NY lawmakers want more gun control

[Kyle Reese]

As gun-rights groups seek to overturn last year's gun law, gun-control groups Wednesday said they want additional regulations in New York.

On the one-year anniversary of the SAFE Act, the groups and Democratic lawmakers said New York shouldn't stop at the law passed last year.

http://www.ithacajournal.com/article/20140115/news10/301150038/gun-control-groups-push-more-laws-ny?nclick_check=1

[PPGMD]

Of course they do, remember their goal is to completely ban guns, as long as you can actually own a gun they are going to want more laws to make it more difficult.

[NETim]

http://www.ithacajournal.com/article/20140115/news10/301150038/gun-control-groups-push-more-laws-ny?nclick_check=1

Did someone say "Democrat?" How many "pro-2A" gun owners voted for these guys anyway?

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Why the firearms industry puts up with this and sell to the NY government that is trying to kill them off I do not understand.

Cut them off. No ammo, parts or guns.

Enforce what you want to...but do it without the firearms industry helping.

[blackxpress]

If Democrats have their way the only people with weapons of any kind will be the police and the military. Then the US will be just like all the other totalitarian regimes both past and present that have done away with the rights of citizens to self determination in the name of "the common good." I have decided to stop using the term "liberal democrat." It's redundant.

[RoyGBiv]

Why the firearms industry puts up with this and sell to the NY government that is trying to kill them off I do not understand.

Cut them off. No ammo, parts or guns.

Enforce what you want to...but do it without the firearms industry helping.
I'm with you on sentiment, but practically speaking the Feds will just step in as purchasing agent and fill the void. The only way to make it work is to stop selling to the Feds too, and any entity that would act as a buying agent for a "cut-off" customer. The only thing that gets hurt are NY's LGS's, which will evaporate. NY Legislators will call that a win, with only minor inconvenience.

[GardoneVT]

Why the firearms industry puts up with this and sell to the NY government that is trying to kill them off I do not understand.

Cut them off. No ammo, parts or guns.

Enforce what you want to...but do it without the firearms industry helping.

Wouldnt that play right into the gun grabbers' hands?

A self imposed boycott would hurt the very people the antis in Albany want disarmed. From what l've seen of how Democrats view law enforcement in my time as a Chicago resident , they'd be just fine with the police being denied access to weapons and ammo along with Joe Citizen. The only reason the Cuomo-ites don't single out LE is because theyd have to answer to the police union.

In Chicago at least,at least half the Democrat majority city council would jump for joy at a disarmed CPD.They'd think "no ammo, no guns, no more minorities getting shot.":rolleyes:

[Will_H]

I'd be careful about lumping all democrats as gun-hating statists. I'm not trying to set I'm a fan of Cuomo, not in the slightest. There are a surprising number of pro-gun people that identify as democrats or liberals.

Sent from my SGH-S959G using Tapatalk 2

[BaiHu]

I'd be careful about lumping all democrats as gun-hating statists. I'm not trying to set I'm a fan of Cuomo, not in the slightest. There are a surprising number of pro-gun people that identify as democrats or liberals.

Sent from my SGH-S959G using Tapatalk 2

The problem is if they're voting democrat. I don't care how pro-gun they are, if they pull for a 'D' on election day, they just took another round out of their chamber. I know plenty of people who are upset that they lost their jobs during this recession (after I specifically told them they would likely lose their job if they voted 'D', b/c it meant O'care, which meant trimming anything that isn't absolutely necessary to the function of their business-human costs), but they voted 'D' across the boards in the last few elections--they essentially voted their own demise.

The only thing worse than voting 'R' across the boards is 'D' as far as your rights are concerned.

[Will_H]

I would present Max Baucus as an example of a democrat that wants nothing to do with gun control.

On the other hand, you've got Howard Coble sponsoring the Undetectable Firearms Act, and Pat Toomey, who got plenty of face time for the failed background check bill.

My point is that there are people on both sides that would protect our rights, and people on both sides that would love to get rid of the Bill of Rights.


Sent from my SGH-S959G using Tapatalk 2

[RoyGBiv]

people on both sides that would love to get rid of the Bill of Rights.
I recall making this oath many years ago...


I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

... maybe it means something different that what I originally thought.

And then there's the oath that Congress makes every session...

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

[TGS]

Why the firearms industry puts up with this and sell to the NY government that is trying to kill them off I do not understand.

Cut them off. No ammo, parts or guns.

Enforce what you want to...but do it without the firearms industry helping.

Same with those Marxist bastards in Connecticut pretending to be freedom loving gun owners! Yeah!

[Alaskapopo]

If Democrats have their way the only people with weapons of any kind will be the police and the military. Then the US will be just like all the other totalitarian regimes both past and present that have done away with the rights of citizens to self determination in the name of "the common good." I have decided to stop using the term "liberal democrat." It's redundant.
This is not a Democrat Republican issue. There are pro gun democrat's and anti gun republicans. It has a lot more to do with region than political party. The North East is anti gun. Democrats in Alaska are pro gun while many Republicans on the East coast are anti gun.
Pat

[RoyGBiv]

many Republicans on the East coast are anti gun.
Pat
http://www.thedailyrash.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Chris-Christie-300x289.jpg

[gtmtnbiker98]

http://www.thedailyrash.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Chris-Christie-300x289.jpg
He's only pro Big Mac!

[Nephrology]

He's only pro Big Mac!

Definition of pork barrel politics.

[PPGMD]

Definition of pork barrel politics.

No that would be Pro McRib (which I believe technically contains pork products).

[jon volk]

No that would be Pro McRib (which I believe is entirely pork byproducts).

FIFY

[PPGMD]

FIFY

Pork byproducts are technically pork products.

[jon volk]

I technically prefer to differentiate between the two when it comes to the world of culinary arts.

[PPGMD]

I technically prefer to differentiate between the two when it comes to the world of culinary arts.

Oh certainly which is why I said I believe in technically contains pork products. I was implying that most people wouldn't consider it to be pork. A random gas station pulled pork sandwich is better than the McRib.

[Don Gwinn]

I can't pretend to be an expert on New York, but it's a regional issue in Illinois. If the Democratic leadership could get a party- line vote or even close to it, they could impose anything up to and including sweeping bans. The Republicans in Illinois couldn't stop it, mathematically, even if they somehow unified on the pro-gun side. They lose because a LOT of downstate Democrats (and, increasingly, urban members of the Black Caucus) buck the party line on guns.

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk HD

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Same with those Marxist bastards in Connecticut pretending to be freedom loving gun owners! Yeah!

Yes. Please cut off the Connecticut state police if possible... they use SIG - can we get SIG to dump them as customers?

[Alaskapopo]

Yes. Please cut off the Connecticut state police if possible... they use SIG - can we get SIG to dump them as customers?

