

Wich means a semi-automatic or automatic rifle?
I am not realy looking for a definition here. I may use the term
technicaly wrong, but I am quite sure that you understand what I mean.
(Just like I know that most people dont mean the hard-disk when they
use the term hard-disk, but rather a computer-cabinet with content.)

IOW, anything that "looks bad". What is the difference between a .223 Rem
semiautomatic 'hunting rifle' and a Colt AR15? I'll give you a hint,
nothing but looks.

Why would I know that?
I am not talking about looks, but how it can function.
Although I would considder a rifle more as an assault weapon the
shorter the barrel is.

So, what would it take to get a gun that carries say 20 rounds and
that can be without manualy reloading it (self loading)?

 

[no spam]

My ideal system is a flat rate with a pretty large deduction that is

No, it is slipping some slack to those who are unfortunate or have
less abilities.

As I said, some animals are more equal than others and they must be punished
because they are better. I've been called cold hearted but I think there
needs to be punishment for making stupid decisions (dropping out of school,
screwing around and getting pregnant before you have a good job, etc) to
keep people from doing such things. I also think there should be large
rewards for making good decisions (working your tail off, getting more
education, learning a skill, etc).

Read some history, we have spent billions upon billions of dollars on the
'poor' and yet they are still with us and there seems to be even more of
them. Start your research with FDR and his programs then move up to LBJ's
great society and go on to the 'war on poverty'. The more free stuff you
give people the more they will demand.

It also works as an insurance, if poor people are better off, they
will not be forced into crime.

BULL PIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I don't want to get into a 'I was poorer than you'
discussion but. . . Neither of my parents had more than an 8th grade
education. My dad grew up, with 8 other siblings, as a sharecropper's son
and my mom's dad used to catch fish out of the Tennessee and Mississippi
rivers to sell as well as feed his family of 10. They picked cotton (by
hand), chopped the weeds out of fields and did many other jobs that most
people today would never think of doing before they 'got on at the factory'.
When I was a kid there were times when we ate NOTHING but white beans, corn
bread and fried potatoes for a week or more. Most of our food came from our
HUGE garden (one year we put almost 200 quart jars full of green beans).
And yet before dad passed he owned his own house on 6 acres, 5 of which he
rented out to a farmer and got enough money to pay his taxes. And neither
they nor any of their kids were "forced into crime."

FYI, my sister went on to become a nurse and now owns enough land in TN to
raise miniature horses for fun and profit. My brother became a forman (he
never was one for 'book learning') at the factory until his health went bad.
As for me, I don't talk much about myself on newsgroups but let's just say
that right now I'm a little cash poor due to a move and having to pay two
mortgages (4 bedroom house in TN, and 17 acres in south coastal GA) but I
won't be that way long.

No.
But it would neither be fair if the bonus is possible only because of
the poor pay of the one sweeping the floor.

Right if it were true, but its not. Its because EVERYONE at the factory is
doing their job. Therefore everyone should share equally.

I do not think that #1 is anything near reality, Although I see your

You don't pay much attention to the US elections do you? Listen to them.
Raise the tax on the rich, punish 'big oil' and make them pay, give the
'poor' tax breaks and lower the standard to get on one of the many wealfare
programs. Right now there is an effort in Congress to change a poor
children's health program. They want to raise the lower earning limit of a
family of four to $80,000, now THAT'S poor people ain't it? They also want
to call any person under TWENTY FIVE (25) a child. Now if you happen to
object to this you are said to want to kill children. Oh yeah, they also
want to forbid making sure illegal immigrants don't get into the program.

If that's not a good example of trying to use tax money to buy votes what
would you say is?

point. Anyway, my experience is that the great mayority are willing to
pay a share to keep the society running. I do not think that a system
where only the rich have to pay taxes is wanted from anyone.

That's about what we have now. A quick google search turned up:

A few weeks ago, the Internal Revenue Service released data on tax year
2003. The data show that the top 1 percent of taxpayers, ranked by adjusted
gross income, paid 34.3 percent of all federal income taxes that year. The
top 5 percent paid 54.4 percent, the top 10 percent paid 65.8 percent, and
the top 25 percent paid 83.9 percent.

From another site the top 50% paid 96.54% of the taxes. That the botom 50%
pays 3.46% of the bill.

Now using your logic on paying for their usage of the system I'm willing to
bet that the bottom 50% of the people use governmental services a lot more
than the top 50% therefore the poor should be paying MORE than the rich.

The #2 option is an advantage to buisness people aswell. With less tax
for low incomes, the pressure for raising the pay may be lessened.
Those who are wealthy and does not try to hide their money, would get
a gain, while those who are using lawers to sift trough the tax-laws
would be worse off.

Also, as long as the tax rate is not to high, fewer will bother to
hide away money, as they cannot be freely used since that could get
the IRS on their butts.


I do not think that buisiness owners who hire, do it out of charity
either.
Both the employee and the employer are interdependent.

The point is if you punish the business man for making more money he's going
to stop growing his business and stop hiring.

Some business men discovered that they can live the same life style if they
make X amount money then shut down their business and vacation for the rest
of the year. That's because when they are getting to keep less than 50
cents of each dollar they are making it just isn't worth the effort to work
60-80 hours a week. I used to wonder how in the world some of my friends
could afford to take a month or more for a vacation. I haven't reached that
point of earning but that's my goal. That and no more debt!

 

[no spam]

BTW, your job logic doesn't hold anymore. Today there'll be an

I do not belive that high IQ is nessesary to get a security clearance.
Dependability and the ability to not tell/brag is much more important.

