Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
dumbrenter
ParticipantI have to hand it to you squat, at least you were stirred enough to start a new thread on the repeal!
Don’t worry about the lunatics with guns, the pro 2nd amendmenters will be around to protect you 🙂
Participant[quote=squat300]Then I suppose the 30000 or so people shot this year including the new town kids are actually heroes whose deaths are worthwhile and in furtherance of the cause of liberty.
Every time someone is shot with a gun we should just think yes, this is the price we pay to be free.
….
Doesn’t feel right to me.
Maybe the NRA could issue the parents of the dead kids posthumous medals for their sacrifice for our freedoms.[/quote]
Funnily enough this hand wringing happens only when there is a new incidence of shooting. There will be no concerted effort to do away with 2nd amendment which according to you is the root of this evil.
Thankfully NRA (and I) know that you will go back to some other issue-of-the-day and have no stomach for sustained action.
You would have achieved something the day you can get one congressman (either house or party) to say they will do away with the 2nd and still get elected.
You and your fleeting attention are the best friend NRA can hope for and if anybody deserves a medal it is you.
Thank you for protecting our liberty and freedom from a potentially oppressive government in future.ParticipantCan we use the HSA across the border?
I guess the answer is a No, but cannot help asking.Participant[quote=davelj][quote=dumbrenter]ok, I’m just about done with the medical system here.
In my case it is not the cost of care, but the paperwork and nickel & dime game between the doctor’s office and the HDHP provider. I wish I could just walk in, get care, pay for it and move on with my life.
Davelj, have you had to use the mexican insurance since you got it? Can we just pay cash for medical services in mexico? Are there any such providers in San Diego? Thanks.[/quote]
I have not had to use my insurance which shouldn’t be surprising as there’s a $6,000 deductible. As inexpensive as things are in Mexico it would take something pretty major to work through the deductible. It’s really just a catastrophic policy.
My primary physician works out of Hospital Angeles (http://www.angeleshealth.com/doctors). I’ve been down there three times in maybe 18 months for minor issues (bursitis in my elbow, removing a lipoma cyst on my back, and a standard check-up). I pay cash each time. Removal of the cyst and the check-up were ~$100 each. The bursitis required some fluid examinations and an x-ray – I think I paid $225 total. The appointments were handled the same day in two instances, the next day for the other. I’ve had nothing but positive experiences.
One thing to consider, however, is the border wait returning to the US. If you’re crossing at the wrong time on the wrong day you can be in line for up to 2 hours, although a normal wait is more like 45 minutes (I walk). I’ve got a Sentri pass, so I get through in 10 minutes even if the standard line is very long. So, if you go down this path I’d recommend getting a Sentri pass (which, unfortunately, takes about 4-5 months to obtain) – just makes everything easier.
Regarding San Diego, I’m sure there are cash providers. I’m also sure that they’re unbelievably expensive – regardless of payment method. Our system is irretrievably f*cked, in my view.
Again, I’ve had nothing but good experiences in Mexico. Best of luck![/quote]
Thank you. I’ll try the hospital reference you provided.
Participant[quote=zk] In any case, the second amendment was, as I understand it, to allow the citizenry to rise up against an oppressive government, if necessary. That might have worked in the 18th century. To think that the citizenry would have to and be able to conduct such an uprising today is a paranoid fantasy.[/quote]
Then there is your solution. Work for repeal of the 2nd amendment “paranoid fantasy” and you get what you want. A society where it is criminal for anybody to own a weapon.
None of the mainstream political parties even suggest the above, but you got to start from somewhere.
As for your position on cultural differences, I hope you realize that it is a very thin argument that can logically be taken to dangerous conclusions: Americans are culturally inferior, hence cannot be trusted with guns while swiss can > to Americans are more violent > to Americans are inferior & violent.
Participantok, I’m just about done with the medical system here.
In my case it is not the cost of care, but the paperwork and nickel & dime game between the doctor’s office and the HDHP provider. I wish I could just walk in, get care, pay for it and move on with my life.
Davelj, have you had to use the mexican insurance since you got it? Can we just pay cash for medical services in mexico? Are there any such providers in San Diego? Thanks.
Participant[quote=ocrenter][quote=dumbrenter]
All the above + compulsory training paid all paid by you for dog training. The Feds should be in touch with both you and the dog, just in case you are abusing the dog.
And in case of 1 dog attack, all the dogs in the county should be put down, the owners fined heavily and forced by state to clean up dog poop on our trails, parks and pathways.
Our kids need to be safe from the dogs and their owners since they are percentage wise worse than gun owners.
And BTW 2nd amendment does not cover right to own dogs.[/quote]You are right, I seen a dog kill 30 people in a couple of minutes, creating up to 10 life ending bites in each of his victims.
But now the National Kennel Club is insisting the solution is MORE dogs. Mandatory mass murdering dogs on every campus so if one of these rapid biting and rapid pooping breeds show up, they can be handled appropriately.
Can’t we just be civil and responsible like the Swiss?[/quote]
Is it ok if a dog kills just 2 folks in under 2 mins? We are down to just talking about scale now, aren’t’ we? We should have a national discussion about the right number of people that can be killed per minute to be called a mass murder.
What if a dog kills somebody on a trail, and the owner never reports the incident, and nobody sees? Is it considered murder?
Can’t the dog owners just be civil and responsible and follow the rules?
Participant[quote=squat300]a psycholgoical background test to own a gun, similar to law enforcement psych tests, would be useful, but only if you ahve to submit to the psych testevery 6 months or so, as conditions change. so the profiling should be 2x annualy, with a computerized safety check statement bi-monthly in which you are in touch with federal counselors by email to sanswers interim questions regarding mental health.
plus a 5,000 a year annual licensing fee.[/quote]
All the above + compulsory training paid all paid by you for dog training. The Feds should be in touch with both you and the dog, just in case you are abusing the dog.