Great lets put those whose lives are on the line in more danger like the cops who responded to the New Town Shooting. Because we all know that the police made these laws and its their fault.
Great logic. Lets divide ourselves as gun owners as much as possible and make this into an us vs them.
Pat

[TheTrevor]

So far this is playing out EXACTLY like recent discussions in the comments on a certain gun-news-and-editorial site. C'mon, folks, come up with an angle on this I haven't heard a million times already.

ETA: Except for the pork products tangent. That was new. " p-f.com: come for the topics, stay for the thread drift!"

[Dagga Boy]

A couple points before the hell that is SHOT.

Pro gun and Pro second amendment are two VERY different things. I look at it as a conservative and progressive issue without an R or a D as both parties have progressives who don t read the Constitution like conservatives do. Because you owned a 30" barreled shotgun once and are okay with heavily regulated hunting does not make a politician "Pro 2A". It makes the okay with heavily restricted recreational shooting, and there is not a single word about sporting or hunting in the 2nd amendment.

As far as L/E goes, the anti gun folks who like to say that only the Military and L/E should have guns would truthfully be just fine with them not having them either. They are not a friend to the street cop or soldier. What has changes is the change of the pro gun folks who now also look at L/E as the enemy. Police executive management is traditionally the issue. They didn't get there through the range or by being awesome street cops and crime fighters. When we start trying to punish the street cops we are creating an adversary out of a group that was an ally. A lot of damage has already been done. Does anyone really think that police politicians in the progressive liberal urban centers care a bit about how or even if their officers are armed? They don't. The criminal population would rather they were unarmed, and so would the liberal elite, so do we really want to join those groups?

[mc1911]

Great lets put those whose lives are on the line in more danger like the cops who responded to the New Town Shooting.

This is probably a drift but it brings up a question I've been wondering about. There seems to be this constant concern about public servants who put their lives on the line, which I understand. If I call for a cop then I need help. But the cop who shows up volunteered to be a cop and work a dangerous job. If putting your life on the line isn't something you want to do, then quit and do something else. So I guess the question I ponder is the how to identify the division between showing respectful care for folks who choose these lines of work and the danger it can create for liberties when we end up with a system where cops can do or say about anything and Joe Citizen is stuck with the results. Like the recent case of the FL driver in MD, as one example.

[DocGKR]

Nyeti--Well said!

[PPGMD]

When we start trying to punish the street cops we are creating an adversary out of a group that was an ally.

Perhaps the normal street cops would do more to oppose the laws if they didn't get a carve out in the laws.

[ST911]

It's an interesting thought... A unified industry effort to cut off all sales and support to any state that doesn't demonstrate sufficient regard for the second amendment. That includes all firearms, ammo, and accessories, and all customers including...and especially...government and its agents. No exceptions, no exemptions.

Not going to happen, any more than the automakers and secondaries would cut off the states with restrictions that inhibit the good and promote the stupid in that industry.

After all, the gun and car business isn't about guns and cars. It's about business.

[TheTrevor]

It's an interesting thought... A unified industry effort to cut off all sales and support to any state that doesn't demonstrate sufficient regard for the second amendment. That includes all firearms, ammo, and accessories, and all customers including...and especially...government and its agents. No exceptions, no exemptions.

Not going to happen, any more than the automakers and secondaries would cut off the states with restrictions that inhibit the good and promote the stupid in that industry.

After all, the gun and car business isn't about guns and cars. It's about business.

Actually, that has been happening for quite some time. A significant number of businesses have decided not to sell anything to restrictive states that individual citizens can't buy. I don't have the link handy, but there's a site which lists all of the companies doing this.

[GardoneVT]

Perhaps the normal street cops would do more to oppose the laws if they didn't get a carve out in the laws.

That's like wondering why the masses of non-NCO enlisted members don't do more to change the DoDs budget priorities.

There's a chain of command, and it doesn't work in reverse.The Private doesn't tell the General what the rules should be.I'd imagine a group of patrol officers who tried to oppose Cheif Spineless N. Hatesguns would be quickly replaced with more compliant personell.

[ST911]

Actually, that has been happening for quite some time. A significant number of businesses have decided not to sell anything to restrictive states that individual citizens can't buy. I don't have the link handy, but there's a site which lists all of the companies doing this.

Not to take away from the a noble effort, but stands from the smaller outfits aren't like Glock, SIG, S&W, Remington, Colt, ATK, etc doing so.

[PPGMD]

That's like wondering why the masses of non-NCO enlisted members don't do more to change the DoDs budget priorities.

Different atmosphere due to that fact that that they are under the UCMJ.


There's a chain of command, and it doesn't work in reverse.The Private doesn't tell the General what the rules should be.I'd imagine a group of patrol officers who tried to oppose Cheif Spineless N. Hatesguns would be quickly replaced with more compliant personell.

It isn't Chief Spineless N. Hatesguns that is banning the guns. It is the politician that is the one that they must oppose.

[Alaskapopo]

This is probably a drift but it brings up a question I've been wondering about. There seems to be this constant concern about public servants who put their lives on the line, which I understand. If I call for a cop then I need help. But the cop who shows up volunteered to be a cop and work a dangerous job. If putting your life on the line isn't something you want to do, then quit and do something else. So I guess the question I ponder is the how to identify the division between showing respectful care for folks who choose these lines of work and the danger it can create for liberties when we end up with a system where cops can do or say about anything and Joe Citizen is stuck with the results. Like the recent case of the FL driver in MD, as one example.

I accept that risk comes with the job. My problem is with unjustified risk. I have no problem running into a school with an active shooter. But I do have a problem running into a school with an active shooter unarmed or under armed because someone wanted to send a political message. I also have a problem when police administrators tell us to do stupid things like make entry on a barricade gun man vs wait him out. I know an officer who got shot in the face with a .22 for following orders like that. Fortunately he lived and the round just broke his jaw. The answer is not to divide our base (pro gun pro second amendment people) but rather to unite us all. I don't want to see more of an us vs. them mentality going on. It has gotten bad since Sandy Hook and it needs to stop because its not helping to further gun rights. I will no longer do any business with Larue tactical because of their stance. I used to be a big fan and purchased thousands of dollars worth of gear from them over the years. Never again.

Magpul had the best solution I believe. Have officers who purchase from them sign a petition in support of the 2nd amendment and against further gun control. You can use that petition to support the cause showing law enforcement support and the cops can still get the gear they need.

I am not aware about what happened in MD with the Florida driver perhaps you can send a link.
Pat

[5pins]

I technically prefer to differentiate between the two when it comes to the world of culinary arts.

I never considered the McRib a part of the culinary arts.

[jon volk]

I never considered the McRib a part of the culinary arts.

It's artfully molded into unnatural shapes. There's probably hundreds of man hours behind making pig hooves and tails into a form that's passable to the general masses as "food"

So yes, culinary art ;)

[TGS]

This is probably a drift but it brings up a question I've been wondering about. There seems to be this constant concern about public servants who put their lives on the line, which I understand. If I call for a cop then I need help. But the cop who shows up volunteered to be a cop and work a dangerous job. If putting your life on the line isn't something you want to do, then quit and do something else.