For secret and top secret about you really need to do is be breathing.

 

[no spam]

But you are re
Huh?



I think of that like a bit like the lottery. You know that someone is
going to win, but also that it will not likely be yourself.
Even though you have lowered your ods, you are still in "the lottery"
when you are keeping loaded firearms around children.

Not quite unless the lottery is fixed. My kids also never injured
themselves with any of my other dangerous tools either. That's because they
knew the dangers of all of them.


Check the number of accidental shootings you can find for children under 15
(over that they should face charges for shooting someone IMO) then compare
that to the total number of children in the US. I have never done it but
I'm willing to bet that you'll find more children wind up in ER's and/or
dead due to people leaving household chemicals around than firearms. BTW,
please make sure your data is for accidental shootings AND the age of the
children. It seems that some of the not so legit places include all
shootings from police shooting criminals and criminals shooting other
criminals and/or call anyone under upto age 25 as children. As Twain said;
there are liars, damn liars, then there are statistics.

After the first incident, you would probarbly sit in a window, with a
rifle ready in case they came back.

With your way of thinking there would not have been a second incident
because the odds are the horse would have been dead.

To have the gun more easily accessible until the dogs were killed or a
few weeks had passed would probarbly do the trick youst fine.

You don't seem to get it. Have you ever seen anything a dog has attacked?
It takes just a few SECONDS for a dog to bite a horse. If you are "lucky"
the bite will be in the leg, you have some chance of saving the horse. If
your luck stinks the horse will take a bite in the belly, most of the time
that means you have to put the horse down (another thing I've had the sad
experience of having to do). If the dogs had left before I had gotten the
rifle I'd spend the next couple of days with it slung across my back and the
horses locked up.

Envision this. Your wife is out in the yard working and you are in the
house getting a bite to eat. Suddenly you hear a scream and look out to see
her using a stick to fend off a couple of dogs. How long do you think it
would be before a dog gets by the stick and gets a hold of the wife? Using
your logic you could tell the wife that at least the kids in the
neighborhood are safe because your weapons were locked up, of course you'd
probably have to either tell her in the hospital or the morgue.

Now for most people a wife is worth more than a horse and a horse is usually
a better fighter than a wife but I think you get my point.

A fire-extinguisher cannot kill a human in an instant, at long range
by accident.

The point still stands a firearm is nothing more than a tool. A machine
made to do a job. BTW, accidental fires have killed many more people than
firearms accidents. Do you keep your flammables locked in a fire proof
cabinet? IIRC, there was a fire last month that killed several (4+ I think)
children caused by a kid playing with a lighter. When was the last time you
heard people calling for lighter control?

One other thing, before the OKC bombing the largest mass murder in US
history was done with a gallon of gas and a match. Some guy was upset that
he was tossed out of an after hours club, he came back poured the gas into
the door and tossed the match in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happyland_Fire

I prefer to have margins against errors.
Also I would prefer that the horse got bitten with the following vet
bill, rather than expose myself and others to an unneeded danger.

So you don't drive? You are placing many more people in danger driving to
and from work than my weapons ever will. Check the numbers.

There is no problem in giving poison to mice and rats without letting
dogs and cats get to it. There are specialy designed metal boxes just
for that purpose.

And when the dog or cat eats the poisoned rat? Also what kind of neat'o box
is big enough to let a possum in but small enough to keep a cat out?

I might have sent the dog(s) after opossums. If not, I would probarbly
use a few minutes to ready a gun, before getting out. In the meantime
they would be partying on my feed.

If by "sent the dog(s) after opossums" you mean have them attack it I train
my dogs not to attack things and if I'm around I actually try to prevent
them from doing it. Cuts down on the number of vet bills as well as reduces
the chances of them catching rabies and the like.

Usually what happens with something in the feed is I find something has been
into the feed. Then I go back to the house and get the proper weapon,
usually a 22 handgun, then go back at night to take care of the problem.
The need for quick access comes when I hear a ruckus in the feed shed and I
want to end a problem before one of the dogs is hurt.

Assuming that breach loader means that you have to "break" it after
shooting once or twice, that does not sound like an unreasonable rifle
to let people buy easily if one does have laxed gun-laws.

No a breach loader is any weapon that is loaded from the breach not the
muzzle. A break action single shotgun is a breach loader but so is a 155
howitzer.

By heavy I guessed you were talking about the size of the round a weapon
could fire.

Currently in most states you can own any firearm that in not capable of
firing more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger that fires a
projectile smaller than 20mm. If you apply for the proper permits, again
depending on the state, you can own full auto weapons and other things. One
thing that I don't understand is you need a permit to own a suppressor, what
you probably call a silencer.

Wich means a semi-automatic or automatic rifle?

Selective fire means you can select the rate of fire. It can either fire
one round per pull of the trigger, a burst of a set number of rounds per
pull or continue firing until the ammo supply is exhausted.

I am not realy looking for a definition here. I may use the term
technicaly wrong, but I am quite sure that you understand what I mean.
(Just like I know that most people dont mean the hard-disk when they
use the term hard-disk, but rather a computer-cabinet with content.)

My point is that other than looks there is no difference between what you
think of as an assault weapon and a semi-automatic hunting rifle. Let me
ask you this, what's the difference between a military long range sniper
rifle and a deer rifle?

Why would I know that?

I'm trying to educate you.

I am not talking about looks, but how it can function.

