[ucodegen]

The ‘rustic’ look is presently a fad, however if you like the look – then it is ok for you. Don’t make the decision on whether other people like it.

NOTE: On rustic furniture, there is significantly less work required in finishing – it allows the manufacturers to put less labor in it, however most ‘rustic’ furniture uses solid wood planks vs particle board or plywood. Solid planks cost more, but not enough to offset the savings in labor.

NOTE: I cued in on some of the words used.. ‘imported plank’.. yeah right. Like I can get Cocobolo, Ironwood, Rosewood, Teak etc. from trees in the United States. I think they are being misleading on the source of the wood. It looks like pine (with a ‘distressed’ finish). The grain is wide spaced, largely straight longitudinal with knots (on the top planks). One of the boards running across underneath the top planks looks like a different type of wood. The grain is significantly finer. With the grain spacing, I don’t think it is ‘old growth pine’ either (Old growth pine is harder than current pine and has a tighter grain structure. It can be obtained when old buildings are torn down, however you have to fight/outbid the people who are making flooring from these recycled boards)

From a straight $ perspective, I think they are overcharging for it ($950 is just the table – does not include chairs)

[ucodegen]

[quote=svelte]
Out of this I’m interested in:
[quote=ucodegen]
‘Heavy’ weapons would change ‘people at large’ to a small group or single individual.[/quote]

I don’t believe “heavy weapons” was mentioned in the Federalist Papers. And where did you get the “people at large” versus “small group or single individual”?

Again, not in the Federalist Papers.
[/quote]
Actually the use of ‘people at large’ is used in the Federalist Papers – I took a quote from Hamilton who contributed.

When the Federalist Papers were written, they did not distinguish between heavy weapons and light. They felt that any citizen should be able to own a cannon. They did not conceive of hand weapons being able to fire at rates of several hundreds of rounds per minute.
[quote=svelte]
If your argument is that a grenade should be illegal because it can allow a single individual to take out a large number of people (which appears to be what you’re saying), then you obviously think automatic guns should be illegal too.[/quote]
I assume by automatic, you mean ‘machine’ or fully automatic. I feel that these should be highly regulated – at a federal firearms license level. Defense contractors use the federal firearms license to be able to build equipment for them or build the weapons themselves.

Oddly – Tommy Guns are grandfathered..

[ucodegen]

[quote=harvey]
The fantasies about citizens using their guns to fix the government are just going to incite pointless violence. Encouraging the idea will accomplish nothing constructive. It’s utterly pathetic that Trump goes anywhere near that territory.[/quote]
The statement is laughable when you consider that most of the recent political ‘violence’ has been caused by Anti-Trump protesters – not Pro-Trump people. It even got to the point that the media was making comments about it.

And again – you are creating a straw-man argument.

[ucodegen]

You can also get an electric assisted bike, or mod a bike to be electric assisted. A person near where I live runs a bike with two electric wheel hubs (front and back). The thing is virtually a motorcycle. He has no problems with the hills.
https://www.google.com/search?q=electric+bicycle+hub&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Or you can run a electric motorcycle. – though the only problem I have seen there is that most of the electric motorcycles cost the same as a small car.
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1101556_2016-electric-motorcycle-buyers-guide

though self powered bikes can help with strengthening for squats….

[ucodegen]

[quote=harvey]
The 2nd Amendment was intended to give the local militias – which existed at the time – the power to resist the federal government. Militias were military units, “well regulated” as in having a chain of command, etc.
[/quote]Nope.. and the Supreme Court disagrees with you. That is also why the wording is regulate not outfit, supplied or prepaired – all words available to the Founding Fathers. This is also why the Supreme Court found it to be an individual right – and did not require being in a militia to exercise.
[quote=harvey]
The 2nd Amendment makes perfect sense when one considers the words that were actually written, words like “militia” and “well regulated” – words that today’s gun “enthusiasts” have removed in their own minds through the most convoluted of arguments (The arguments always start with “read the Federalist Papers”, lol …)
[/quote]
I have not ignored those words, I have actually researched the terms and made sure I was clear on meaning — and I would suggest reading them. Hamilton refers to “Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped”. Hamilton was actually dead set against a standing army and wanted something more like the Swiss model. He also reasoned why it needed to be “the People at Large”. While it may no longer be feasible to use a Swiss style model for the United State (which is an argument in itself) his reasoning as to why “the people at large” were to be armed still stands. We can trust those that live with and among us as brothers, neighbors, co-workers more than we can trust those that have no direct contact (Hamilton is wordier on this)
[quote=harvey]
Trump’s comments were clearly meant to imply that some arbitrarily defined group – “the 2nd amendment people” – can change the outcome of a lawful, constitutionally-defined process, because they have weapons. Not “the majority” that just voted for the other candidate, but the minority of Americans who always look to guns as the answer.[/quote]You went off the rails at the ‘because’ on the first sentence. They can change the outcome if they decide to vote solely by the 2nd Amendment wedge issue.

