# Why I cant vote Democrat



## Old Hunter (Mar 8, 2002)

As a blue collar worker at one time I could support the Democrat party. That has changed. I havent changed the party did. It has moved from near the middle of the road to the far left. I now see them as the party of high taxes and gun control. The taxes I could deal with but not the gun control. Take a look at some bills now in congress. H.R. 2038 or S 1431. These are both sponsered by dems.Rep Carolyn McCarthy D-NY and Sen Frank Lautenberg D-NJ. One will ban all guns with pistol grips (almost all guns have pistol grips) the other will ban all semi-automatics. This type of legislation is proposed by the democrats. You may correct if Im wrong but I dont believe anything like this has ever come from the Republican party. IF you get enough dems in office this type of legislation will pass! You will lose your right to own firearms. Im In my 50's I believe I will be done hunting or dead by the time it gets to the end of gun ownership rights. You young guys(most people on this fourm) will have one hell of a time keeping your right to own guns and hunt. If you dont join the NRA or some like orginization. Its all over for you. Good luck


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I agree FH...but only at the national level.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

I'm thinking of starting another post titled "Why I can't vote Republican". At one time, I tended to vote more conservative, and I have voted for Republican candidates. However, after I learned more about the world and stopped depending on folks like Rush for the "real truth", I have become more liberal. I consider myself a centrist with leanings to the leaft, and at this point in my life I cannot fathom why anybody would vote for Republicans (specifically W) at the national level. In my humble opinion, concerns that Democrats are coming after our guns are not valid.

Howard Dean recently published some good position statements on gun control that I agree with. When folks in rural areas like ND hear the term "gun control", they envision the government taking their hunting weapons away. When folks in urban areas hear the term "gun control", they envision measures to protect the general public by reducing the number of firearms in the hands dangerous people.

I believe that we need to implement some type of sensible gun control in the U.S. to remove assault weapons and similar "non-hunting" weapons from dangerous people. You can scream all you want about civil rights, but there is really no reason for the average citizen to own an assault weapon. There are also far too many handguns in the hands of people that shouldn't have them. You can also save the arguments like, "If people didn't kill people with guns, they would kill them with rocks". It is simply easier to kill somebody with a gun than with other weapons.

I believe that we can implement gun control without coming after the weapons that we use for hunting. Now, if folks want to expand this discussion to talk about the other reasons why I can't vote Republican, I'd be happy to expand.


----------



## stevepike (Sep 14, 2002)

BigDaddy,
I agree with you only on the impression of Gun Control laws. People in Bismark and LA view gun laws differently. An AR-15 (Sporter or other variant) is a great coyote gun. It could used to commit crimes but so could any other gun (or other weapon). 
I don't think there is any law you could pass that would ban a type of weapon and have a huge (if any) impact. You need to have harsh penalties for those caught. Most violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders. Life imprisonment or death penalty if a gun is used in the commission of a crime. Death penalty for illegal weapons dealers. Build more prisons and put more good Americans to work building them and staffing them. Don't ban my 10/22 because it is a semi auto or holds "too many" bullets. Punish the scum not the law abiding gun owner.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Having lived in The Little San Fransico East Of THe MIsssissippi {Madison WI} and seeing the liberal mentality that turned it's back on the rest of the state, based in Madison and Mil. It gave me a better and clearer view of the facts.

We no longer can assume that those we have elected in our state will uphold or do what the majority of voters want them to do. They are secure in there position unless they do something awful like Janklow idi in SD. Name recognition and the money machine that comes with being an incumbent on a national level sheilds them from there record on voting. The money allows them to spin and put forth half truths while sticking a knife in the backs of voters. These actions have no party lines and is SOP.

We are facing a crisis in this state concerning protection of wetlands. The Dem.'s say they are for conservation, but are promoting grain based ethanol as a alternate fuel source to reduce importation of oil. What they are not telling you is that it will not reduce imports as it takes the same amount of fossil fuels to produce the ethanol and the polution levels remain the same even though ethanol burns cleaner.

This promotion will be the catalysts for the largest drainage and tiling of wetlands since the 70's. Swampbuster will not be a deterant as ND has opted out under federal for enforcement meaning little or no reduction in subsides. The Rep have jmped on ethanol to appeal nationally to voters to appear greener.

Big Daddy talks about increased gun control, well the fact of the matter is that since GW has taken office prosecution of Federal firearm laws have increased by 84% which shows that enforcement of current laws is more important than making of any new laws that could affect the civil rights of law abiding people.