My point is: There is NO, NONE, NOT ONE BIT of difference in how semi-auto
rifles work!!! They all take some of the energy created by the round being
fired and use that energy to eject the spent round, cock the hammer and load
a fresh round.

Although I would considder a rifle more as an assault weapon the
shorter the barrel is.
Why?


So, what would it take to get a gun that carries say 20 rounds and
that can be without manualy reloading it (self loading)?

So my 22LR rifle is an assault weapon? It will hold 20 rounds and has a 20"
barrel.

 

[Trygve Lillefosse]

As I said, some animals are more equal than others and they must be punished
because they are better. I've been called cold hearted but I think there
needs to be punishment for making stupid decisions (dropping out of school,
screwing around and getting pregnant before you have a good job, etc) to
keep people from doing such things. I also think there should be large
rewards for making good decisions (working your tail off, getting more
education, learning a skill, etc).

If you drop out of school, you probarbly get a lower wage, and thus
get a lower income, no matter if a flat tax system has a standard
deduction or not.
If you get pregnant at young age, that is probarbly not a good idea,
and you will probarbly get less education and possibilities.
If you work a lot, and thus make more money, you will still get more
money in your pocket than your workmate that does fewer hours.

them. Start your research with FDR and his programs then move up to LBJ's
great society and go on to the 'war on poverty'. The more free stuff you
give people the more they will demand.

You are probarbly correct. But I am not speaking of giving more to
anyone, but to say that people should get a part of their income
tax-free. (Or all if they make litle enough.)

BULL PIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I don't want to get into a 'I was poorer than you'
discussion but. . . Neither of my parents had more than an 8th grade

Sure, and many of the realy successfull people are successfull because
they have a drive due to the powerty of their childhood.
But I am quite sure that the chances of a poor child becoming an
addict, dropout or criminal are higher than that of a child that comes
from a family where they manage ok. (not rich, but with "food on the
table")

When I was a kid there were times when we ate NOTHING but white beans, corn

Would it not have been nicer if you had say 10% more in expendable
income? Would that not have done a huge difference?

rented out to a farmer and got enough money to pay his taxes. And neither
they nor any of their kids were "forced into crime."

No, and I am quite sure that most poor people dont. But I am quite
sure that

Right if it were true, but its not. Its because EVERYONE at the factory is
doing their job. Therefore everyone should share equally.

I agree as long as the pay for the floor sweeper is enough to make
ends meet.

You don't pay much attention to the US elections do you? Listen to them.

I must agree that I dont, since I live on the other side of the
pond. But it is nice to know more about it nevertheless.

Raise the tax on the rich, punish 'big oil' and make them pay, give the
'poor' tax breaks and lower the standard to get on one of the many wealfare
programs. Right now there is an effort in Congress to change a poor
children's health program. They want to raise the lower earning limit of a
family of four to $80,000, now THAT'S poor people ain't it? They also want
to call any person under TWENTY FIVE (25) a child. Now if you happen to
object to this you are said to want to kill children. Oh yeah, they also
want to forbid making sure illegal immigrants don't get into the program.

I agree that that sounds quite unreasonable. But then again, what does
it cost to get health insurance for a family of four?
Is this a few "want mores" or a real and sizable group?

I do think that giving poor people tax braks is a good idea, but agree
that the definiton of poor has to be real.

If that's not a good example of trying to use tax money to buy votes what
would you say is?


That's about what we have now. A quick google search turned up:

A few weeks ago, the Internal Revenue Service released data on tax year
2003. The data show that the top 1 percent of taxpayers, ranked by adjusted
gross income, paid 34.3 percent of all federal income taxes that year. The
top 5 percent paid 54.4 percent, the top 10 percent paid 65.8 percent, and
the top 25 percent paid 83.9 percent.

That may only say that there are a few people that are realy rich.
I would be more interested in what rate they have to pay out of their
income.

Now using your logic on paying for their usage of the system I'm willing to
bet that the bottom 50% of the people use governmental services a lot more
than the top 50% therefore the poor should be paying MORE than the rich.

No, my logic is that the goverment should try to give equal services.
I also think that it is ok to contribute with more dollars if you make
more dollars. But still, not unreasonable mutch.
I also think that if you are poor, you should be able to keep the
little youwe got.

The point is if you punish the business man for making more money he's going
to stop growing his business and stop hiring.
Some business men discovered that they can live the same life style if they
make X amount money then shut down their business and vacation for the rest
of the year. That's because when they are getting to keep less than 50
cents of each dollar they are making it just isn't worth the effort to work
60-80 hours a week. I used to wonder how in the world some of my friends
could afford to take a month or more for a vacation. I haven't reached that
point of earning but that's my goal. That and no more debt!

I do agree on you on this. In my opinion, a 33% is a magic "border".
Nobody should need to pay more than 33% of their income in tax.

Still, that buisnessman would probarbly be better of, at least he
would make more from his last dollar with a flat tax where you have a
tax-free amount.

Not sure what kind of tax-relief you think that I am talking about.
When there have been talk about a system like this in Norway.
(Although I think it will not happen for many years) is a system where
you would pay a fixed rate for all incomes over aprox $1000 a month
(realy $1500/mo but both sallaries and costs are higher here)
Then there are two models for how to do the taxing over that amount.

Either with steps, where you would pay 20%, 25%, 30% or 35% of your
last dollar.
(Say upto 12000 without tax + 12000 with 20% etc.(or whatewer brackets
and percentages that would be choosen.) So that a person making 24000
dollars would pay 10% of the overall income - no tax breaks, no
deductions.
Or with one fixed rate, say 30% of everything above your tax-free
amount.