And in case of 1 dog attack, all the dogs in the county should be put down, the owners fined heavily and forced by state to clean up dog poop on our trails, parks and pathways.
Our kids need to be safe from the dogs and their owners since they are percentage wise worse than gun owners.
And BTW 2nd amendment does not cover right to own dogs.Participant[quote=ocrenter][quote=CA renter]No, I favor the “sense of civic and social responsibility” over gun control. If everybody was respectful, law-abiding, considerate, etc., there would be very few homicides, no matter how many guns are in our society. Of course, if everyone was respectful, law-abiding, considerate, etc., (including all people in power) we wouldn’t really need guns.
I think we should do background checks on anybody who wants to buy a gun, and violent felons should obviously not be able to own or possess a gun…but how do we prevent the data from background checks from making it to some kind of “registration list” that can be used to track down law-abiding gun owners?[/quote]
hmmm… how many here are not in favor of “sense of civic and social responsibility”…
I think under the big umbrella of “gun control”, issues such as background checks as well as maybe even psychiatric assessment and mandatory reporting by physicians and psychiatric professionals should all be part of the discussion. squat1000’s point about responsibility and liability on part of the gun owner and I’ll add the gun owner’s estate should be on the table as well.[/quote]
Can we do the same for dog owners? A psych test, a background test and also a compulsory insurance (and liability & estate and all).
Participant[quote=squat300]I have an actual proposal for getting people serious about at least keeping the guns they have safe from others —
if you own a gun….
and you don’t take the required steps to secure it…
which involves say a locked safe that costs about 2 grand…
and that gun is used by any other person, even a thief, to commit a crime…
you share equally in the liability for whatever crime that gun was involved in.
I would consider that a step toward taking responsibility for your gun.[/quote]
We should have something similar for dogs and dog owners before we even consider something like this for guns.
We have serious problem in practically all hiking trails with dog owners who let their dogs run around off leash in spite of warnings not to do so posted all over.
We have had more dog attacks in carmel valley than shootings in the last 2 years.
The dog owners have an alternate reality and a total lack of consideration: Oh he is just a cute fella, referring to their dog bigger than my kid, barking and with all teeth showing.Dogs don’t kill people, it is the dog owners that do.
Every dog owner is a potential Lanza as far as I am concerned. And since it takes 90 secs for cops to help out, I need guns to protect myself.BTW if everybody obeyed laws, we would not have had a dog problem in San Diego. And we would not have had a gun violence problem either.
Participant[quote=no_such_reality]No, you misunderstood what I said SK.
[quote]
What these dividends tell me is that these companies that are declaring special dividends (Costco for sure, Oracle maybe) have been sitting on way too much cash, without anything good to do with it.
[/quote]In a nutshell, that’s what I said. A simple move a January payment to December, that’s nothing.
A special dividend. A pay the first 3 quarters of 2013 in December. That’s ‘we don’t have anything worth while to do with the money’.
Which then begs the question, why have they been sitting on it…[/quote]
I get what you are saying but you are saying two different things:
1. the company RoA estimate is such that they do not think they can beat the increase in tax rates in dividends, hence figure it is better to return shareholder money.
2. They had a low dividend tax for a decade where they never paid out that good, but now that it is about to expire, they suddenly fell in love with returning shareholders some money.Participant[quote=Jazzman] A great time to borrow doth not a great time to buy maketh.[/quote]
I’ll have to frame this and send it as a holiday gift to some of my ‘friends’.
You might want to (TM) it!Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=dumbrenter][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Except for the fact that Lincoln had no such option. He had to preserve the Union at all costs and when it became apparent that the Southern states were bent on secession, war was inevitable.
[/quote]Could you elaborate on why the Union had to be preserved at all costs by Lincoln? Curious as to what you think the reasons are.
If the States did not really have a right to secede, then I guess we are not really a union of States![/quote]DR: Lincoln’s First Inaugural Speech lays out his case that secession was unconstitutional and would lead to anarchy or dictatorship. He cites the constitutional requirement that the”Laws of the Union faithfully be executed in all the States”.
NSR is correct that the Confederacy thus saw the war as state’s rights versus Federalism. The majority of the Confederate rank-and-file were not landed gentry, nor Southern aristocracy, nor were they fighting to preserve slavery, anymore than Lincoln was fighting to abolish it. He favored gradual emancipation using federal monies. However, when the initial group of Southern states seceded, he believed disunion would be the death knell of the United States and moved for a diplomatic solution. The Confederate shelling of Fort Sumter put paid to that.
This is the simplified explanation. Lincoln’s speeches on the Kansas-Nebraska Act and a “House Divided” offer a lot more background.[/quote]
Thanks for both the elaboration and for speech references.
If the confederate rank and file had no land or property (slaves), then why / how were motivated to fight for their state rights? What did state’s right even mean to them?
Wonder what was in it for them. They obviously could not have gone through the constitution and decided to stand up for their state’s rights.
Maybe it was something about preserving their way of life or culture or something like that. And may be many of them were led to believe that the north had no stomach for a fight.Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Except for the fact that Lincoln had no such option. He had to preserve the Union at all costs and when it became apparent that the Southern states were bent on secession, war was inevitable.
[/quote]Could you elaborate on why the Union had to be preserved at all costs by Lincoln? Curious as to what you think the reasons are.
If the States did not really have a right to secede, then I guess we are not really a union of States! -
AuthorPosts