Assault weapons that you talk of can include a BAR if fitted with an aftermarket clip. It may also inlude a 7400 Rem which can be fitted with a 25 round aftermarket clip. These would be just as deadly or effective as an AR 15 Colt or similar style weapon. One needs to look at weapons beyond there appearance. Give me a 30 cal semi-auto and the 223 cal semi auto and tell me which one will be more lethal if you are shot by it.

The military downsized it's caliber to increase the amount of ammo each soldier can carry into combat, and to reduce the killing % and increase the wounding rate in an effort to be more humane. So do not assume a AR 15 is more deadly than or less of a hunting weapon than many of the favorites we use each and every fall.

I personally do not have a need or desire to own a handgun but many people use them for target shooting along with hunting. I would not be out anything if they where all banned, but some would. I had not thought about using a AR 15 or Ruger 14 for varmit hunting but after seeing the accuracy and dependablity of these weapons in the field I can say I may consider them as a good choice.

Take the lower extention off the AR15, remove the carry handle and heat shield and you would not think twice about it as an assault weapon, but mechanically it is the same. Appearance does not make a weapon more or less deadly. Only the person behind the sights controls that. We currently have laws that prevent felons and such from leaglly buying and owning any type of firearm. It does not prevent them from stealing them from you or I. All any new law will do is give somebody a warm fuzzy feeling ofr a short time.


----------



## catman (Dec 19, 2002)

BigDaddy

You sound just like thw politicans in canada and australia.They were warned that it happend in england! But they said it can not happen to us.Now look at them. Registraion,Prison time, Many of there sporting arms are now banned, most hand guns banned.So do not ever give me that hog wash that it can not happen here. You get enough liberal west coast and east coast democrats in office, you better start hidding your guns like they are doing in canada.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

stevepike:

I agree with your conclusions that we need to punish criminals, not law-abiding citizens. I also agree that we should not go after people's semi-automatic weapons. This is where education of the non-hunting citizenry comes in. For folk unfamiliar with firearms, the term "semi-automatic weapon" brings images of Uzis and AK-47s, not BARs and 10-22s.

However, I disagree with building more prisons. I have heard that the U.S. has a higher number of people in prison per capita than any nation on earth. I have also heard that there are more adult Blacks in prison in the U.S. than in college. We seriously need to figure out why we have so many people in prison. Are our citizens simply more criminal and less law-abiding than those in other countries, do we simply catch more, or do more of our citizens see crime as an acceptable lifestyle? I don't know.

For extremely nasty crimes where there is NO doubt of guilt, I agree that we need to look at whether or not the death penalty should be pursued. However, if the death penalty is a deterrent to crime, why are crime rates relatively low in other developed nations that don't allow the death penalty?


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Hey big daddy the crime rates are down in other developed countries because they have better Social Welfare than us. It amounts to less desperate people in their societies.

We can't compare ourselves to those we compete against,we must make ourselves better, for us not them. If I remember history correct we broke away from all that European crap for a couple reasons, called FREEDOM and LIBERTY. Lets not be so quick to trash what so many have died for. :sniper:


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

I would like to add this also, I think we have very poor examples being set by our leaders every day. If it's OK for them to lie, steal and cheat why can't everyboby? Too many loopholes and baloney protect the leaders from being held accountable for their actions!!! They are just plain a poor example on how to live our lives and get along with one another. uke:


----------



## stevepike (Sep 14, 2002)

> I have heard that the U.S. has a higher number of people in prison per capita than any nation on earth. I have also heard that there are more adult Blacks in prison in the U.S. than in college.


I think that the reason we have so many people in prison is we let them out too early and off with lenient sentences. Case in point is Rodriquez in the Dru case. He only served about 20 yrs after being convicted of Attempted Aggravated Rape, Aggravated Rape, Attempted Kidnapping & Aggravated Assault. I would much rather he rotted in prison for the rest of his life than what happened. I would not blink an eye that it caused the % of the Mexican population in prison to increase. Race should not be a consideration for everything or anything. The same people who quote Martin Luther King Jr. are funding surveys to find out ratios like the above statistics and keep bringing up race in every discussion or argument. It is hard to judge a man by the content of his character than the color of his skin when you keep telling me the color of his skin. :eyeroll:

I know this is OT and sorry for the rant but if people were held accountable and there were actually consequences for their actions, not a slap on the wrist, I do believe it would be a much bigger deterrent. You can go to large cities and ask kids on the street what the penalties are for various crimes and they can recite them verbatim. 5 years for first offense attempted robbery with a weapon, what if it was life in prison? Bigger deterrent? You don't accidentally rob someone.