 

[Trygve Lillefosse]

Huh?

Should have been something like "you are ready for situations that are
quite unlikely to happend."
But then I thought more of a burglary/loonatic killer on the loose
scenario.
Wild animals killing hens are a more likely scenario, but then again
not likely to be a situation where the possible danger of a loaded and
accessible gun would outweigh the utility of the gun.

Not quite unless the lottery is fixed. My kids also never injured
themselves with any of my other dangerous tools either. That's because they
knew the dangers of all of them.

I do not think that kids realy know the implicatins some actions may
have until they have passed puberty.
Not due to bad education, but because their barins are not fully
developed yet.
If you educate your kids, they will surely be at less risk. Probarbly
a 10/1or more compared to an uneducated kid. But still significantly
higher than for an educated adult.

Check the number of accidental shootings you can find for children under 15
(over that they should face charges for shooting someone IMO) then compare
that to the total number of children in the US. I have never done it but
I'm willing to bet that you'll find more children wind up in ER's and/or
dead due to people leaving household chemicals around than firearms. BTW,
please make sure your data is for accidental shootings AND the age of the
children. It seems that some of the not so legit places include all
shootings from police shooting criminals and criminals shooting other
criminals and/or call anyone under upto age 25 as children. As Twain said;
there are liars, damn liars, then there are statistics.

Not sure weather you are right or wrong.
I did try to find statistics, but did not find them. Probarbly because
I did not search enough or used incorrect searchwords.
So I do not have any hard numbers.

With your way of thinking there would not have been a second incident
because the odds are the horse would have been dead.
You don't seem to get it. Have you ever seen anything a dog has attacked?
It takes just a few SECONDS for a dog to bite a horse. If you are "lucky"

Luckily enough, I have not.
I do not know how dogs act when they attac, but I am having a hard
time figuring that they would attac a large animal like a horse within
a few seconds after arriving at the scene, and without a few minutes
of barking or locomotions.

Envision this. Your wife is out in the yard working and you are in the
house getting a bite to eat. Suddenly you hear a scream and look out to see
her using a stick to fend off a couple of dogs. How long do you think it
would be before a dog gets by the stick and gets a hold of the wife? Using
your logic you could tell the wife that at least the kids in the
neighborhood are safe because your weapons were locked up, of course you'd
probably have to either tell her in the hospital or the morgue.

I would offcource run out, grabbing a chair/stick/whatewer on my way
out. She would probarbly make her way towards the house at the same
time. Dont know what the outcome of such an incident would be. But my
guess would be a trip to the emergency room.

I have never owned a gun or lived in an area where there is any real
danger of meeting loose and agressive dogs. If I lived in an area
where I thought that it was a real danger, and I owned a gun, I would
probarbly keep it accessible. But still, I can not imagine that I
could store it loaded.

Now for most people a wife is worth more than a horse and a horse is usually
a better fighter than a wife but I think you get my point.
The point still stands a firearm is nothing more than a tool. A machine
made to do a job.

Sure, but it is also capable of doing a lot of dammage. Hence I think
that to own a gun, you need to have some sort of formal education.
It also needs to be securely stored, just like a chainsaw.

BTW, accidental fires have killed many more people than
firearms accidents. Do you keep your flammables locked in a fire proof
cabinet? IIRC, there was a fire last month that killed several (4+ I think)
children caused by a kid playing with a lighter. When was the last time you
heard people calling for lighter control?

I keep my flamables in a small "cabinet" that is built into a concrete
wall. The doors are of wood though.

Without having any statistics, my guess is that lighters are used far
more often than guns.
There have started to come quite a few lighters with child control
mecanisms. I think they are supposed to become the only option for
single use lighters within EU.

So you don't drive? You are placing many more people in danger driving to
and from work than my weapons ever will. Check the numbers.

As I said, unneeded dangers. I do drive, but with caution. I may exeed
the speed limit(they are realy low here), but will not "stand on my
rights" if I have right of way and someone just drives out in front of
me. Neither will I change lanes without checking the blind zone.
I try to always keep a buffer both in front of me and behind. If I get
a tailgater, I will simply show my braklights a couple of times, if
that is not enough, I will try to get the other car to pass me etc.

I am quite sure that I wil see more pople and cars on the road than
you do around your house.

And when the dog or cat eats the poisoned rat? Also what kind of neat'o box
is big enough to let a possum in but small enough to keep a cat out?

The box was for mice and rats.
If you think that dead poisoned mice/rats could be a problem, you
could do the same with traps.

If by "sent the dog(s) after opossums" you mean have them attack it I train
my dogs not to attack things and if I'm around I actually try to prevent
them from doing it. Cuts down on the number of vet bills as well as reduces
the chances of them catching rabies and the like.

Probarbly smart.
But I imagined that any dog that was not trained to refrain from
attacking anything, would go after an opposum if allowed. Not sure if
an average dog would kill it though, but at least bark and make it do
its play dead thing.

Usually what happens with something in the feed is I find something has been
into the feed. Then I go back to the house and get the proper weapon,
usually a 22 handgun, then go back at night to take care of the problem.
The need for quick access comes when I hear a ruckus in the feed shed and I
want to end a problem before one of the dogs is hurt.

Do the opossums attack dogs? Tought they were just a neuicance.

No a breach loader is any weapon that is loaded from the breach not the
muzzle. A break action single shotgun is a breach loader but so is a 155
howitzer.
By heavy I guessed you were talking about the size of the round a weapon
could fire.