To paraphrase a Colorado Fire Chief interviewed in a recent wildfire documentary........I signed up for a dangerous job, but I didn't sign up to do stupid things in unnecessary dangerous situations ordered by stupid people.

[Dagga Boy]

Perhaps the normal street cops would do more to oppose the laws if they didn't get a carve out in the laws.

So when I was in California, do you think I was putting my career on the line with all the letters with my real name, real occupation, real place of employment to all the Senators and congress people and other politicians because I wanted a carve out or for what I stood for like a majority of street cops? You think many of of did what was right to support law abiding gun owners for a carve out or what was right? You know when it becomes ALL about the carve out with none of the other support for the NRA and other citizen groups? It happens when the citizen groups start lumping the street cops in with the progressives and police executives......which is exactly what is happening. After a bunch of the crap I read on Calguns that was essentially directed at me, I no longer give a rats ass about the cause there. I do; however, continue to be a loud and vocal supporter of both the citizens and LEO's in my current state of residence.

[PPGMD]

So when I was in California, do you think I was putting my career on the line with all the letters with my real name, real occupation, real place of employment to all the Senators and congress people and other politicians because I wanted a carve out or for what I stood for like a majority of street cops? You think many of of did what was right to support law abiding gun owners for a carve out or what was right? You know when it becomes ALL about the carve out with none of the other support for the NRA and other citizen groups? It happens when the citizen groups start lumping the street cops in with the progressives and police executives......which is exactly what is happening. After a bunch of the crap I read on Calguns that was essentially directed at me, I no longer give a rats ass about the cause there. I do; however, continue to be a loud and vocal supporter of both the citizens and LEO's in my current state of residence.

nyeti,

How many other officers sent letters, made calls, did public appearances?

The fact is that when something does legitimately threaten the police's ability to respond, the level of response from the street officers and their public representatives is much different from when it is gun laws that don't directly effect them as there is almost always a LE carve out.

[DocGKR]

PPGMD: Quite a few. I know many of them.

[PPGMD]

PPGMD: Quite a few. I know many of them.

Oh I know a few as well. But they few make up a small percentage of the force at the agency that they are with.

So yes while there might be quite a few officers that support civilian gun rights, maybe enough to make a majority. But the amount that are vocal are a small minority.

[Alaskapopo]

To paraphrase a Colorado Fire Chief interviewed in a recent wildfire documentary........I signed up for a dangerous job, but I didn't sign up to do stupid things in unnecessary dangerous situations ordered by stupid people.

Well said.
Pat

[psalms144.1]

Oh I know a few as well. But they few make up a small percentage of the force at the agency that they are with.

So yes while there might be quite a few officers that support civilian gun rights, maybe enough to make a majority. But the amount that are vocal are a small minority.Just like the overwhelming majority of gun owners in the US who either (a) don't vote 2A issues, or (b) don't vote at all. Does that mean that the folks who enjoy gun friendly situations like in Texas should start losing their "carve out" from the restrictive laws in other states? I simply don't follow your logic.

And, FWIW, yes I'm stuck in NY (they don't call them "orders" for nothing), and as a full time Federal LEO and recognized NYS "Peace Officer," I fundamentally can't buy the P07 I'd like to try because no dealers in my area with sell ANY handguns anymore. I can't get spare magazines for my HKs, because HK USA won't sell ANY magazines to ANYONE in NYS anymore. I can't take my legally "exempted" AR or Benelli M2 to most public ranges. So, basically the "carve out" I get from the NY SAFE Act is that, while I'm putting my life on the line doing my job, no one is going to kitten with me over the fact that I have 15 rounds in my G19 mags.

Regards,

Kevin

[Alaskapopo]

nyeti,

How many other officers sent letters, made calls, did public appearances?

The fact is that when something does legitimately threaten the police's ability to respond, the level of response from the street officers and their public representatives is much different from when it is gun laws that don't directly effect them as there is almost always a LE carve out.
There are limits to what we can and can't do politically. Hell I can't even have a political sign in my yard since I have a take home car per department policy. Most offices are pro gun in my experience and I have only met a few that were even mildly anti gun and one of those was a California chief.

[nycnoob]

Just a little bit more gun control here and the only thing I will be able to do is go to the police station to admire my guns in some glass case and only once a year.

[PPGMD]

Does that mean that the folks who enjoy gun friendly situations like in Texas should start losing their "carve out" from the restrictive laws in other states? I simply don't follow your logic.

I can't follow your logic, you are comparing how some states have resisted the anti-gun commies, with the fact that most anti-gun laws have LE carve outs/exceptions/whatever the heck you want to call them?


And, FWIW, yes I'm stuck in NY (they don't call them "orders" for nothing), and as a full time Federal LEO and recognized NYS "Peace Officer," I fundamentally can't buy the P07 I'd like to try because no dealers in my area with sell ANY handguns anymore. I can't get spare magazines for my HKs, because HK USA won't sell ANY magazines to ANYONE in NYS anymore. I can't take my legally "exempted" AR or Benelli M2 to most public ranges. So, basically the "carve out" I get from the NY SAFE Act is that, while I'm putting my life on the line doing my job, no one is going to kitten with me over the fact that I have 15 rounds in my G19 mags.

Honestly you are taking this personally, and you obviously aren't the person that my hypothetical is meant to try to get their attention. Because lets be honest, LE carve outs aren't going anywhere, as they've been there since the first gun laws. And major gun companies aren't going to risk losing large markets. They might skip over a contract or two (like the Jersey City ones), but they aren't going to cut off entire states.

But my entire question, would removing LE carve outs from anti-gun laws make the average street officer get off their butts and rally against their anti-gun politicos that are putting their lives on the line?

[LHS]

But my entire question, would removing LE carve outs from anti-gun laws make the average street officer get off their butts and rally against their anti-gun politicos that are putting their lives on the line?

Or, more likely, would it get the police officers' unions out on the street with torches and pitchforks? That's what'll have an impact on the politicians pushing the laws, not the individual officers who can be punished for breaking the party line.

[TheTrevor]

In my personal experience, the vast majority of the "citizens don't need guns" LE are career admin types, or those headed that way. There is a VERY high correlation between being pro-citizen-disarmament and either being in an appointed position, or reporting directly to someone who serves at the pleasure of the local politicians.

The problem is that these are the same folks who make and promulgate policy, however diluted or ignored it may be by the time it gets to the street, and they're the ones who get to set the message to the media.

I know through direct personal experience that the message they put out doesn't reflect the sentiments of the folks out there doing good work. The problem is that most gun owners hear the same civilian-disarmament message repeated by X different police chiefs, and Y different mayors, and Z different DAs, and then they see the carve-outs and special exceptions baldly set forth in the very laws that are strangling their rights.

When the rank-and-file are required by the chain of command to stand silent while their leadership enthusiastically supports these infringements, it's all too easy for Joe Gun Owner to assume that they support it as well. And that's a problem, because that leads directly to the assumption that those same folks working the street will rigidly enforce anything they're told to enforce, up to and including confiscation.

