The Rabbi

Obama can support 40 acres and a mule. But a ban on carry would constitute an unwanted and unwarranted intrusion on states' rights. The Feds could get away with it with a concerted effort but I think the backlash would be enormous.

I agree 100% with Len. Guns are an issue mainly to gun owners. The mainstream Democratic party sees gun control as a loser of an issue (rightly). They also have other things on their plate that will provide more patronage and voters than banning guns. I also think we will see a rush on buying ARs etc.

The 19 has adjustable sights. I see my attempt to sell you one fell on deaf ears. I have to say I am not surprised to see the Glock 19 mentioned often. If I was allowed to sell only one automatic, that would probably be it. It seems to work best for more people than anything else.

Smith Model 19 or 66 2 1/2 round butt .357mag. Anything else is pure affectation.

All autos need to be either 9mm or .45acp. Everything else is a compromise.

But it amounts to the same thing, especially where there is collusion between buyer and seller.

Actually a conservative IS a liberal. What used to be called "liberal" (like in the 18th century) today is a conservative. Today's liberals used to be called National Socialists...but that isn't polite to point out.

You've never bought anything from Chasidic-owned camera stores in NYC, obviously.

And when the U.S. gives aid it gets more than friendship. Friendship isn't really an adequate description of international relations, despite political proclamations to the contrary.

While the basic idea of fair tax makes sense to me I have some reservations about it. There is plenty of tax cheating now. If you raise rates to 22-30% or whatever, cheating will increase exponentially, necessitating JBTs from the IRS. But I dont have my mind made up on it yet.

If you spend $1000 in my shop is that welfare? After all you are giving me money. If you want to call a purchase welfare, then go ahead. But that makes the conversation likely to be short.

This has been tried twice in my lifetime. Both times the results were negligible. At least the economic results. The political results were probably what counted. A better approach would be to change the tax code to encourage savings and investment--esp corporate investment. The current plan takes either taxpayer dollars and returns them to those taxpayers, less "handling fees", or incurs debt, taking mostly foreign savings and returning them to the American taxpayer. Or non-taxpayer. Incredibly the Dems want to send these rebate checks even to people who havent paid a penny in income tax.

Since a lot of so-called foreign aid is actually credits for use in buying weapons and related items from U.S. manufacturers, anyone who opposes foreign aid is actually opposing gun ownership. See, when you switch definitions you can make anyone say anything you want. So if foreign aid=welfare then logically opposition to foreign aid should equal anti gun. Does that make sense? No, of course not. It's silly. Like most of Libertarianism.

I always have a gun at hand when answering the door. Too many horror stories begin "she answered the door and found two guys there asking to use the phone because their car broke down." I wonder if any of these home invasions were perpetrated by marauding bands of homosexual English lords. If so, I'm now ready for 'em.

McCain (whom I have said previously ought to be ridden out of town on a rail for McCain-Feingold) earned new respect in my eyes by failing to endorse a boondoggle in FL whereby all taxpayers would be on the hook for disaster insurance in that state. He rightly pointed out we already have FEMA and 26 other gov't agencies engaged in disaster relief and underwriting disaster policies there could get expensive real fast. All the other GOP candidates thought it was a great idea, btw.

Funny. I always thought foreign aid was foreign aid. Welfare is what is paid to individuals domestically. Strangely, everyone else (outside of the RonZombies) seems to see it the same way. But this is what comes from being against gun ownership, like Paul is.

Maybe if we promised only to carry "low-powered handguns" into bars they would be OK with that. The whole anti mindset is just pitiful for being misinformed. The bottom line is this: the responsible folks will continue to act responsibly. The irresponsible folks will continue to act irresponsibly. We have laws already in place to cover the latter group and any additional laws simply infringe on the responsible group. Any questions?

Since welfare hasn't been mentioned up until your last post I don't know whether we agree or disagree.

I'm not particularly hyped on more money for Israel. I am hyped against the idea that we should conduct foreign policy like we were 13 colonies on the butt-side of the world instead of the world's lone superpower with economic and political interests all over the globe.

No, but can you guarantee me that it'll never happen? I'd rather be prepared than vulnerable.

Quotations from Pres Reagan. Beirut, funding to oppose the Sandinistas, the invasion of Grenada..the list goes on. Comparing this man to Ron Paul is absurd in the extreme. Reagan never shirked from involving America where its strategic interests were at stake.

I beleive so.

Being in the business has its occupational hazards. Here's one of them. Customer came in to sell a bunch of guns and this was one of the lot of 4 (others include Browning Citori O/U 12ga, Rem 1100, Rem 870). Now, I really have no use for a 20ga O/U shotgun that retails for over $2k. But I thought: Do I really have the right gun to repel a home invasion by marauding homosexual English lords? So it followed me home.

No. Ronald Reagan never expressed the desire to cut off aid to foreign countries. Ronald Reagan never said that the reason the Soviets were after us was because of our actions. I remember Ronald Reagan. I voted for Ronald Reagan (twice). Ron Paul is no Ronald Reagan.

That just doesn't look like fun. Sorry.