Currently in most states you can own any firearm that in not capable of
firing more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger that fires a
projectile smaller than 20mm. If you apply for the proper permits, again

I would considder that a too dangerous weapon to let people buy easily
if it reloads itself, as you can still shoot many rounds in a short
time. In that cas I think that you should need a permit.
Same goes if you it is easy to reload it quickly, like those
winchesters from cowboy movies.

If any citizen is allowed to ovn I firearm without any permit and/or
registration. I belive it should be a gun that is not capable of
firing many rounds in a short time. Meaning that it has to be reloaded
for every one or two shots.

thing that I don't understand is you need a permit to own a suppressor, what
you probably call a silencer.

Probarbly so that is shall not be to easy to do a shot without beeing
heard.
There may be legit reasons to use a silencer(for sivilians), but I
cannot think of any.

Selective fire means you can select the rate of fire. It can either fire
one round per pull of the trigger, a burst of a set number of rounds per
pull or continue firing until the ammo supply is exhausted.

Then a selective fire is what I was thinking of when writing assault
weapon.

My point is that other than looks there is no difference between what you
think of as an assault weapon and a semi-automatic hunting rifle. Let me

ask you this, what's the difference between a military long range sniper
rifle and a deer rifle?

None, but I would guess you need permission and registrating for both.
A deer hunting rifle can be very dangerous at long distances. I think
it makes sense that they are only sold to people who are registered
hunters and have good knowledge about the weapon.
(I think most private weapons in Norway are of this type.)

My point is: There is NO, NONE, NOT ONE BIT of difference in how semi-auto
rifles work!!! They all take some of the energy created by the round being
fired and use that energy to eject the spent round, cock the hammer and load
a fresh round.

Yes, so you can shoot many times without reloading it. Meaning that
you can do a lot of dammage in a short time.

Why?

Easier to conceal and used indoors. Would think that theese are more
popular among criminals than amongst hunters.

So my 22LR rifle is an assault weapon? It will hold 20 rounds and has a 20"
barrel.

I am quite sure that it could be used as one, therefore I would think
that anyone owning one should be registered and have a permit.
If I understand you correctly, this is needed in all/most states.

 

[Vaughn Simon]

I'm not filthy stinking rich, but I do OK.

For the record, same here.

We have always been of the radical opinion that we should spend something
less than what we make. Do that consistantly for a few decades and you finally
become "not broke", but not necessarily rich.

Vaughn

 

[no spam]

Why can't we just have a Federal Sales Tax????? Then =everybody= pays

something. As much as I enjoy it, getting $5331 back that I never paid is
INSANE!!!!!

Because it gives WAY too much control the federal government.

 

[no spam]

My ideal system is a flat rate with a pretty large deduction that is

If you drop out of school, you probarbly get a lower wage, and thus
get a lower income, no matter if a flat tax system has a standard
deduction or not.
If you get pregnant at young age, that is probarbly not a good idea,
and you will probarbly get less education and possibilities.
If you work a lot, and thus make more money, you will still get more
money in your pocket than your workmate that does fewer hours.


You are probarbly correct. But I am not speaking of giving more to
anyone, but to say that people should get a part of their income
tax-free. (Or all if they make litle enough.)

IOW, you think that people who make more should pay more. Its the equal
animals again.

The ones who have worked hard to make something of their lives are being
forced to pay for the stupid things the slugs of life had done to
themselves. Sounds nice and fair to me, how about you?

Sure, and many of the realy successfull people are successfull because
they have a drive due to the powerty of their childhood.
But I am quite sure that the chances of a poor child becoming an
addict, dropout or criminal are higher than that of a child that comes
from a family where they manage ok. (not rich, but with "food on the
table")

The chances is are that someone told all their lives that they are under
privileged and can't make it with out someone 'helping' them, those people
will never make anything of their lives.

If you give them money for being slugs then what reason do they have for
stop being slugs? As I have pointed out before I have had people tell me to
my face that they could sit at home watching TV then they could working for
me. Just who do think is paying for this? I'll give you a hint it ain't
the people getting the government checks.

I agree as long as the pay for the floor sweeper is enough to make
ends meet.

Let me guess you are also for a "living wage", right. What is a fair/living
wage?

I must agree that I dont, since I live on the other side of the
pond. But it is nice to know more about it nevertheless.

The internet is great for finding out what's going on around the world.
Just check them out. Scary to me to hear them telling all these people
what the government will do for everyone if only the people vote for them.

I agree that that sounds quite unreasonable. But then again, what does
it cost to get health insurance for a family of four?

Two things. One, just about all the problems with the health care system in
the US is linked to the legal system in the US. Two, I posted here a while
ago as of mid August I had paid just over $1,000 to cover my entire family.
It happens to be a family of four but it wouldn't matter if it were a family
of 18 because it is a family plan.

I do think that giving poor people tax braks is a good idea, but agree
that the definiton of poor has to be real.

In the US its a joke. Its based purely on your income. IOW, if I owned a
million dollar home and 6 cars free and clear but only make $10,000/year on
my job I would still be "living under the poverty line". BTW, that "line"
is drawned by the government and I'm not sure just how its set. Seeing how
someone living in rural TN would be living high on the hog with the same
amount of money that someone in NYC would be almost starving on.

That may only say that there are a few people that are realy rich.
I would be more interested in what rate they have to pay out of their
income.

What difference does that matter? Should they also have to pay more for a
loaf of bread because they make more money?