I have a problem with the knighthood being granted a monopoly on force through decree of the rulers. I'm a long-time student of the samurai era in Japan, and I know how well that works for the vast majority who are not members of the warrior class. While I'm not LE, I have far too many friends and relatives who are to believe that the vast majority of LE want a feudal system in which a knighthood class is elevated above the folks they serve and protect, yet that's the direction I've seen things heading for the last 20 years.

The answer, friends, is equality under the law. No carve-outs for LE, because we are all treated with equal respect, and receive equal rights -- right up until someone goes over the line, and then the violation of the social contract means their rights get restricted. As a specific example, if I can pass the same background check as a local LEO and demonstrate competency, I should be able to own the same suppressed SBR M4 with the giggle switch that the tac team uses. Period.

Just as I support Ruger's recent actions to force judicial action on the unconstitutionality of the hated Roster here in CA, I support companies refusing to make agency-level sales into states restricting the rights of ordinary law-abiding citizens to force the issue. Sales to individual LE in NYS? Cool. Agency sales to NYPD or NYSP? Nope.

I'm supporting the fight against this wretched idiocy, as one of the other folks here puts it, from "behind the redwood curtain". I'm not above buying non-Roster guns from LE friends, yet I recognize that this is also subtle corruption of a kind, making me an extension of the privileged class. Exercising my constitutional and civil rights should not require asking favors of an exempt class, yet that is what I am reduced to in order to buy a gun that residents of other states can purchase at any LGS. For that reason, if nothing else, the divide between legislatively-created classes of "knighthood" and "subject" must be obliterated nationwide and this tide of infringements rolled back.

It make take 10 years, or 20, but it CAN and WILL happen in my lifetime.

[Alaskapopo]

Or, more likely, would it get the police officers' unions out on the street with torches and pitchforks? That's what'll have an impact on the politicians pushing the laws, not the individual officers who can be punished for breaking the party line.

Unions are there to protect our financial interests this type of politics is outside their scope of responsibility.
I get that people want law enforcement to be more vocal in support of the second amendment and I agree however there simply are not that many of us and not nearly enough to influence an election. Hell lately being in law enforcement is considered a bad thing by the right and the left anymore. The extreme right sees as the first line oppressors for the big government and the far left see us pretty much the same but they just care about different issues.
Pat

[Alaskapopo]

In my personal experience, the vast majority of the "citizens don't need guns" LE are career admin types, or those headed that way. There is a VERY high correlation between being pro-citizen-disarmament and either being in an appointed position, or reporting directly to someone who serves at the pleasure of the local politicians.

The problem is that these are the same folks who make and promulgate policy, however diluted or ignored it may be by the time it gets to the street, and they're the ones who get to set the message to the media.

I know through direct personal experience that the message they put out doesn't reflect the sentiments of the folks out there doing good work. The problem is that most gun owners hear the same civilian-disarmament message repeated by X different police chiefs, and Y different mayors, and Z different DAs, and then they see the carve-outs and special exceptions baldly set forth in the very laws that are strangling their rights.

When the rank-and-file are required by the chain of command to stand silent while their leadership enthusiastically supports these infringements, it's all too easy for Joe Gun Owner to assume that they support it as well. And that's a problem, because that leads directly to the assumption that those same folks working the street will rigidly enforce anything they're told to enforce, up to and including confiscation.

I have a problem with the knighthood being granted a monopoly on force through decree of the rulers. I'm a long-time student of the samurai era in Japan, and I know how well that works for the vast majority who are not members of the warrior class. While I'm not LE, I have far too many friends and relatives who are to believe that the vast majority of LE want a feudal system in which a knighthood class is elevated above the folks they serve and protect, yet that's the direction I've seen things heading for the last 20 years.

The answer, friends, is equality under the law. No carve-outs for LE, because we are all treated with equal respect, and receive equal rights -- right up until someone goes over the line, and then the violation of the social contract means their rights get restricted. As a specific example, if I can pass the same background check as a local LEO and demonstrate competency, I should be able to own the same suppressed SBR M4 with the giggle switch that the tac team uses. Period.

Just as I support Ruger's recent actions to force judicial action on the unconstitutionality of the hated Roster here in CA, I support companies refusing to make agency-level sales into states restricting the rights of ordinary law-abiding citizens to force the issue. Sales to individual LE in NYS? Cool. Agency sales to NYPD or NYSP? Nope.

I'm supporting the fight against this wretched idiocy, as one of the other folks here puts it, from "behind the redwood curtain". I'm not above buying non-Roster guns from LE friends, yet I recognize that this is also subtle corruption of a kind, making me an extension of the privileged class. Exercising my constitutional and civil rights should not require asking favors of an exempt class, yet that is what I am reduced to in order to buy a gun that residents of other states can purchase at any LGS. For that reason, if nothing else, the divide between legislatively-created classes of "knighthood" and "subject" must be obliterated nationwide and this tide of infringements rolled back.

It make take 10 years, or 20, but it CAN and WILL happen in my lifetime.

With respect that is a huge leap. Knighthood really? More like we are the 2nd class citizens taking crap from the public we serve and the politically appointed administrators above us. Being caught in the middle is not fun.

[TheTrevor]

With respect that is a huge leap. Knighthood really? More like we are the 2nd class citizens taking crap from the public we serve and the politically appointed administrators above us. Being caught in the middle is not fun.

I know what it's like, Pat. I do Crossfit with "you people (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPxs0Qh72kY)" (I kid, I kid!), I grew up in an LE family, etc etc.

I've given this a lot of thought, and I'm comfortable with using the ruler/knight/serf metaphor to describe the direction I think things are headed, especially in restrictive states. Being a member of the warrior class does NOT automatically give you economic or social privileges. I can go into my reasoning behind this, at tedious length, but I should be doing some dry-fire practice right now.

Suffice it to say that the knight/samurai class historically had three advantages over the commoner:
* training reserved for the warrior class
* weaponry and armor not permitted and/or affordable to commoners
* greatly reduced (or no) rules of liability for the use of force

All three of those are true in Western society today, to one degree or another, but instead of knights or samurai we call them LEO or LEA. It's the second one we're discussing here, and it's the wedge being driven between the rank-and-file LE community and the citizens they serve by politicians and LE appointees.

[Dagga Boy]

A lot of this is some pretty deep speculation of gigantic leaps over a very simple issue.

L/E admin serves the liberal politicians in major urbanized centers and are used as pawns of the progressive anti gun agenda. Yet the same people are tasked with keeping their "workers" doing the most work for the least amount of money and support as possible....in line with the fiscal conservatives. Line L/E tend to be very conservative on gun issues in which they really would just like to see criminals removed from society who prey on the citizenry and understand the need for folks to defend themselves from evil folks who tend to be adored by the progressives. This flies in total contrast with what side they fall on when it comes to pay and benefits which tends to lean heavily towards pro-union democrats. This essentially becomes an issue of gun rights for the citizens or pay and benefits when it comes time to vote. It is a delicate balance that is often in flux. It isn't about knights, it's about "do I vote for guns, or higher pay?" This is why most L/E tend to sort of stay out of the whole process.