----------



## dosch (May 20, 2003)

You guys didn't happen to recieve a phone call from the NRA latley have you?? Got 1 myself last night made me want to put my facepaint on and peek out the windows. Everybody is watching us. I bet BIGWEED is paranoid.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Dosch I would say that my opinion's are from from reading and researching issues beyond what is in the local paper or TV talking head. The information on weapons are just straight forward facts. Ethanol the same way. It is there if people seek it out. Unfortuneately newspapers and TV news org have there own agenda they chose what they report. Unfortunealty that is what to many people accept as fact instead of finding the whole story themselves.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

I don't know if BIGWEED in bosch's post was in reference to me or not, and I don't know how to reply.

I do agree with Ron that we need to look beyond the mainstream media for facts. Like Ron, I try to find alternative sources of information than my morning paper and evening news. If you do so, you will find that all Democrats are not coming for your guns, nor are all Republicans opposed to gun control.

All laws are in essence constraints on personal freedoms for the public good. We would not speeding laws if folks voluntarily travelled at responsible speeds. Any gun control law would be a constraint on personal freedom, but that constraint would need to be justified on a counteracting, overriding gain in public good.

A previous poster (buckseye) put the words FREEDOM an LIBERTY in caps to stress the need to defend our personal freedoms. I agree. I whole-heartedly believe in freedom an civil liberty. That is why I carry two membership cards in my wallet: one for the ACLU and one for the NRA. One membership is to ensure that all of our personal liberties are defended. The other is to vigorously fight for my right to bear arms to ensure that any constraint on that freedom is indeed justified.


----------



## Old Hunter (Mar 8, 2002)

BigDaddy What is a assault weapon? Would that be a Ruger ranch rifle? Maybe a Remington auto that a lot of guys use for deer hunting? How about my Benelli with 4 rounds of 00 buck? How do you decide which guns are ok? Who gets to make this decision.?


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

A true conservative has 5 or so ideals that they will stand by to the finish, not all republicans are conservatives. A true Liberal will try to strip the conservatives ideals and mold the masses into a entitlement state that they will do as they will with, therefore becoming subjects, not citizens of a free state. Case and point, England, Australia and Canada where their right to own and bear arms are gone, period.

If you give them an inch they most certainly take the whole highway.

Bigdaddy which card is heavier in your wallet, I hope the NRA card. I would do some checking with the ACLU, they would most likely disown you if they knew you carried the NRA card. In my opinion only, the ACLU has a liberal agenda that hurts people who are on the wrong side of their stance.

I recommend not to vote party lines, but to vote based on facts of the candidates, do a little research and ask a lot of questions. The truth will be known if persistent.


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

4curlredleg,

I have said many times the same thing. I am active military and a sportsman. I do not vote either party as a whole. I vote the issues and the responses to my issues.


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

I am on the same page as Rude, I research and vote. I have never in my life voted straight line, I think that is ignorant and shows a huge lack of knowledge. There is no such thing as an honest politician. Strom Thurmon dies, a known segregationalist, and we find out he has a black daughter. Here is a man who, I think by any measure, was respected for his lifetime commitment to his country, his voters obviously thought so, yet he is living a lie for 80 yrs(I suppose, to throw a jab, I could say a typical right wing conservative). The only person I have respect for in that whole situation, is the lady and her daughter. Out of respect for the man, and I am sure a lot of money, they kept quite for 80 yrs...80 yrs people, that is longer than most of us will live. The only difference between politians of the present and from the past, is, in the old days, people kept quite about stuff like this. Nowdays, it is front page news immediately. Anyone would be niave to think that those in power 50-60 yrs ago where anymore upstanding than they are today. We can all sit here for days, throwing examples of the right and the lefts great moments of stupidity. For me, it comes down to who is telling me the lesser lies, or the lesser of two evil thing I suppose.

So, to classify my position, I would say, down the middle, with a drift to the right, not a very noticeable drift, but it is there. I oppose abortion, extended welfare(I believe everyone can use some help sometime, for a short period, be it a single mother, or struggling farmer), gun banning and pre-emptive strikes. I support American products, my friends and family in the Armed Services, and the freedoms in this country that make us what we are, the very best people in the world. I believe in this next election, gun control will not be a big topic, because the Repulicans now have the fight against terrorism, as the fear factor, to get votes, instead of gun control. I beleive that most Repulicans try and win votes by scaring us into them, while Dems win votes by trying to promise us jobs and bigger(less responsible) safety nets...i.e...government subsidies. I refuse to be frightened into a vote and I am suspect of to much pork. So, do I vote for Bush...probablyl not. Gore, not a chance in hell. Davis, I am still reading on him, but I don't fancy what I have read so far. I like Wesley Clarks military and foreign affair experience, it would be nice to see someone who has actually had to work with leaders of other countries and thier military's. But, I have some reading to do on him as well.