[quote=harvey]
Trump made the suggestion that those who have the tools and willingness to use violence can overrule the peaceful mechanisms of our government.
[/quote] Now you are really off the rails here, and not supported by any facts at hand. He never said go and get your guns 2nd amendment people. Remember – this is an election.

[quote=harvey]
Scardey isn’t twisting your words. You are twisting them pretty well yourself.[/quote]
Sorry but that is not supported by facts at hand.

NOTE: You might want to quote the section you are addressing than a ‘reply all’ style of quote. The latter really gums up the reading of postings. I take the time to address each point and to cut out parts I am not addressing so that there is not a huge nested series of quotes. In fact, both scardey and you are not directly countering points and are instead ‘yelling into the air’ “you’re wrong, you’re wrong…” – not very constructive or creative.

[ucodegen]

[quote=scaredyclassic]so say 51 percent, a majority of americans vote trump, but he loses due to electoral college fluke,

and they feel subjectively they are currently truly seriously oppressed and they feel their rights are really trampled on, for various reasons…but all very sincerely.[/quote]
Not much different than Al Gore, from what I remember. Yes, it may be time to abolish the electoral college..
[quote=scaredyclassic]
the 2nd am., as illuminated by the federalist papers, was intended to ensure that majorities are always armed and ready when they feel oppressed to revolt and the 2nd,am. says to you that they are justified to take their guns and start shooting politicians when they believe sincerely they are being oppressed?[/quote]Good try, but no it does not say the above. Making the wording of the statement such that they did – then attacking that false premise, is an invalid argument. It is known as a straw-man argument.

[quote=scaredyclassic]
its difficult to really see that in the text without guidance of the federalist papers:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
[/quote]
See what – remember that you started with a false premise, which is also a premise that I did not even take. What I have pointed out on this statement is that the word regulate means to control – always has. It has never been equivalent to outfit or supply.

[quote=scaredyclassic]
they certainly couldve thrown in a word like revolt or dethrone or something into such a convoluted sentence if theyd really really intended majorities to kill when they believe themselves oppressed.
[/quote]
You forgot my Thomas Jefferson quote on a little revolution. What I was pointing out above – and seemed to go right by you, was the mere fact that the public can arm themselves, is in itself a deterrent to abuse or tyranny.

[quote=scaredyclassic]
a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, and to overthrow such State when it becomef Intolerably Oppreffive, the right of the people individually and collectively, to keep and bear Arms, but not all arms, obviously, like crazy big arms, shall not be infringed, reasonable restrictions may apply, see state and federal authorities for details.[/quote]
Now imagine the rest of the constitution written as you proposed.. for example enumerating every race of people on earth instead of saying ‘all’. If you read those papers, you would understand that some of what you implied, goes without stating. That is why the terms ‘unalienable rights’ and ‘not infringed’ are there.

BTW, what is with the ‘s'(s)?? almost looks like using the old style use of ‘s'(ƒ), which looks like an ‘f’.

[ucodegen]

[quote=FlyerInHi]I think gun rights defenders believe that people should be able to own missiles and nuclear weapons as long as they can afford them.[/quote]
Red Herring. Though some real extreme outliers may, but most do not.
[quote=scaredyclassic]if the purpose of the 2nd am. really is to prep for revolution wgen necessaey, it makes no sense to limit the type of atms obtainable. grenades, tanks…those would be more useful in keeping the Gov. in line.[/quote]
Not useful, easier. ‘Heavy’ weapons would change ‘people at large’ to a small group or single individual. This was never the intent of the Founding Fathers – again, it is also shown in the Federalist Papers. War, bloodshed should never be easy nor sanitary. Keeping it dirty, keeps it to the last resort.

NOTE during the late 1700s into the 1800s, it was legal for an individual to own a cannon, which was the heaviest weapon at the time.