[Alaskapopo]

A lot of this is some pretty deep speculation of gigantic leaps over a very simple issue.

L/E admin serves the liberal politicians in major urbanized centers and are used as pawns of the progressive anti gun agenda. Yet the same people are tasked with keeping their "workers" doing the most work for the least amount of money and support as possible....in line with the fiscal conservatives. Line L/E tend to be very conservative on gun issues in which they really would just like to see criminals removed from society who prey on the citizenry and understand the need for folks to defend themselves from evil folks who tend to be adored by the progressives. This flies in total contrast with what side they fall on when it comes to pay and benefits which tends to lean heavily towards pro-union democrats. This essentially becomes an issue of gun rights for the citizens or pay and benefits when it comes time to vote. It is a delicate balance that is often in flux. It isn't about knights, it's about "do I vote for guns, or higher pay?" This is why most L/E tend to sort of stay out of the whole process.

Thank you for posting this. Its right on and I wish I was as articulate. Right now on a local and state level I will not vote republican because they are trying to kill us financially. On the federal level pretty much have to vote republican because of the gun issue. Tough spot to be in. I know this will never happen but I would love it if the republican party (party line) dropped their anti labor stance or if the democrats (party line) dropped their anti gun stance.
Pat

[Alaskapopo]

Suffice it to say that the knight/samurai class historically had three advantages over the commoner:
* training reserved for the warrior class
* weaponry and armor not permitted and/or affordable to commoners
* greatly reduced (or no) rules of liability for the use of force

.

Again with respect on the points above. Can't argue on the weaponry in some states your right cops can have guns citizens can not. It sucks and I am for changing that.

Training. There is a lot of great training available to citizens. I am not aware of much that is leo only and some stuff should be that way because I don't want the bad guys know all of our tactics. It puts us in more jeopardy and it really will not benefit the average citizen trying to defend themselves.

As for liability we are held to a higher standard when using force that a non leo situation. Example a preacher up here shot two suspects in the back as they ran towards their car to get away and was acquitted. As a cop I would be fired, jailed and convicted for the same thing. Because of our training and experience we are held to a higher standard by the courts and by the public. Some people actually think we should shoot guns out of peoples hands and crap like that and they get put on juries. Furthermore our job places us in situations far more often than the average citizen to use force and to have to make split second life and death decisions. Put simply we are given a lot more chances to screw up and when we do we get crucified.

[NETim]

And socially liberal Democrats are generally against more prison time and harsher penalties for the bad guys.

Unions and the GOP would probably get along much better if the AFL/CIO wasn't so deep in the back pocket of the DNC.

[PPGMD]

Training. There is a lot of great training available to citizens. I am not aware of much that is leo only and some stuff should be that way because I don't want the bad guys know all of our tactics. It puts us in more jeopardy and it really will not benefit the average citizen trying to defend themselves.

Because civilians don't need tactics? The bad guys that are actually out to hurt cops know your tactics. And civilians should also be trained on those tactics, remember the second amendment isn't just about defending yourself. I honestly don't care (I barely have enough time to get ready for competition as is), but there are those that legitimately feel that they should have the same level of training available to them, and IMO they are right.

[Alaskapopo]

Because civilians don't need tactics? The bad guys that are actually out to hurt cops know your tactics. And civilians should also be trained on those tactics, remember the second amendment isn't just about defending yourself. I honestly don't care (I barely have enough time to get ready for competition as is), but there are those that legitimately feel that they should have the same level of training available to them, and IMO they are right.
I did not say that. However they don't need to know our tactics on making entry into a drug house etc. They need to know tactics on how to fight against a home invasions etc while acting as the defender. There is a big difference in tactics between police raids and home defense. We can hope that the trainers out there screen their students well but not everyone is ethical.
Pat

[Alaskapopo]

And socially liberal Democrats are generally against more prison time and harsher penalties for the bad guys.

Unions and the GOP would probably get along much better if the AFL/CIO wasn't so deep in the back pocket of the DNC.

My point of view is that the GOP is so deep in big buisness back pocket they don't care about the working class or small business owners.
Pat

[LittleLebowski]

My point of view is that the GOP is so deep in big buisness back pocket they don't care about the working class or small business owners.
Pat

Are you really (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?_r=3&partner=rss&emc=rss&) sure that you want to stand on that one?

[GardoneVT]

My point of view is that the GOP is so deep in big buisness back pocket they don't care about the working class or small business owners.
Pat

That's a generalization which is NOT nationally accurate .

I grew up in Democrat run Chicago, and the last thing that local party cares about is the working class.The argument could be made that it's the most crooked place in America.

Here in South Dakota, the GOP actually listens to the will of the people.Fancy that. The state also isn't in debt up to the stratosphere, and businesses small and large aren't taxed to oblivion.

I've seen and lived the Democrat version of the "New Deal". No thanks.

[Alaskapopo]

That's a generalization which is NOT nationally accurate .

I grew up in Democrat run Chicago, and the last thing that local party cares about is the working class.The argument could be made that it's the most crooked place in America.

Here in South Dakota, the GOP actually listens to the will of the people.Fancy that. The state also isn't in debt up to the stratosphere, and businesses small and large aren't taxed to oblivion.

I've seen and lived the Democrat version of the "New Deal". No thanks.

At the end of the day the Democratic party has passed laws to help workers rights and increase their pay and benefits while republicans have done the opposite. You going to have a tough sell to get someone to vote for political party or candidate that is hell bent on lowering their standard of living. If the GOP dropped its anti labor stance they could get a lot more voters. A lot of union workers are socially conservative and agree with the republican party on many key issues. But again they don't want to vote away their pay check.
Pat

[GardoneVT]

At the end of the day the Democratic party has passed laws to help workers rights and increase their pay and benefits while republicans have done the opposite. You going to have a tough sell to get someone to vote for political party or candidate that is hell bent on lowering their standard of living.
Pat

Have they?

Higher minimum wage laws alter the equilibrium balance of the economy, and turn low paying jobs into nonexistent ones.

Fines for corporate actions, heavy restrictions on product sales (CA Gun Roster, anyone?) ,heavy regulation on business practices, and direct and indirect increases in the costs of payroll and staff (Obamacare and other economically boneheaded moves) ruins the standard of living of everyone.I find it mind boggling that people think anti business government policy is a good thing, since all of us in one form or another live the way we do BECAUSE OF BUSINESS!


No political party is perfect.But I've seen what happens when the Democrats have a clean slate to pass whatever they like.The result is California, Illinois, and New York State.Places not exactly known for economic prosperity, transparent government and record low crime figures.

[RoyGBiv]

At the end of the day the Democratic party has passed laws to help workers rights and increase their pay and benefits
Pat
..... because the unions (and others) stuff their favorite candidates piggy banks in return for their doing so, to the equal (I'd argue greater, but will give you a draw just to avoid another tangential argument) detriment of our nation.