As for Bush, any president that is trying to use executive privelage to force a new overtime law upon the American people, well, I got a few choice words for him. As a country, we work more hours now, to stay above the poverty line, than we ever have. An he has the balls to take away overtime, then smile that Grinch who stole Christmas smile, and say he is all for the average American, BS. That is all about bussiness. I work for a manufactoring business, that takes in 1 billion gross and turn 400 million net....and they need to stop paying me overtime, when I am scheduled to work every saturday. Anyway, that is my vent. I can not support someone who does not support me, as a blue collar American.

So, after that short little trip off the subject, I hope everyone does some research before they vote. The next time you view a political add(oh boy, I can't wait for those to start), remember, for everything the person on the screen is telling bad about their opponent, they probably have just as many flaws. Have a good New Years everyone.
:sniper:


----------



## james s melson (Aug 19, 2003)

Bigdaddy, the gun control laws you are worried about are already on the books. Felons are prohibited from owning any firearm(Federal law). I hope you are not referring to the illegal gun trade that happens on the street, that has nothing to do with the honest sportsman or shooter. So what you are saying is that you want the Federal Gov't to tell you what you can own. The term "assault weapon" is often used the wrong way by YOU and others when talking about semi-automatic rifles, a true assault rifle has full-auto capabilities and without a Class III license isn't something you can even buy. If anyone thinks that giving up your AR-15 or Mini-14 will stop them (Feds) from coming after your 1187 next, you are very mistaken. The reason the NRA comes-off as being too hardcore is the simple time proven fact that if you give an inch they will take more than a mile, the NRA is not going to give that inch as long as there are laws on the books that go unenforced. Who the hell are you to say what firearms people can own, maybe a Marlin 12 ga. bolt action is what you should be bird hunting with.


----------



## magnum3.5 (Sep 19, 2003)

We as americans have the right to bare arms we have to fight for it, it is that simple. If you are a gun owner you need to be a member of the NRA and that is it. Our forfathers issued this amendment for several reasons 1] was to over throw our government if they got out of control, 2] was for self protection of one family,3] Is the only reason we have never had a world war on american soil, we all have guns millions of them the best defense this nations got. Do you think any country is going to take on the good old USA on there home soil with all the guns that we have. I doubt it. It don't matter if you have a A.R.15, 44mag, 12ga.auto or 22 cal. single shot it's your right to have them. We have and are the people that have and will keep fighting for the right to have them. IT IS THE RIGHT TO BARE ARMS!!!


----------



## dosch (May 20, 2003)

Bear Arms


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

4CurlRedleg...the right to own and bear arms in Canada is gone??????????

Since when...I was just up there and hunted with a Canadian friend who used HIS OWN shotgun.

Where did you get that from??????????

If guns were banned in Canada...do you think they would let me bring mine across the border???????


----------



## bigweed (Dec 10, 2003)

> I bet BIGWEED is paranoid.


I am curios as to what this quote meens? I dont see the conection between my message board name and my views on gun control. I do wonder how people can jump to concusions over something that most people dont know all the facts behind. Why would a name make a person paranoid any way, especially over some thing like gun control.


----------



## dosch (May 20, 2003)

just talkn **** bigweed no harm intended.


----------



## bigweed (Dec 10, 2003)

Glad to know some people have a sence of humor.

just wonder how long it takes for people to jump to concusions, and I like to give a little s**t back.


----------



## bigweed (Dec 10, 2003)

Glad to know some people have a sence of humor.

just wonder how long it takes for people to jump to concusions, and I like to give a little s**t back.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

KenW, did you not have to get a permit and basically certify your gun when you crossed the border???????

Do Canadians not have to have a permit and register their firearms so the govt. nows where that firearm is at all times????????

Can Canadians own handguns???????

Once they started the registration the total ban is right around the corner.
I don't give a crap how you slice it, their right to bear arms as we do is over and they will never get it back, period. They have confiscated literally millions of firearms from law abiding citizens.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

4curl....this is your quote from above..."Case and point, England, Australia and Canada where their right to own and bear arms are gone, period."

You are saying their right to OWN guns is gone!!!!

What I am saying is...that is blatantly untrue!!!!

Yes my gun is registered in Canada...so what...I'm not in favor of registering my guns either but it is the only way I can use it to hunt up there.It does not mean you can't own a gun in Canada.

Just because you have to tell the government you own a gun,does not mean they will take it away.


----------



## mhprecht (Oct 13, 2003)

<snip>
"Just because you have to tell the government you own a gun,does not mean they will take it away."
<snip>

Actually, it _can_ mean just that...I recall reading a newspaper account in the early '90s about Lithuania's early attempt to break away from the crumbling Soviet Union. When the Soviet Army marched in to quell the rebellion, one of their first actions was to confiscate (using lists of registered firearms) every privately owned firearm in the country.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Hey Ken W try to own a handgun in Canada, it's about like Iraq, one gun per household.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

The latest Delta Magazine talks about how the Dem. Party is & needs to be more aware of these things

Great Magazine !!!