[ucodegen]

[quote=Rich Toscano]I mean, have you seen his apartment? It looks like Liberace huffed gold paint and threw up all over Tsar Nicholas II’s summer home.
[/quote]
I think it may be gold leaf – too reflective for paint.

I also wonder if some of that is pleasing Melania (maintenance requirements). I don’t know if it is Trumps taste.. or hers. I do know that some other cultures have a much different view on what is ‘stylish’.. I am having to deal with it myself. My S.O. like those heavy gaudy (gilded) picture frames – I’m minimist. She likes big gilded framed mirrors – me, not.

I have also seen it in the house that I grew up in come up for sale. I saw what the people we sold it to did.

[ucodegen]

[quote=La Jolla Renter]Clue number one you are not onto something… Washington Post?

Maybe people are just not checking in because they don’t want their bully lib friends to rip into them on facebook.

Even if it is true. It is just as likely his brand will come back stronger down the road, regardless of the election outcome.[/quote]
It looked like they did not count the Red States… Just the blue and … purple? Though they claim all of US, I have doubts considering that the blue states and ‘all’ of the US have about equal behavior.

[ucodegen]

[quote=desmond]So far so good out here….here is a video of our land out here…Take care
desmond

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcbLZzvyB3Y%5B/quote%5D
Humm… time index 1:25 would cause a lot of problems with the gun-control crowd – and the police here in California with that sidearm… ☺..

Got a question though. I thought about moving to Texas, but I think I would miss the mountains too much. I was hiking them since about 1968.. and still do. Texas seems too flat to me. Do you miss the mountains?

[ucodegen]

What the video doesn’t talk about are Credit Default Swaps – which was what really took down the market. It is a highly leveraged product which really is an insurance product but is regulated like an investment product. If you are on the ‘cover’ side of a CDS, you are obligated for any losses that occur on which loan or loan bundle you are covering. CDS(s) took down Bear Stearns, almost took down Goldman, Lehman etc.

CDOs may be a problem, but CDS(s) are toxic — and they are still not regulated as an insurance product.

“The Big Short” is on Netflix.

[ucodegen]

[quote=FlyerInHi]Scaredy, I really love reading your posts.
Humm… kill the tyrants. I was talking to my brother about this. He loves his guns and wants to protect them. I told him that since be owns guns already, he should support strict gun control because that would make his collection more valuable. It’s like owning a house in a great neighborhood and forbidding any new construction.
[/quote]
except new gun control may mean that possession of certain firearms are illegal and potentially a felony based upon how they look…
[quote=FlyerInHi]
He admits that “standing up to the tyrants” is just a stupid but effective vote getting argument especially when the NRA also supports stronger police and military. The military outguns any citizen and can easily take away the guns if necessary.
[/quote]
Umm.. that just compromised your earlier statement – which is then just a ‘spin lead in’ to this segment. While the military outguns, outgun does not always outdo quantity.
[quote=FlyerInHi]
If anyone should have taken up arms, the slaves, during the civil war, should have revolted and taken over while the men were away, like the peasants revolted in Russia or China and killed all the aristocrats who oppressed them[/quote]
Um.. some of the slaves actually did!
http://www.historynet.com/african-americans-in-the-civil-war

[ucodegen]

[quote=scaredyclassic]

well ok. i dont know the area. the federalist papers arent law. the supreme court never discusses the right to bear arms in terms of killing local tyrants, i dont think….but if thats what the constitution really really means, then i guess thats what it means. it doesnt feel like the political process should work like that, but maybe it should. “should i lose, the vote is rigged, and your vote is not counted …avenge my loss. kill the tyrants. kill them all. blast them with muskets and blunderbusses!! cut off their heads with farm tools!!!”.
[/quote]Taking a quote out of context might work with Trump, but not me. I never said that an individual or small group should take action. The weapons are there should the citizens as a majority need to take collective action.

To think about:
What if the vote is rigged but law enforcement decides to do nothing? – Remember that the Executive branch controls law enforcement.

What is our vote worth? Is it ok for the vote to be rigged so long as it goes in the direction a particular person wants?

At what price does integrity sell for?

What insures that our vote does get counted?
[quote=scaredyclassic]
that just doesnt feel right to me…but maybe i dont really understand the 2nd am. i guess what your saying it means, historically, is that a presidential candidate (or really, any leader of the People, at least those people who are Oppressed)) is merely following the spirit of the constitution if he tells his followers to kill the other side upon losing because theyre tyrannical? is that really what you mean?[/quote]

No, you don’t get it. The Federalists Papers, while not law, go to intent and why certain parts are written the way they are.