No, my logic is that the goverment should try to give equal services.
I also think that it is ok to contribute with more dollars if you make
more dollars. But still, not unreasonable mutch.

As I said you think all people are equal but some people are more equal than
others. You want the guy who put in 60-80 hrs per week for 10 years to
build up his business to pay more then the slug who bummed around going from
job to job.

BTW, you need to replace that "contribute" with "be forced" when it comes
the government taking your money.

I also think that if you are poor, you should be able to keep the
little youwe got.

By taking something from someone who has worked for it.

I do agree on you on this. In my opinion, a 33% is a magic "border".
Nobody should need to pay more than 33% of their income in tax.

And where does this number come from? The last time I checked the numbers
no one in the US "needed" to pay more than 18% of their income. IOW, if
everyone paid a flat 18% off the top of their earnings the same amount of
money would be going into the government.

Still, that buisnessman would probarbly be better of, at least he
would make more from his last dollar with a flat tax where you have a
tax-free amount.

He is still subsidizing the ones on the bottom of the ladder.

Not sure what kind of tax-relief you think that I am talking about.

I think you are talking about a plan which punishes those who work.

 

[no spam]

To me that sounds like living in constant fear, assuming that danger

Should have been something like "you are ready for situations that are
quite unlikely to happend."
But then I thought more of a burglary/loonatic killer on the loose
scenario.

I don't live in fear of any man because all they can do is kill this body.
But just as I wear my seatbelt when I drive, have fire extinguishers and
smoke alarms; I do keep firearms for protection. More for four legged
animals but for the two legged kind as well.

Speaking of smoke alarms, do you have any in your house? If so do you live
in fear of dying n a fire?

Wild animals killing hens are a more likely scenario, but then again
not likely to be a situation where the possible danger of a loaded and
accessible gun would outweigh the utility of the gun.

I think you have let the media brain wash you. There are many, many things
in my home that stand a bigger chance of injuring or killing one of my kids
than my weapons. They stand a MUCH larger chance of being hurt or killed
driving down the road than they do from a firearm.

I do not think that kids realy know the implicatins some actions may
have until they have passed puberty.

Do you have any kids? You take you average 6 or 7 year old out and show
them what a firearm can do to a pumpkin and they know how dangerous they can
be. Let them see what happens to a possum when a hunk of lead and copper
hits him doing 800-1000 feet per second and it makes a very large
impression.

Not due to bad education, but because their barins are not fully
developed yet.
If you educate your kids, they will surely be at less risk. Probarbly
a 10/1or more compared to an uneducated kid. But still significantly
higher than for an educated adult.

Sure but you can't wrap them in bubble wrap.

Not sure weather you are right or wrong.
I did try to find statistics, but did not find them. Probarbly because
I did not search enough or used incorrect searchwords.
So I do not have any hard numbers.

I don't now if you can find any of his books but see if you can find some of
the books by John Lott. He has done a lot of research into some of the
stats used by the antigun people. One good one is "More Guns, Less Crime",
another is is "The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You've Hear
About Gun Control is Wrong."

Luckily enough, I have not.
I do not know how dogs act when they attac, but I am having a hard
time figuring that they would attac a large animal like a horse within
a few seconds after arriving at the scene, and without a few minutes
of barking or locomotions.

I see, you don't understand what happened. I don't know how long they were
around before they went after the horses. I just know I heard a lot of
barking and because of my dogs were in the house with me I knew something
was wrong. I saw what the problem was, picked up my nasty, black plastic,
rifle, stepped out onto the porch and put an quick end to the problem. From
hearing the barking to end of problem was well under a minute. I was lucky.
There are many things that can happen when a dog goes after a horse. Even
if the dog never bites the horse it may panic and do something really,
really stupid. Such as forget that there's a four strand barbed wire fence
there and try to run through it. Or jump the fence and take off. Or run
from the dogs until it drops dead. Yeah, horses are THAT stupid. Now a
mule is a different story.

I would offcource run out, grabbing a chair/stick/whatewer on my way
out. She would probarbly make her way towards the house at the same
time. Dont know what the outcome of such an incident would be. But my
guess would be a trip to the emergency room.

At the very least. Probably for the both of you.

I have never owned a gun or lived in an area where there is any real
danger of meeting loose and agressive dogs. If I lived in an area

I live in a very rural area where a lot of people let their dogs run lose.
Sad but true.

where I thought that it was a real danger, and I owned a gun, I would
probarbly keep it accessible. But still, I can not imagine that I
could store it loaded.

Having an unloaded gun for protection is like having seatbelts in your car
but not using them unless the roads are slick.

Sure, but it is also capable of doing a lot of dammage. Hence I think
that to own a gun, you need to have some sort of formal education.
It also needs to be securely stored, just like a chainsaw.

At that point it becomes more of a political discussion which I don't think
we want to get into because neither of us will ever change our minds on.

I keep my flamables in a small "cabinet" that is built into a concrete
wall. The doors are of wood though.

Then you do more than most people.

Without having any statistics, my guess is that lighters are used far
more often than guns.

And I'd be willing to say have killed more kids than guns as well.

There have started to come quite a few lighters with child control
mecanisms. I think they are supposed to become the only option for
single use lighters within EU.

Any child that can use a firearm can use a child proof lighter.

As I said, unneeded dangers. I do drive, but with caution. I may exeed
the speed limit(they are realy low here), but will not "stand on my
rights" if I have right of way and someone just drives out in front of
me. Neither will I change lanes without checking the blind zone.
I try to always keep a buffer both in front of me and behind. If I get
a tailgater, I will simply show my braklights a couple of times, if
that is not enough, I will try to get the other car to pass me etc.