> The Latest Delta Waterfowl Magazine
> Is the best yet - Dan Nelson has done a tremendous job as Editor.
> 
> I'm glad he is back in ND doing a service of getting the truth out there for waterfolwers to read about.
> ...


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Let me set this straight...I DON'T LIKE REGISTERING MY GUN WITH THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT.But as any of you who have hunted up there the past year knows...you cannot take a gun across the border without registering it.When it came down to the choice of...staying home,or registering it...I chose to register it,and hunt up there.It is the ONLY way.

Hopefully we can keep that from happening here.But I will not stop hunting just because they must be registered.

By the way...when I bought my latest shotgun 3 years ago...I had to fill out a form at the gunsmith with my name on it and the make and serial number.A background check was done...so it is now registered with ATF.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Join the NRA and give them what you can, make your political alliances with those who will keep the second amendment intact as the framers set it.

Kenw.
Do not mince the words of someone who is your ally when it comes to keeping your firearms. Before you say something is blatantly untrue get the facts, they have lost their right to bear arms in comparison to the way we can own them, anything less is unacceptable!!
Your shotgun is not registered, it is tracible but not under a govt register.


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

Curly, I would have to agree with Ken on this one. Our guns are registered. We have to pass FBI background checks, which are pretty much instant now, and the information on that sale is public record. My father sells sporting goods for a living and doing background checks is a daily event. The local law enforcement has used firearm registrations to determine stolen or unlawful use of guns to determine ownership. If the local law enforcement has access, big brother could tell me every brand new firearm you have purchased from a licensed dealer since this new law has come into effect. If you believe otherwise, you need get past the "free country" theme we embrace so boldly. As we post these messages, view web pages, and send emails, each activity we process with this wonderful technology, is routed to West Virginia. I wonder why it needs to be sent there????? If you run a ip trace as you browse web pages, there is always a dead end link to West Virginia...hmmmm, wonder where that is going? Our government knows more about you than your parents do or did, we are so traceable with our everyday activities, we have no privacy anymore, that ended 40 yrs ago. 
As far as us not being invaded by another country because we have millions of firearms, well, so did millions of Europeans during WW1 and WW2, but that didn't stop Hitler. We have not been invaded because we are bordered by Canada, Mexico and thousand of miles of water. It would be pretty hard to launch a ground force upon us by suprise or with any type of swift/lethal force. We are a target for long range missles, but that is about it. I think our encounter with Japan during WW2 proved that by land or sea, we are very safe. Through the air with WMD's, we may be suspect. The millions of guns thing may have been noteworthy, 100 yrs ago, when there was no such thing as advanced warning, but today it is irrelevant. I can gaurentee, our government, in control of our military, would laugh us off the continent if attempted a coupe. Lets see, millions of rifles against....tanks, planes, armored vehicles. All these "citizens militia" myths are outdated. Anyway, I agree, we need to keep on top of those who are ignorant to lawful gun owning citizens and threaten our second ammendment rights. As well, we need to move out of the past and realize we live in a new world, and adjust our goals to make sure our heritage and traditions are passed on. And yes, I am aware that Hitler had no part in ww1, he was only a child then.
:sniper:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

4curl...I'm not mincing words at all.You and I feel the same way about the right to own guns.But Canadians still have the right to own guns also.And my gun is registered both here and in Canada.I believe the Brady Law makes that necessary here,along with the background check.Hopefully we won't lose that right.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Unless it's changed when we are checked for gunownership it is our local Sherriff not FBI that knows who is stable and who is not. The reason I know this is I was standing in line to buy a pistol and I was tapped on the shoulder, it was our sherriff. It was finially my turn and the checkout person said I would have a waiting period, I asked how long they said roughly 5 days. I asked who they contact they said your local sherriff, I said here he is can he just sign this form now they said yes and away I went without waiting 5 minutes.


----------



## muzzy (Mar 21, 2002)

The background check didn't change a lot with them knowing who owns your firearm. You have had to fill out ATF form 4473 for years when purchasing any firearm. This did not get sent in to anyone, but if your firearm was used in a crime all they would have to do is contact the manufacturer with the serial number and they would tell you where it was shipped to. Every time that firearm changed hands it would be marked in the middleman's log book which told them which store it ended up in. They could then go to that store and the 4473 and there log book would tell them who purchased the firearm. Although it is not called registration, it wasn't too hard to find out where the firearm ended up. The only time your name isn't associated with that firearm is if you buy used, then the gun could have changed hands any number of times.