Reality is that the Dems plan helps sme workers at the expense of others, and is, overall, bad for jobs and the economy.

If you want to talk about campaign finance reform, we'll have a lot to agree about, but claiming the GOP is in the back pocket of big business and intimating that the Dems are not beholding to a different, yet still completely self-centered, self serving set of benefactors is just not true.

[jetfire]

That's a generalization which is NOT nationally accurate .

I grew up in Democrat run Chicago, and the last thing that local party cares about is the working class.The argument could be made that it's the most crooked place in America.

Here in South Dakota, the GOP actually listens to the will of the people.Fancy that. The state also isn't in debt up to the stratosphere, and businesses small and large aren't taxed to oblivion.

I've seen and lived the Democrat version of the "New Deal". No thanks.

You're in SoDak?

[JAD]

However they don't need to know our tactics on making entry into a drug house etc. They need to know tactics on how to fight against a home invasions etc while acting as the defender.

Same same, sometimes.

I've made a point of making sure my address is *really* clear on the front of my house though.

[LittleLebowski]

I've made a point of making sure my address is *really* clear on the front of my house though.

Same here. Cameras will be going up sooner or later, as well.

[NETim]

You're in SoDak?

Flyover country PF'ers unite!

[Alaskapopo]

Same same, sometimes.

I've made a point of making sure my address is *really* clear on the front of my house though.

That is good for more reasons than just police miss identification. Its also good for helping medics and others find your house when you call 911. Its very difficult in rural areas to find houses a lot of times because they are not marked or poorly marked.

[Alaskapopo]

..... because the unions (and others) stuff their favorite candidates piggy banks in return for their doing so, to the equal (I'd argue greater, but will give you a draw just to avoid another tangential argument) detriment of our nation.

Reality is that the Dems plan helps sme workers at the expense of others, and is, overall, bad for jobs and the economy.

If you want to talk about campaign finance reform, we'll have a lot to agree about, but claiming the GOP is in the back pocket of big business and intimating that the Dems are not beholding to a different, yet still completely self-centered, self serving set of benefactors is just not true.
With respect I disagree. Its been shown there is a spill over effect in strong union areas wages and benefits are higher for not just union workers but also non union workers so their business can still attract qualified applicants because they are competing with union shops. So i don't see how you can say that they are helping some workers while hurting others.
Pat

[BLR]

Same here. Cameras will be going up sooner or later, as well.

We should talk. Maybe another thread on this?

[Shellback]

Gov. Andrew Cuomo is at it again. (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/18/andrew-cuomo-if-extreme-conservatives-are-right-to-life-pro-assault-weapon-anti-gay-then-they-have-no-place-in-the-state-of-new-york/)

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said in a radio interview that if “extreme conservatives” are “right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay,” then “they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.”

[RoyGBiv]

With respect I disagree. Its been shown there is a spill over effect in strong union areas wages and benefits are higher for not just union workers but also non union workers so their business can still attract qualified applicants because they are competing with union shops. So i don't see how you can say that they are helping some workers while hurting others.
Pat
Boeing is a good example.

Union guys in Seattle are getting paid more than their counterparts in the new SC plant. Is Seattle actually doing more with better quality? or can the same job be done for less total cost with the same quality using non-union labor in South Carolina? How many dollars of output do you get for each dollar of input in each location? You don't have to look it up, Boeing's march East makes it clear.

How about GM/Ford/Chrysler? If union workers were getting paid properly with respect to the wage needed for their employer to remain globally competitive, where did all those great-paying, middle class, Detroit manufacturing jobs go? (Yes, corrupt politicians, democrats, are substantially to blame, but uncompetitive wage structures funded the whole mess until it all fell down when the jobs moved away.

I could go on.

Any "spillover" (BTW, Reagan called that "Trickle Down", but Dems don't like to admit what you're saying is the same thing) that's supported by unsustainable, socially motivated, economically unsound, redistributionist wage structures is destined to collapse. You can't build the road to success on rotten footings.

[TGS]

With respect I disagree. Its been shown there is a spill over effect in strong union areas wages and benefits are higher for not just union workers but also non union workers so their business can still attract qualified applicants because they are competing with union shops. So i don't see how you can say that they are helping some workers while hurting others.
Pat

Pat,

You're disagreeing up the wrong tree. You're not even talking about the same thing. ***Woosh*** It flew completely over your head....or, more likely, you're just trying to deflect reason again as you've done in pretty much any conversation you've had with anyone on this site.

Bigger compensation packages help some employees, but hurt others because of the net loss of jobs with the decreased profit by the employer. Let's say McDonald's starts paying their people $15/hour; the compensation cost will simply be passed onto the consumer. The BigMac will be noticeably more expensive, which not everyone will want to pay. Profit will suffer further due to decreased sales, and stores will have to close (or they'll switch to more automation). So, the employees who wanted their $15/hour wage will now be out of a job.

This isn't an evil Republican theory. This simple understanding of what we like to call "no-shit, Einstein" has played out again, again, and again with Union shops over the last few decades, the most recent being the Twinkies assembly line people striking themselves right out of any compensation at all.

Given what you've posted since being a member of this forum, my guess is right about now you're thinking it's all because of those big evil Republicans that run corporations, who are greedy, and close down their business instead of just accepting a lower profit margin for the good of the employee. Thing is, there really isn't all that much to spare like you think. A member had posted an article about Wal-Mart, a place I'm sure you're familiar with. Your soul and Union card would probably burst into flames from stepping inside such a facility, where the cash registers are greased with the blood of the working poor and the delivery trucks fueled on their children's crushed dreams; but not so. If Wal-Mart was to take all of their earnings.....all of it....and give it all to the employees, it would add up to only a $0.91 raise. That's it. 91 cents per employee. Surely a big chunk of change when all added up in the coffers of the evil Republican skeletons that run the joint, but really not anything to make a meaningful difference if they just gave it away to anyone.

Sumdood once said, "The best social program is a job." So, frankly, I take offense to your notion that conservatives are against social programs. We're not. We're just not dancing around in la-la land, thinking that money grows like in Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory.

[DocGKR]

At the end of the day the Democratic party has passed laws to help workers rights and increase their pay and benefits while republicans have done the opposite."

I am an independent voter and do not belong to either party--however, the above statement is absolutely incorrect regarding healthcare in my area.

[RoyGBiv]

If Wal-Mart was to take all of their earnings.....all of it....and give it all to the employees, it would add up to only a $0.91 raise. That's it. 91 cents per employee. Surely a big chunk of change when all added up in the coffers of the evil Republican skeletons that run the joint, but really not anything to make a meaningful difference if they just gave it away to anyone."Big-Oil" is another good example of the notion that making a few pennies on your goods, but selling a kittten-load, can make for good business.

http://www.forbes.com/2011/05/10/oil-company-earnings.html
on average, between 2006 and 2010, the largest oil companies averaged a profit margin of around 6.5%.
Not only is running a business on a 6.5% net a squeaky thin line, but think about how and where oil operates. Dangerous places in Africa, deep water, stormy North Atlantic, frozen tundra, under heavy regulations, global transportation issues, civil unrest, despotic governments, huge capitol investments... and at less than 7%. Good thing they sell a lot of it. Scale and skill.

