Florida State Seminoles

[eCat]

cheap and widely available heroin is keeping meth from making a comeback in our area

[Owlman]

see. Every drug has some benefit.

[Owlman]

This is a bit of a surprise. Don't think it will last.

Poll finds gun owners, even NRA members, back some restrictions

http://news.yahoo.com/poll-finds-gun-ow ... 30922.html

[Owlman]

Wait, I stand corrected. That poll was actually conducted in May.

[aTm]

Blame the video games!

[AlabamAlum]

I am a member of the NRA and I have guns. I support common sense restrictions,limits and checks.

[10ac]

Ditto.

[eCat]

I do not support limits or restrictions of any kind on law abiding citizens who are mentally stable.

[eCat]

About one in 10 employers plan to drop health coverage when key provisions of the new health care law kick in less than two years from now, according to a survey to be released Tuesday by the consulting company Deloitte.

Nine percent of companies said they expect to stop offering coverage to their workers in the next one to three years, the Wall Street Journal reported. Around 81 percent said they would continue providing benefits and 10 percent said they weren't sure.

The companies, though, said a lot will depend on how future provisions of the law unfold, since most of the key parts are scheduled to take effect in 2014. One in three respondents said they could stop offering coverage if the law requires them to provide more generous benefits than they do now, if a tax on high-cost plans takes effect in 2018 as scheduled or if they decide it would be cheaper for them to pay the penalty for not providing insurance.

[AlabamAlum]

No limits or restrictions of any kind? Unfettered access to any kind of weapon?

[Jungle Rat]

I support restrictions. I still don't see the point in someone owning a weapon that can fire off 100 rounds in a short time. What is the purpose of owning one?

[eCat]

No limits or restrictions of any kind? Unfettered access to any kind of weapon?

again, by a law abiding citizen? absolutely

what is the purpose of owning a car that can go 180mph? Everclear alcohol? 100 disc CD players?

[AlabamAlum]

Hmmmm. I appreciate your libertarianism, eCat. Personally, I do not want the general population with SAMs or BunkerBusters or uranium-depleted ammo, etc, etc.

I'm okay with fully auto stuff, but a federal license is probably a common sense requirement in my book.

[eCat]

Hmmmm. I appreciate your libertarianism, eCat. Personally, I do not want the general population with SAMs or BunkerBusters or uranium-depleted ammo, etc, etc.

I'm okay with fully auto stuff, but a federal license is probably a common sense requirement in my book.

I can understand that but until there is an affordable surface to air missile at your local gun shop, then this line of thinking is hyperbole. Supply and demand, as well as the common sense of the average law abiding citizen make these coffee talk discussions only. Secondly I think its reasonable to believe that there is no justification for an individual to own a single purpose weapon designed to take down an airplane - unless that is - our government started using airplanes to take out citizens (stayed tuned for armed drones flying over American soil). I can support an argument where a SAM doesn't fall within the guidelines of self defense or a well armed state militia - and that has nothing to do with restrictions or bans, and everything to do with the definition of the second amendment and the context of how they are used.

Do I have the right to buy a tank? a howitzer? a gatlin gun? yes? do I have a right to own a tank in a suburban neighborhood where my rights of ownership (noise, weight restrictions, safety) impede on the rights of others? no.

if someone owns a 300 acre farm and wants to buy a tank, I say more power to them. As a free country, it is incumbent upon me to have not only the trust to believe that a law abiding citizen will use not use it illegally or against society, but extend the right to that person to own it without obstacles out of fear of what they *might* do with it.

The core issue of restrictions is the slippery slope argument so well used by the NRA. I'm actually not a fan of the NRA for several reasons but I don't want a politician , especially the kind of politicians we have today, ever in a position to determine what is reasonable for me in my decisions to protect myself or, perhaps, more importantly, arm myself (along with millions of others) as a deterrent for abuse of power by said politicians.

An extreme example, but I think there can be a compelling argument that if the BATF knew the Branch Davidians were armed to the teeth with superior firepower, they might have chose to actually knock on their door as opposed to kick it down. I firmly believe we need that balance of power in a democracy where our public servants are armed with lethal weapons.

[AlabamAlum]

We will have to disagree on this. Regardless of cost, a SAM, should be outside the ownership of a citizen. I can imagine militias and others using it, and I don't think it would just be Donald Trump rich who could have these. Kits and Chinese versions would be available.

[eCat]

This is a bit of a surprise. Don't think it will last.

Poll finds gun owners, even NRA members, back some restrictions

http://news.yahoo.com/poll-finds-gun-ow ... 30922.html

I read that poll and didn't see where it focused on the amount or type of weapon as restrictions and focused on , what I've been saying , law abiding citizens (only) owning weapons.

background checks, terrorist watch list, etc - are all pretty accepted norms.

Where people have heartburn regarding these checks is what is done with the information after it has been supplied. Does the government need to know I purchased a 40 round clip for a mini-14? absolutely not.

[eCat]

We will have to disagree on this. Regardless of cost, a SAM, should be outside the ownership of a citizen. I can imagine militias and others using it, and I don't think it would just be Donald Trump rich who could have these. Kits and Chinese versions would be available.

if there was demand for it by the general public, they'd be available now. I promise you that once we have armed drones on American soil, there will be surface to air missile kits (or some kind of weaponry to take down a drone). First it will be black market underground stuff but as it is brought to the forefront, probably after the first drone kills an innocent civilian, they'll be out there.

and rightfully so I might add.

We should never have advanced weaponry used against our own citizens that they cannot defend against.

[AlabamAlum]

I would think that SAMs are illegal now and not covered by the federal license.

[eCat]

I would think that SAMs are illegal now and not covered by the federal license.

I'm sure they are but there is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law, again, an extreme example- and perhaps not entirely realistic but maybe selling a tracking system separately from a rocket that just happens to have a plug for the tracking system. Individually neither is a weapon capable of taking down a drone but together.......

We saw that with the assault weapon ban - gun kits that had everything but the receiver and then people selling the receiver as a block.

[Jungle Rat]

We are all law abiding citizens. Until we aren't.