----------



## catman (Dec 19, 2002)

Background check

I belive law right now is after the background check is complet they can only keep the information for 90 days. But the republicans are introducing a amendment to make it 24hours. that was the original intent of the law. Let the three amigos know if you support that change.


----------



## Perry Thorvig (Mar 6, 2002)

Thanks, Oldhunter, for lobbing a grenade at the end of the year :box: You got the boys riled up on this one. BTW, hope things are going well with you.

Fireball, thanks for the thoughtful comments about taking a lot of things into consideration when voting. That is the right approach IMHO.

I also agree with Ken W. Gun ownership is not forbidden in Canada. Just ask Canadian citizen, Nickle Ditch, who went hunting with us in Canada this year. He wasn't using a pee shooter when he was shooting at those snow geese. To say "their right to own and bear arms are gone, period" is hyperbole, over simplification or a lie.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

This has turned into an interesting discussion.I would bet most of us are not aware of what those registration laws are here.


----------



## Perry Thorvig (Mar 6, 2002)

You're right, Ken. There are state laws ("Right to Carry" handgun provisions) and federal laws. The state laws are probably different. Then, there are handguns vs. shotguns vs. assault rifles. It's kind of mind boggling. So, I think it would be easy get all this registration stuff mixed up. I have not purchased a gun of any kind for several years. So, I really don't know what the regulations are here in the U.S.

What was this thread about originally? Oh, yeah - why Oldhunter would not vote democrat.

Ken, hope you are having a nice few days off. My son, the college student, does not have to go back until Jan. 20. Nice life!! Too bad its not the heart of hunting season.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Watched a little of the talking heads in the tube the last day or so. What is evident is the three stogies from ND have defended our gun rights for the most part. However as a whole the DNC is blatanly anti-gun as are most of the Dems. The Rep as a whole are progun with a small minority anti -gun.

Of the current Dem Presidental candidates all are in favor of some sort of tax increase. Dean leading the list wanting a complete roll back of tax reductions that have been passed. This would cost a family of 4 making $40,000.00 about $2400.00 more a year, and a family making $80,000 about $1750.00. The reason for the lower income family seeing a bigger increase is that the current tax laws favor this level of incmoe more than the upper portion.

On the enviroment the Dems have an edge, but it is slight when all factors such as farm programs are added into the equation and there lack of support for better management of our national forests. The biggest thing I heard was the growing number of Dems that are in favor of restricting hunting, fishing, camping, or other outdoor activty on Fed lands. Many want all Fed lands closed to hunting, restricted access for camping and backpacking etc.


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

Here is a little article, about the overtime bill, which is being stalled by overwhelming opposition from us working Americans. This story is satirical, but the facts are there. I encourage everyone to research this "new" overtime law the current administration is pushing through...to help us working folks, ya know.

THE GRINCH THAT STOLE LABOR DAY
by Greg Palast
Friday, August 29, 2003

In celebration of the working person's holiday, Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao has announced the Bush Administration's plan to end the 60-year-old law which requires employers to pay time-and-a-half for overtime.

I'm sure you already knew that -- if you happened to have run across page 15,576 of the Federal Register.

According to the Register, where the Bush Administration likes to place its little gifts to major campaign donors, 2.7 million workers will lose their overtime pay for a "benefit" of $1.53 billion. I put "benefit" in quotes because, in the official cost-benefit analysis issued by Bush's Labor Department, the amount employers will now be able to slice out of workers' pockets is tallied on the plus side of the rules change.

Nevertheless, workers getting their pay snipped shouldn't complain, because they will all be receiving promotions. These employees will be re-classified as managers exempt from the law. The change is promoted by the National Council of Chain Restaurants. You've met these 'managers' - they're the ones in the beanies and aprons whose management decisions are, "Hold the lettuce on that."

My favorite of Chao's little amendments would re-classify as "exempt professionals" anyone who learned their skill in the military. In other words, thousands of veterans will now lose overtime pay. I just can't understand why Bush didn't announce that one when he landed on the aircraft carrier.

CHOICE NUMBER FOUR: BREAK THE LAW

Now I should say that, according to Chao's press office, the changes will actually extend overtime benefits to 1.3 million burger flippin' managers. How does that square with the billion dollar "benefit" to business owners? Simple: The Chao hounds at the Labor Department suggest that employers CUT WAGES so that, added to the new "overtime" pay, the employees won't actually take home a dime more.