My point is you and any children with you are much more danger from being in
your car than mine are in my house if I had 100 weapons and all of them
stored loaded.

I am quite sure that I wil see more pople and cars on the road than
you do around your house.

Around the house maybe but not on some of the roads we travle. To get just
about anywhere from here I have to spend 30 minutes on a 6 lane interstate
that seems to have every car in the nation on it when I want to go to the
store.

The box was for mice and rats.
If you think that dead poisoned mice/rats could be a problem, you
could do the same with traps.

Traps work ok for mice and some for rats (have had a few injured cats due to
rat traps) but anything big enough to handle a possum is big enough to kill
a cat and do a job an a dog. I have used traps for them but I don't like
doing it.

Probarbly smart.
But I imagined that any dog that was not trained to refrain from
attacking anything, would go after an opposum if allowed. Not sure if

You will note I said train them and TRY to prevent it. They will attack
things with and with out me there. But unlike most people around here I
keep my dogs penned or on runs when they are not with me.

an average dog would kill it though, but at least bark and make it do
its play dead thing.

Folk lore. I've never seen a possum play possum. I've seen many of them
run off, they're quicker then you'd think by looking at them, and seen about
as many turn around an stand their ground with a mouth full of teeth!

Do the opossums attack dogs? Tought they were just a neuicance.

Think of rat about the size of a very large cat (or small dog) with a long
mouth full of pointed teeth. Some will run, some will stand their ground
but all of them will fight when cornered.

I would considder that a too dangerous weapon to let people buy easily
if it reloads itself, as you can still shoot many rounds in a short
time. In that cas I think that you should need a permit.
Same goes if you it is easy to reload it quickly, like those
winchesters from cowboy movies.

Again getting into the political area. Its a different mentality on this
side of the pond. To us, used to be anyway, the government is there to do
only the things that the people couldn't do for themselves. Keep the mail
moving, roads up and running, protecting the national boarders and the like.
The individual should be willing and able to do the rest; things such as
providing for you and your family, protecting ones own life and property and
the like.

If any citizen is allowed to ovn I firearm without any permit and/or
registration. I belive it should be a gun that is not capable of
firing many rounds in a short time. Meaning that it has to be reloaded
for every one or two shots.

Now who is livining in fear? If a nut case wanted to kill a lot of people
he'd do a better job with a bunch of Molotov cocktails than he would with a
semi or full auto firearm. Think about a class room full of kids, which is
going to do the most damage in the shortest amout of time?

Probarbly so that is shall not be to easy to do a shot without beeing
heard.

Anyone with a bit of education can make a one that will last a couple of
shots out of common plastic plumbing parts.

There may be legit reasons to use a silencer(for sivilians), but I
cannot think of any.

The main reason is to be more polite and reduce the amout of damage shooters
do to their ears. What if it were illegal to put mufflers on cars where you
live?

Then a selective fire is what I was thinking of when writing assault
weapon.

Which as I have pointed out are very restricted here. AFAIK, there has only
been one killing in the US with a legal full automatic weapon and the
shooter was a police officer.

None, but I would guess you need permission and registrating for both.

Not here. Just an adult and not a known criminal and have the money.

A deer hunting rifle can be very dangerous at long distances. I think
it makes sense that they are only sold to people who are registered
hunters and have good knowledge about the weapon.
(I think most private weapons in Norway are of this type.)

What about people who don't hunt but do long range target shooting? There
are some people here who shoot at targets at 1000 yards.

Yes, so you can shoot many times without reloading it. Meaning that
you can do a lot of dammage in a short time.

So are you afraid of the weapon or the person who MIGHT buy it? As I said
you are the one who seems to be living in fear. You are afraid that you
neighbor might go crazy in the middle of the night and want to kill people
therefore he should not have anything around that just might let him do
that. Also as I said I don't fear any man due to my religious beliefes but
I don't live in fear that the guy down the way is going to turn into a mad
killer just because he buys a firearm.

Easier to conceal and used indoors. Would think that theese are more
popular among criminals than amongst hunters.

In the US you need a Class III permit, the same one you need to own a
machine gun, to own a rifle with a barrel less than 18". In the old days
the longer the barrel the better but with modern powders you can get about
the same proformance from shorter barrels. Its much easier to hunt with a
rifle with a 20 or 22 inch barrel than it is one with a 24, 26 or 28 inch
barrel.

 

[Trygve Lillefosse]

Why can't we just have a Federal Sales Tax????? Then =everybody= pays
something. As much as I enjoy it, getting $5331 back that I never paid is
INSANE!!!!!

If you want a completely flat taxrate, that would probarbly be an easy
way to collect it.

To get a tax refound on tax you have not payd, surely is crazy.

 

[no spam]

People shouldn't wear seatbelts, either. They could be thrown clea of
the crash, at least.

People should not be FORCED by the state to wear seatbelts. If you want to
do something stupid that puts your life in danger that should be your
choice.

 

[Trygve Lillefosse]

I think you have let the media brain wash you. There are many, many things
in my home that stand a bigger chance of injuring or killing one of my kids
than my weapons. They stand a MUCH larger chance of being hurt or killed
driving down the road than they do from a firearm.

Still, there are a lot of killing with firearms in the USA. I cannot
think of any other reason than that anyone can buy one without any
training.
The rate of guns in private homes in Norway are about the same as in
the US. But only 1/5 (As in per 100.000 citizens) get killed by them.