Sure, $10B quarterly profits is a huge number. But it's still only 6.5%. How low should that percentage be "allowed" to be? Maybe we should "take those profits" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0So48eKMu10)and do something else with it, like fund Solyndra.?

/OT

[GardoneVT]

"Big-Oil" is another good example of the notion that making a few pennies on your goods, but selling a kittten-load, can make for good business.

Not only is running a business on a 6.5% net a squeaky thin line, but think about how and where oil operates. Dangerous places in Africa, deep water, stormy North Atlantic, frozen tundra, under heavy regulations, global transportation issues, civil unrest, despotic governments, huge capitol investments... and at less than 7%. Good thing they sell a lot of it. Scale and skill.

Sure, $10B quarterly profits is a huge number. But it's still only 6.5%. How low should that percentage be "allowed" to be? Maybe we should "take those profits" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0So48eKMu10)and do something else with it, like fund Solyndra.?

/OT

Indeed.

Many times the media reports the raw revenue in the billions as a sign some company is up to no good.

They rarely publish the expense side of the income statement.

[Chuck Whitlock]

Flyover country PF'ers unite!

Indeed!

[Alaskapopo]

Pat,

You're disagreeing up the wrong tree. You're not even talking about the same thing. ***Woosh*** It flew completely over your head....or, more likely, you're just trying to deflect reason again as you've done in pretty much any conversation you've had with anyone on this site.

Bigger compensation packages help some employees, but hurt others because of the net loss of jobs with the decreased profit by the employer. Let's say McDonald's starts paying their people $15/hour; the compensation cost will simply be passed onto the consumer. The BigMac will be noticeably more expensive, which not everyone will want to pay. Profit will suffer further due to decreased sales, and stores will have to close (or they'll switch to more automation). So, the employees who wanted their $15/hour wage will now be out of a job.

This isn't an evil Republican theory. This simple understanding of what we like to call "no-shit, Einstein" has played out again, again, and again with Union shops over the last few decades, the most recent being the Twinkies assembly line people striking themselves right out of any compensation at all.

Given what you've posted since being a member of this forum, my guess is right about now you're thinking it's all because of those big evil Republicans that run corporations, who are greedy, and close down their business instead of just accepting a lower profit margin for the good of the employee. Thing is, there really isn't all that much to spare like you think. A member had posted an article about Wal-Mart, a place I'm sure you're familiar with. Your soul and Union card would probably burst into flames from stepping inside such a facility, where the cash registers are greased with the blood of the working poor and the delivery trucks fueled on their children's crushed dreams; but not so. If Wal-Mart was to take all of their earnings.....all of it....and give it all to the employees, it would add up to only a $0.91 raise. That's it. 91 cents per employee. Surely a big chunk of change when all added up in the coffers of the evil Republican skeletons that run the joint, but really not anything to make a meaningful difference if they just gave it away to anyone.

Sumdood once said, "The best social program is a job." So, frankly, I take offense to your notion that conservatives are against social programs. We're not. We're just not dancing around in la-la land, thinking that money grows like in Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory.
Yes it hurts the CEO's and executives because they will get less profits and more will be paid to wages. Here is me shedding the worlds smallest tear drop. A study was done with Wallmart as I recall and it indicated if they increased their average wage for $9 an hour to $12 the customer would only notice an increase in 50 cents per visit.
Anyway there is no point going down the union vs non union debate again. Our minds are set. What I am saying is the republican party could get itself some voters if they at the very least softened their anti worker stance. When you put someone in a position to have to vote for or against their wallet don't be surprised when they vote for having more vs having less.
Pat

[Alaskapopo]

At the end of the day the Democratic party has passed laws to help workers rights and increase their pay and benefits while republicans have done the opposite."

I am an independent voter and do not belong to either party--however, the above statement is absolutely incorrect regarding healthcare in my area.

I am an independent voter as well voting for candidates on both sides of the aisle depending on how they stand on the issues. For me the health care act is making it possible for me to retire at 20 years vs having to wait for 25. I have researched it and I can move to Arizona get a silver plan and pay $400 a month. Where before that I was going to have to wait until I had 25 years on so I could get medical coverage when I got out. Before if I got out at 20 I would have to purchase medical insurance at the pre affordable health care act rates of $800 or more.
Pat

[Alaskapopo]

Indeed.

Many times the media reports the raw revenue in the billions as a sign some company is up to no good.

They rarely publish the expense side of the income statement.

Based on what I have seen in my state big oil does very very well.
Pat

[BaiHu]

"Big-Oil" is another good example of the notion that making a few pennies on your goods, but selling a kittten-load, can make for good business.

Not only is running a business on a 6.5% net a squeaky thin line, but think about how and where oil operates. Dangerous places in Africa, deep water, stormy North Atlantic, frozen tundra, under heavy regulations, global transportation issues, civil unrest, despotic governments, huge capitol investments... and at less than 7%. Good thing they sell a lot of it. Scale and skill.

Sure, $10B quarterly profits is a huge number. But it's still only 6.5%. How low should that percentage be "allowed" to be? Maybe we should "take those profits" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0So48eKMu10)and do something else with it, like fund Solyndra.?

/OT

Meanwhile, the banks (who are just starting to get some bad press in recent years) .....I forget who said it, but it went like this: if the American people understood the banking industry, they'd riot by the morning.


I am an independent voter as well voting for candidates on both sides of the aisle depending on how they stand on the issues. For me the health care act is making it possible for me to retire at 20 years vs having to wait for 25. I have researched it and I can move to Arizona get a silver plan and pay $400 a month. Where before that I was going to have to wait until I had 25 years on so I could get medical coverage when I got out. Before if I got out at 20 I would have to purchase medical insurance at the pre affordable health care act rates of $800 or more.
Pat

If you believe that, I've got a few bridges to sell you. Good luck with that.



Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[NickA]

Meanwhile, the banks (who are just starting to get some bad press in recent years) .....I forget who said it, but it went like this: if the American people understood the banking industry, they'd riot by the morning.


Not to sidetrack, but when talking about "evil banking" be sure to differentiate between the "too big to fail" banks and smaller, more local ones. The amount of regulation dropped on the latter because of the actions of the former is absolutely stifling. It's almost like the whole system is being manipulated so that the big banks are the only ones that can possibly survive :cool:
(Another fun note: when there's a big data breach like the Target deal, who gets to eat all the fraudulent charges plus the cost of canceling and reissuing debit cards? The bank. Maybe not so bad for SuperMegaBank, but extremely expensive for LocalSmallBank )

[BaiHu]

NickA,
Duly noted and my bad. So much for "reform" through Dodd/Frank. They are bigger, fewer and more prone to destroying the world now more than ever. Bravo politicians, bravo.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[TGS]

When you put someone in a position to have to vote for or against their wallet don't be surprised when they vote for having more vs having less.
Pat

My dear Pat, bingo!!!!!