I can hear the moaners and bleeding hearts saying this sounds like the Labor Department is telling Big Business how to evade the law. Yep, that's what the Department is doing. Right there on page 15,576 of the Federal Register it says,

"Affected employers would have four choices concerning potential payroll costs: &#8230; (4) converting salaried employees' basis of pay to an hourly rate that result in virtually no changes to the total compensation paid those workers."

And in case some employer is dense as a president and doesn't get the hint, Comrade Chao repeats, "&#8230;The fourth choice above results in virtually no (or only a minimal) increase in labor costs."

For decades the courts have thrown the book at cheapskate bosses who chisel workers out of legal overtime by cutting base pay this way&#8230; but now they'll have a new defense: Bush made me do it.

But then, there likely will not be any cases against employers anyway since Chao herself is supposedly the labor cop whose job it is to stop paycheck theft. She's well qualified for that job. Her resume reads, "Married to Republican Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky." I called her press office to ask if she qualifies for overtime, but they'd left the office early.

And there is good news for our sporting President. Word from the White House is he'll be golfing on the Labor Day weekend. Under Chao's rules he need not worry if he wants to replay that hole. "Exempt professionals" who cannot earn overtime - once defined as doctors, lawyers and those with specialized college degrees - will now include anyone who provides skilled advice&#8230; like caddies ("You might try the other end of the club, Mr. President").

:sniper:


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Overtime - what I know (reality of situation)

Employers today & for years resist it & in some cases only have OT for emergency or essential

What this has done is now alot hire others for PT jobs - we hire yours - you hire ours - etc - etc - etc which is stupid because ours know our jobs & could get paid more if they could get their regular wage to do it ??? Instead they take a entry level at less pay - But no one knows what they are doing or care because they are only PT

If they could hire them at a decent wage with a combined PT & FT range of pay & have them work the extra hours it would be great - But Federal wage & hr laws don't allow that (rules) :roll:

--- So we get what is happening No OT - everyone taking a second PT job for less & quality & productivity are much worse :huh:


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

Being a manager for many yrs in the hospitality industry, I would agree with your assesment of holding down overtime in most business in ND. Most business here is small, and don't look into putting money out for overtime...no overtime unless absolutely necassary is the rule in small buisness. No, open that door, and give them the right to not have to pay overtime, and sure, there will be more full time hires(but less total employees and smaller payroll); who will now get to work 7 days a week. If there is no recourse for business to overwork people, they will do it, that is the nature of the beast. I used to keep at least 5 swing shift people on payroll at all times, to cover shifts to make sure overtime wasn't paid. If I was still managing the hospitality business's today, I would call all my service people supervisors and put them on salary, and work their arses off. Man the money I could have saved my franchise's with these laws. You know what the difference between the kids raised today and 50 yrs ago is, kids today see everyone, but their parents. Their parents are working two jobs apiece just to make ends meet. Now throw these new overtime laws in, and they will be working one job apiece, but will be working seven days a week as well.

Now, from my other prespective. I work for the largest manufacturing company in ND. We have been working mandatory overtime every saturday since last April. In big business, which turns 20-30 percent on every dollar, (unlike small business, where 10-12 percent is outstanding) they have no problem making us work 6 days a week and taking all the volunteers they can for sundays. Now, if they could, we would be working sundays as well, but luckily our contract was bargained for voluntary sundays only. They pay as many people as are willing to come in and make dbl time on sundays, and dbl time where I work pays more in one day than most people in ND make in one week. If they could start reclassifing our skilled jobs as "professional", they could try and lump us in the new overtime laws. It would never fly at the next contract negotiations, but if they could have us their 7 days a week at regular pay, they would announce bush as their god. So, tell me this, is it right to make the average man/woman, work seven days a week, at regular pay, so a few people at the top of management in my plant and main office can put a few hundred thousand dollars more in their bonus' and show profit increases at the cost of the American worker. They take that money out of my pocket(overtime money) and they lose 10k a yr in money spent in SE ND every yr by myself, not to mention the 800 other floor workers in the plant. Anyway, we work more now than we ever have, and they want us to work more for less. I would never be effected by this law, as we are contracted, but I worked my butt off in college working fast food retailers to make a living. I can already here the line in McD's management offices if this goes through. 
"Hey Jonny, come here. I am going to give you a .50 cent raise and call you our breakfast assistant supervisor. You will have more responsiblity(working more hours, overtime hours), and you will be making more money."(true, but how much could he have made with overtime?, lets investigate.) Jonny makes 7.5 an hour, so at 45 hrs(salary hours, which is probably closer to 50-56 hrs a week he is making 338 bucks a week. Now give him that .50 cent raise. He is making 360 bukcs a week now. Now, if Jonny is paid overtime for working, say 10 hrs of overtime a week, he will be paid 7.5x1.5x10 for overtime...or 113 bucks a week more. So, Jonny goes from making 300 dollars at 40hrsx7.5 an hour, to making 413 a week with 10 hrs of overtime. The company is saving itself about 55 bucks a week off of jonny, by giving him a title and some more responsiblity(more hours).