The “picking up of arms” is not to be taken lightly, and should ONLY be considered on last resort.

The intent is to prevent Oppression. How do you defend life when the government decides to operate outside of the constitutional and legal processes? To take when it feels like – giving any reason it feels like? To potentially kill or imprison citizens at will?

To make it simple:

Scenario 1:

A picnic table with $10,000 on it – no body around. What do you do? What happens.

Some people will look around to see if anybody is looking and then take the money and run.

Some people will look around to see if anybody is there and if nobody, take it to the police/lost and found.

Some people (very few) will just walk on by.

Scenario 2:

A picnic table with $10,000 on it – a really scrawny person is near it – may be guarding it. There is nobody else around.

Some people if armed or larger than the scrawny person may just walk up and take it – particularly when there is nobody around that could assist the scrawny person.

Some people would go up and ask about it and offer to help watch it or help take it to the police.

Some people (more than a few now) will just walk on by.

Scenario 3:

A picnic table with $10,000 on it – a some really scrawny people are near it – may be guarding it. There is nobody else around.

A few people, particularly if armed, will go and take it by force.

Some people will go up and ask what is going on, maybe offer to help.

Some people (more than a few now) will just walk on by.

Scenario 4:

A picnic table with $10,000 on it – a really scrawny person is near it – may be guarding it. The scrawny person is obviously armed.

Very few people would try to take the money, and probably only if they were armed too.

Some people will ask what’s up and potentially ask if help is needed.

Some people will be scared off just because the scrawny person has a firearm.

Scenario 5:

A picnic table with $10,000 on it – a really scrawny person is near it – may be guarding it. The scrawny person is obviously armed.

Hardly anyone would consider trying to take the money, even if armed and stronger. Too many scrawny people with firearms.

Some people will ask what’s up and potentially ask if help is needed.

Some people will be scared off just because of a lot of scrawny people with firearms.

The money represents our collective rights. The right to walk down the street safely, the right to our freedoms.. the good old life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. The scrawny person is us. The people possibly taking the money are those who want to profit from our loss of rights. I use money in the analogy above because the concept of rights are intangibles but the consequences of the loss of those rights are not intangible. Many people just punt on the idea of defending something intangible, but react when it is something tangible. Money is a lot easier for some people to relate to in terms of identifying human behavior.

Your comments kind of remind me of an argument of sorts that I had a long time ago. The person who I was arguing with was arguing against actions to defend our rights. His attitude was that ‘someone else will take care of that’. He was quite stubborn in his position. I tried everything to explain it. Then I thought of something. The person was quite proud of their faux cowboy hat (not even proper size and composition). I threatened to take that hat, at which the person threatened to beat me up. Kind of funny considering that at the time I weighed in at 190lbs, 6’2″ was known to practice martial arts and he was 140lbs soaking wet and about 5’6″. I asked him if it wasn’t a little stupid to get all worked up and risk getting the crap beat out for a stupid hat, yet not investing anything in defending basic human rights and expecting everyone else to take the sacrifice to defend them.

I don’t feel the comments that you made are serious, and may be reverting to a troll styled reply.

[ucodegen]

[quote=scaredyclassic]
this statement actually alarmed me. i guess it gets to why i hate guns. a chunk of the popu k ation feels they get to shoot people if things arent going their way[/quote]This supposed quote of Trump saying that the second amendment people would take (kill) Hillary is a gross twist done by innuendo. The reality of the whole thing is that the ‘Second Amendment’ people, who are not necessarily all Republican – might vote solely on the risk to the Second Amendment and cause Hillary to loose the race. Remember context boys and girls. We are talking about an election and wedge issues that politicians etc like to throw about. Its all about votes.

NOTE: I don’t know yet if Trump actually said it was a ‘Joke’, if so – he shouldn’t have. He should have turned to the questioner and asked in his “You’re Fired” voice and say ‘and do you regularly take quotes out of context and then twist the meaning?’ – He definitely needs to learn to handle people misquoting in a more ‘creative’ manner.

Quote in question:

“Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment,” Trump said of his presidential rival. “By the way, and if she gets to pick,” he continued, “if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know.”