Thats the reason so many of us are opposed to a big government that invites such conditions! This is what we mean when we say that the Democratic party is holding people hostage for their votes. Doesnt it all come together so nicely now that youve essentially supported our argument?

[Drang]

At the end of the day the Democratic party has passed laws to help workers rights and increase their pay and benefits while republicans have done the opposite.
Trust busting, labor laws, etc. go their start under Theodore Roosevelt, not his commie cousin.

[littlejerry]

I am an independent voter as well voting for candidates on both sides of the aisle depending on how they stand on the issues. For me the health care act is making it possible for me to retire at 20 years vs having to wait for 25. I have researched it and I can move to Arizona get a silver plan and pay $400 a month. Where before that I was going to have to wait until I had 25 years on so I could get medical coverage when I got out. Before if I got out at 20 I would have to purchase medical insurance at the pre affordable health care act rates of $800 or more.
Pat

Fyi, your "affordable" healthcare is coming out of my pocket.

Hope that juice is worth the squeeze, cuz it sure as hell isn't free.

[Alaskapopo]

Fyi, your "affordable" healthcare is coming out of my pocket.

Hope that juice is worth the squeeze, cuz it sure as hell isn't free.

It comes out of all of our pockets. Last I checked I pay taxes too.
Pat

[Alaskapopo]

My dear Pat, bingo!!!!!

Thats the reason so many of us are opposed to a big government that invites such conditions! This is what we mean when we say that the Democratic party is holding people hostage for their votes. Doesnt it all come together so nicely now that youve essentially supported our argument?
The opposite side is being a surf to the rich living in near slavery at starvation level wages.

[jthhapkido]

The opposite side is being a surf to the rich living in near slavery at starvation level wages.

....because the extremes are the only possible outcomes.

[Kyle Reese]

Anything is better than being a "surf" to the ritch!

:)

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

[DocGKR]

FWIW "serf" not "surf". I am from Hawaii, there is a difference...

[TGS]

Oh Pat, you're so cute!


FWIW "serf" not "surf". I am from Hawaii, there is a difference...

Maybe he's implying food for the rich...like surf and turf dinner.

[DocGKR]

"I have researched it and I can move to Arizona get a silver plan and pay $400 a month. "

That is nice for you, however under ACA, our family is now paying DOUBLE what we paid last year, for less coverage.

At any rate, my comment was NOT about ACA, but the actual business/practice costs of providing healthcare. The regulations imposed in my area, primarily by politicians from the Democratic party, have made it almost impossible to practice ethical healthcare and still make a living. I get to keep $0.10 to $0.15 of every dollar I earn caring for patients--the rest goes to taxes, overhead, staff costs, regulatory fees, insurance, etc... So if I gross $1,000,000 in my practice, I actually take home $100,000 to $150,000--not exactly a huge profit for working 12 hours a day, five days a week, plus evening and weekend call.

I should add that some of the nurses here make in excess of $180,000 a year working normal 40 hr weeks...

[NickA]

NickA,
Duly noted and my bad. So much for "reform" through Dodd/Frank. They are bigger, fewer and more prone to destroying the world now more than ever. Bravo politicians, bravo.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

No worries, I totally agree with you, just pointing out how absurd the whole system can be at times.

[TGS]

I should add that some of the nurses here make in excess of $180,000 a year working normal 40 hr weeks...

CRNAs?

[PPGMD]

I should add that some of the nurses here make in excess of $180,000 a year working normal 40 hr weeks...

The nurses around here take home descent wages, but no where near that.

[littlejerry]

That is nice for you, however under ACA, our family is now paying DOUBLE what we paid last year, for less coverage.

At any rate, my comment was NOT about ACA, but the actual business/practice costs of providing healthcare. The regulations imposed in my area, primarily by politicians from the Democratic party, have made it almost impossible to practice ethical healthcare and still make a living. I get to keep $0.10 to $0.15 of every dollar I earn caring for patients--the rest goes to taxes, overhead, staff costs, regulatory fees, insurance, etc... So if I gross $1,000,000 in my practice, I actually take home $100,000 to $150,000--not exactly a huge profit for working 12 hours a day, five days a week, plus evening and weekend call.

I should add that some of the nurses here make in excess of $180,000 a year working normal 40 hr weeks...

Why can't you just shut up, work for pennies, and take all the risk? Oh, and would you mind splitting my healthcare tab with me? After all, you're rich*

*you have worked hard and been successful. You make more than $15 per hour.

[DocGKR]

Not CRNA's--NP's, RN's with MA/MS, PA's.

My son is doing an MD/PhD in Boston; my middle daughter looked at the time and effort vs. gain and has decided to do an RN and Masters degree...

[Alaskapopo]

That is nice for you, however under ACA, our family is now paying DOUBLE what we paid last year, for less coverage.

At any rate, my comment was NOT about ACA, but the actual business/practice costs of providing healthcare. The regulations imposed in my area, primarily by politicians from the Democratic party, have made it almost impossible to practice ethical healthcare and still make a living. I get to keep $0.10 to $0.15 of every dollar I earn caring for patients--the rest goes to taxes, overhead, staff costs, regulatory fees, insurance, etc... So if I gross $1,000,000 in my practice, I actually take home $100,000 to $150,000--not exactly a huge profit for working 12 hours a day, five days a week, plus evening and weekend call.

I should add that some of the nurses here make in excess of $180,000 a year working normal 40 hr weeks...
Not sure what the perfect solution is but under the old system health care costs were going up at a rate 4 times that of inflation. Something was broke and still needs to be fixed.
Pat

[Alaskapopo]

....because the extremes are the only possible outcomes.

I agree just saying it seems that the extremes are the ones running each party. Far left on the democrat side and far right on the republican side hopefully with the Tea Party losing some favor that will change a bit for the republicans at least.
Pat

[Alaskapopo]

FWIW "serf" not "surf". I am from Hawaii, there is a difference...

I am going to have miss spelled words and typos from time to time. I am dyslexic and I am sorry if that offends.

[Dagga Boy]

Speaking of extremes........I guess now according to Cuomo you have no place in NY if you are Pro-Life, Pro "assault weapon", and anti gay (and I am assuming that is gay-marriage). Being one of those evil Tea Party guys, I don't care about the first and third anymore as long as I am not paying for it and I guess being a Constitutionalist is now "extreme" in NY. You folks in NY are screwed between the new communist mayor and a governor with no basic understanding of the Constitution or tolerance of the views that a majority of this country has towards social issues.

[BaiHu]

They don't need the constitution, just look at who they're modeling themselves after.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[Shellback]

Gun owners have a paper shredding party. Video at link: http://patdollard.com/2014/04/awesome-ny-gun-owners-shred-documents-to-protest-safe-act-on-registration-deadline/#Peyy4W9oqivRRkIa.99