I prefer mine with a kiss when I get bent, but this new law would screw the working class man, while expecting him to believe that big business is doing him a favor. The overtime law was put into effect, because at the time big business was taking advantage of workers and working the hell out of them. So, in an act to protect 95 percent of Americans(us worker bees), they put a law into place to let us live a life, while working hard for our employers. I just see so much disregard for 95 percent of the the voting people in this country under this administration. Then some people, who live under the infuence that if you vote big business, someone will mistake you for a financially savy person, a morally upstanding person or ethical. Do any of us wonder where the "me" attitude of sportsman/landowner issues have sprung from the last few yrs. We live in a me world now. Boy, I am long winded today.....pphhhewww. Anyway, I work 48-52 hrs a week, mandatory. I see my kids for 1 hr in the morning before they go to school and on weekends. I have no desire to miss more of their lives because someone thinks that big business need more money. 
:sniper:

Don't get me wrong, I love my job. I have great responsibility and am allowed to us my knowledge to help the company. I also get paid overtime for having to spend, what should be, my days off, at work.


----------



## adokken (Jan 28, 2003)

I was in Austrailia a couple of winters ago and had a chat with a interesting individual who lived in the outback and hunted roos for the market plus other things, we had a few beers and we talked about this gun thing, He had a few guns in his vehicle , And his vehicle was equiped with Roo bars and a couple of spotlights which he used for hunting at night, The Roo bars sure would be nice here when we hit a deer. He said they cannot own semi-autos and the reason for that I would imagine came about because of the slaughter in Tasamania a few years ago with a semi-auto shotgun by some nut case. As far as Canada goes I have a number of relatives who hunt and own guns there. and I don't think any of them registered their guns so far. Most of my relatives in Norway hunt and own guns, this gun thing is used more for political purposes then anything.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

When the Vietnam War was going full blast the author John Steinbeck was interviewed. The reporter asked him if he was a hawk or a dove? Steinbeck replied, " I'm not a hawk, but I'm not a pigeon either".

When McCarthy and Lautenberg pull out the old "gun control" flag they are pandering to a select group for a political reason. And Republicans, all groups and parties for that matter, do the same, wether its gun control, no new taxes, any controversial topic. They don't want you to think about it, they just want you to react. (and send a check). National politicos want to hit the hot buttons so we the voters overlook the real meat of the issues. 
As an NRA member I am less worried about losing my firearms, than I am about having a place to use them for hunting. NRA defends our right to bear arms but they sure don't defend the right to free lance hunt. Their "American Hunter" magazine is a litany of canned hunts.

We lost an opportunity as a nation in the last presidential election by being forced to choose between Bush and Gore, both of which inherited their position rather than achieving it on merit. McCain and Bradley would have made a race. We were given the second string and quietly accecpted that alternative.

Look up the legislative scorecard on the home page and count the Fs. It is pretty plain. Those votes aren't anyones opinion, they are fact. Remember "I hit the wrong button" oops? Like it wasn't planned and carefully choreographed? The ND sportsmen had friends on both sides of the aisle, good ones, but were the sportsmen served best by one party having a landslide majority? I think compromise only comes when closer balance sits in chambers, on any issue IMHO.

Governor Hoeven, whom I voted for..... once, thought he was a democrat and after polling he then thought he was a republican. He tried to sell the pheasant season to Cannonball and the outfitters and blame the idea on NDGF. He has tied his star lockstep to the state officers of Farm Bureau and we *know* what that means for hunters. By the way, Farm Bureau also has a policy plank for the right to bear arms....and a lawsuit to kill free lance hunting in North Dakota. Hummmmm.


----------



## adokken (Jan 28, 2003)

Dick I agree, I was diapointed in my represatives in the last session.
So when they come looking for political donations the next time I will tell them to go to the FB the G&O and the hospitality group for their money. If a lot of us ND free lancers do that they may think the next time. :beer: Adrian


----------



## jimboy (Apr 1, 2003)

Try being a nurse. If that crap passes I will lose a ton of money and my hours will not change. Nurses are expected to do overtime and in many cases you can not complete the work assigned in the designated time do to work load. try taking care of 9 criticaly ill people and perform all the duties they require and then charting it all in an 8 hour shift. So I can see how the hospital administrators would love this to pass. Medical costs would not go down but the fat cat administrators sure would get healthy raises. Not to mention the nice campaign donations that bush could pick up from the medical sector.


----------