[ucodegen]

[quote=scaredyclassic]http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/08/trump_s_assassination_joke_is_the_logical_endpoint_for_the_gop.html

interesting…there may be no legal or historical basis at all to argue the 2nd am. was intended to help the People overthrow tyrannical govt.[/quote]
You might need to rethink. The Supreme Court determined that the second amendment is an individual right. I think the article referenced is extremely slanted and poorly researched. Look back at history and Federalist Papers. The founders of this nation were very aware that the only reason why the proto-United States was able to break from England was because firearms were allowed to the ‘commoners’ (to get food and protect from ‘marauding savages’). NOTE: The Magna Carta ensured rights to Barons and other royalty when dealing with the English Monarchy, however it didn’t give rights to the commoners. The Magna Carta exists because Barons etc were allowed to have weapons while commoners weren’t. The king had the right to ‘draw’ upon the baron’s “army” in defense of England.

From this and other examples, the Founders of the United States realized that to ensure the freedom of its citizens, the citizens must be able to arm themselves if needed. Power draws people to it that want to use the power and authority for their own profit and personal reasons, at a detriment to the public. Not everyone seeking power is altruistic, in fact – most aren’t. NOTE: Many claim that individuals with rifles don’t stand a chance against heavier armor – but that is not what Afghanistan has demonstrated, and not what I have found in my line of work (Defense Contractor). An army of 100,000 does not stand much of a chance when among a group 300 million armed citizens. That said, I have personally found that the US military is much less disposed to violate our constitutional rights than the police. (to those who like to take quotes out of context, remember that I have said that there are many very good police whose work is tainted the the actions of a few bad apples and the desire of administration to cover it all over).

This all does not preclude the right for someone to have a ‘handgun’ as a home self defense weapon – (see other notes in quoted referenced link). There is a distinction between handgun and a ‘long rifle’.

Additionally, in the quoted article, the structure in the sentence:

He also compared the militias of early America to a form of taxation, saying that citizens had what Jefferson referred to as a “right and duty” to be armed. That is, they were required to buy weapons in addition to being allowed to possess them. Militia membership was often compulsory, Cornell said.

Is poorly structured because the first sentence includes a 3 word quote from a larger sentence of Jefferson’s used to implicitly support what is Saul Cornell’s actual position. It is a misleading transition. Jefferson did not imply or necessarily support the statements and a more complete quote is really justified. You could almost say that it was a snippet of a quote from Jefferson taken out of context (to be generous). Militias were not compulsory – though there was social pressure to join in some cases. There was also a worry that militias might coordinate and become a cartel operating against the citizens (rule by militia despot). Many try to twist the meaning of regulate to mean ‘outfit’, ‘prepared’. The are not the same. Regulate has always been to control – as Rules and Regulations, Voltage and Current Regulators, Pool Regulations.. etc.

The quote following the one above:

He questions whether the Founding Fathers would have welcomed the idea of people taking up arms against their newly hatched constitutional government instead of using governmental procedure to settle differences, which sometimes is referred to as the “ballots vs. bullets” debate.

is also very misleading – and implying that the Founding Fathers may not have had the consent of the citizens of the nation in formation. This is incorrect. The form that the nation was taking was debated and hashed out over time. They also realized that if the nation was not the form that most of its citizens wished – they did have the right to force change. The was to be ‘of and for the people’.

The Constitution has always been about balance of power, of putting one authority against another, to make it difficult for one group to have complete autonomy in power. As evidence, I present the Three Houses of the United States Government; Executive, Legislative, Judicial – each set against the other (Executive – executes the written laws, Legislative – writes the laws, Judicial – weighs and evaluates the laws (against and using)). I also present the way Senators are elected, their terms and the number per state when compared to the House of Representatives. I also present the existence of the House of Representatives AND Senate – when it would seem that only one would be needed.

The final part of the balance was:
1) Freedom of the press – so that we may know what the government is doing in our name.
2) Right to bear arms – to ensure that our vote is counted and our collective wishes are obeyed.

I hope it never comes that we need to exercise #2 in the fullest, because it would be a very sad day indeed.

NOTE: on the referenced link, I also noticed in the last 3 to 4 paragraphs, the author walked a bit back from their earlier statements. I also would not state extremist views advocating violence only form from the right. By the nature of being extreme – they are on both sides of the middle. Note the valid quote of Jefferson “a little rebellion now and then is a good thing” – to which I want to add that “a little rebellion now and then prevents a large and bloody rebellion later”.

[Author]

Posts