Any normal and sane person can get a gun in norway, but not any gun
and you need to have training before you get a permit.

Sure but you can't wrap them in bubble wrap.

No, and no bike helmet. But I neither would I leave the keys in the
ingnition of my car.

I don't now if you can find any of his books but see if you can find some of
the books by John Lott. He has done a lot of research into some of the
stats used by the antigun people. One good one is "More Guns, Less Crime",

If more guns equals less crime, why is there so many criminals in the
US?
Murders committed with handguns annually:

United States 8,915
Switzerland 53
Sweden 19
Canada 8
United Kingdom 7

Murder rate (per 100,000 people):

United States 8.40
Canada 5.45
Denmark 5.17
Germany 4.20
Norway 1.99
United Kingdom 1.97
Sweden 1.73
Japan 1.20
Finland 0.70

Murder rate for males age 15-24 (per 100,000 people):

United States 24.4
Canada 2.6
Sweden 2.3
Norway 2.3
Finland 2.3
Denmark 2.2
United Kingdom 2.0
Netherlands 1.2
Germany 0.9
Japan 0.5

Rape (per 100,000 people):

United States 37.20
Sweden 15.70
Denmark 11.23
Germany 8.60
Norway 7.87
United Kingdom 7.26
Finland 7.20
Japan 1.40

Armed robbery (per 100,000 people)

United States 221
Canada 94
United Kingdom 63
Sweden 49
Germany 47
Denmark 44
Finland 38
Norway 22
Japan 1

At the very least. Probably for the both of you.

At the wery best, the dogs would flee.
Second best, a lot of locomotion
third best, a bite where one would probarby go to the emergenzy room
just to be sure.
etc.

I live in a very rural area where a lot of people let their dogs run lose.
Sad but true.


Having an unloaded gun for protection is like having seatbelts in your car
but not using them unless the roads are slick.

I look at it moore as having a button for your airbags.

At that point it becomes more of a political discussion which I don't think
we want to get into because neither of us will ever change our minds on.


And I'd be willing to say have killed more kids than guns as well.

Yes, without knowing the number, i would not argue against it, as it
sounds reasonable.
But lighters are used way more frequent than firearms, so the accident
rate (per use) may be far higher for guns.

Any child that can use a firearm can use a child proof lighter.

Maybee, but it makes it a litle harder, thus reducing the risk.

My point is you and any children with you are much more danger from being in
your car than mine are in my house if I had 100 weapons and all of them
stored loaded.

Many of the dangers I face in the car, are dangers that I cannot
controll. I just have to try to avoid them.

Traps work ok for mice and some for rats (have had a few injured cats due to

You could try making a box with small openings for rats, and place the
trap in the center.

rat traps) but anything big enough to handle a possum is big enough to kill
a cat and do a job an a dog. I have used traps for them but I don't like
doing it.

Sound like a good decission. I would neither use traps that pets could
have access to.

Folk lore. I've never seen a possum play possum. I've seen many of them
run off, they're quicker then you'd think by looking at them, and seen about
as many turn around an stand their ground with a mouth full of teeth!

OK. I have no exp with them, have heard of the play dead thing. But
that may be only a few individuals or in special conditions then.

Again getting into the political area. Its a different mentality on this
side of the pond. To us, used to be anyway, the government is there to do
only the things that the people couldn't do for themselves. Keep the mail
moving, roads up and running, protecting the national boarders and the like.
The individual should be willing and able to do the rest; things such as
providing for you and your family, protecting ones own life and property and
the like.

I like to see it as that we try to create equal opertunities and
safety for all citizens.
But then again, that depens on the eyes of the beholder.

Now who is livining in fear? If a nut case wanted to kill a lot of people
he'd do a better job with a bunch of Molotov cocktails than he would with a
semi or full auto firearm. Think about a class room full of kids, which is
going to do the most damage in the shortest amout of time?

Sure, but it seems like firearms are the method of choice for locos.

I do not see it as living in fear when I want only educated/trained
people to own a potentialy dangerous weapon.
I see it more like requiring a drivers lisence

Anyone with a bit of education can make a one that will last a couple of
shots out of common plastic plumbing parts.

Sure, and you could probarbly make a decent gun from scrap metal. But
you need to be quite more determent to make one.
If you had a silencer lying at home, you would be more likely to use
it if you had bad intentions.
Many or maybee most killings are done without prior planning.
Guess the goverment thinks that the downsides cancel out the upside.

What about people who don't hunt but do long range target shooting? There
are some people here who shoot at targets at 1000 yards.

Any adult can also own one, if they have proper training and permit.

So are you afraid of the weapon or the person who MIGHT buy it? As I said
you are the one who seems to be living in fear. You are afraid that you
neighbor might go crazy in the middle of the night and want to kill people
therefore he should not have anything around that just might let him do
that. Also as I said I don't fear any man due to my religious beliefes but
I don't live in fear that the guy down the way is going to turn into a mad
killer just because he buys a firearm.

I do not think that anyone owning a firearm is a potential risk, but
that the potential risks should be kept away from them.

As I see it -
What this all boils down to is that I think that one should be
required to have training, be required to store and transport the guns
in a described manner and not be seen as a danger to get a weapon
permit for any firearm.

You mean that any adult can judge by themself weather they can handle
a gun, and store it as they see fit.
With the expetion of known to be a possible danger like
criminals(offcource).
You think that any adult should be able to buy a gun without an
further ado.
You possibly want some guns to be restricted.

I guess that we will never agree on this. So we probarbly should just
agree to disagree.