comnavhublant

I am gun owner. My guns are not just for home protections. I like going to the range and challenging my self to shoot small stuff at long distances and also regular stuff with quick trigger pulls. I could say it was "practice" but it's more than that. Yes, there is a certain adrenaline thing that goes on with it. That being said, I want to keep those weapons and pass them on to my boys when I get too old to enjoy them. But also, on the other hand I don't want weapons like the ones I have, or my shooting buddies have falling into the hands of the wrong people. So, my proposal (which my friends are divided on) is one where both sides of the issue have to give a little but I think is the most effective way to do something about gun control while still keeping our 2nd Amendment intact.

1. Absolutely ZERO ban on AR/AK type weapons or the sale of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. It would be unlawful to transport a magazine with more than 10 rounds in it on your person or in a vehicle. While at a place where shooting is legal, a person can have as many rounds in a magazine of any size they want. (shooting ranges, hunting grounds, and also on private property to include your own home)

2. Each state should include a way to annotate on their state issued ID indicating the person identified by that ID is allowed to own firearms. Just like an organ donor endorsement. This endorsement would be achieved by a full background check, a state endorsed gun safety class, and a physical that includes simple motor skills test and a personality test for emotional response. (believe it or not, most people who are mentally off will fail the personality test.) If the personality test is failed, a person would be able to go to a qualified mental health expert for an interview and if found to be non-violent or marginally unstable signed off as not a threat.

3. Weapon registration: (This is where some of my friends argue) Each firearm you purchase must be registered in the state in which you purchased it and it will be issued a title just like a car. Sale of the firearm is only lawful from person-to-person if the person buying the firearm has the state endorsement on their ID. A sale of a firearm would require reporting to the state within 30 days. Failure to do so would result in a weapons charge. *If you sell the firearm to someone who has a fake ID, the identity theft charge would include a weapons felony for the purchaser if caught. The seller would not be charged but an annotation would be made that the seller "lost a gun" in a bad sale to ensure that one person isn't "getting duped" on a regular basis for a fee* The title of the weapon would have a tear off that is signed by the seller and purchaser along with their ID number and turned in to the DMV within 30 days. That's how it would be reported. Firearms will be protected by the Federal Government against property or any other ownership tax as long as they are registered in a state.

4. Any violation of these laws, or some of those already in place in regards to purchasing a firearm would be a mandatory misdemeanor on the first offense. Meaning, a cop would be bound by law to charge and you would have to go to court. The state would have to prove their case or you would plea guilty and accept a nasty fine. A second offense within a 5 year period would be considered a mandatory felony.

It's harsh, but most of us gun owners are law-abiding citizens anyway and although this is a serious inconvenience on our part, it would allow us to keep our weapons and those that say private citizens shouldn't own them will just have to accept that the state and the federal government at that point have done everything they can shy of PROHIBITION to try and prevent intentional gun deaths. But equally as such, as gun owners we have to accept that the government must do something so that anti-gun people cannot say that nobody tried. Everyone must abandon the extremes and come to a compromise that is fair and logical... Chime in and tell me what you think.

Received new from the company. I wasted no time trying to inspect it only to find I can't pull anything apart. It appears the extractor is not lined up in the barrel and won't rotate enough to remove the bolt assy. I'm pretty sure that this is not normal and the company told me to "pull back sharply on the charging handle".. No avail. Am I supposed to do something else? I just want to know before I send it back. It took 2 months to get this upper built and shipped and I'm sooooo anxious to shoot it, it's ridiculous. Thanks!

I have an idea for a new stimulus plan.. It may be stupid, but I'm just a guy with a high school education so there are undoubtedly things I didn't think about.

1. Reclaim 100% (With interest) of the money that was paid during the bailout from the banks and automotive manufacturers.

-Based on the census numbers from 1996 (it was as current as I could find), it was estimated there would be 114 million households in 2010. So, in the interest of estimating high, I'll say there are 120 million now. http://www.census.gov/prod/1/pop/p25-1129.pdf

2. Take the money reclaimed and create a one-time credit of $100,000 per HOUSEHOLD of taxpayers and dependents. Yes, I understand that this would equal $12 Trillion.

-Each household would mean that even though there may be 3 or more actual taxpayers in the household, the credit would be for that single residence.

-The determination would be based on current physical address that must be verified by proof of recent bank accounts and bills.... we all know the drill.

-This credit would not be issued as a tax credit or cash. It would have to be filed as a claim to a state office where all of the documentation is reviewed and processed. (This could create temp jobs too.)

The credit would be used only to pay off EXISTING credit accounts, car loans, mortgage payments, and other outstanding debt held by members of the household.

-The credit would be equally divided among members of the household or however the members of the household agree. Only ONE claim package will be accepted per household and if multiple are found, then it will be set aside for assessment.

-Should the household not need all $100k, the remaining may be applied to the purchase of a home or split equally among the members of the household and put in their social security fund. Members of the household will not be required to use the full $100k.

-Claims for credit used to purchase a new home must be spent on a home that is on a foreclosure listing and must be used as a primary residence of at least one member of the household for no less than 5 years. Member must be 18 years of age or older and a taxpayer.

3. Members of a household submit a claim for this credit must agree to forfeit any Federal Tax Refunds for the term of 10 years, or until the amount of cummulitive refunds forfeited excedes the amount credited. Whichever happens first.

-Members of a household that make a claim will not be entitled to Earned Income Credit during any year that a refund is forfeited.

-Members that move from one household to another will still be required to fulfill the tax liability agreed to at the time the credit is issued.

-Itemized deductions, and standard tax credits will still be allowed when filing taxes to determine whether or not taxes are due.

There's a lot more that can be included as this is just the basic idea. The details could be hashed out later.

I believe that even though there will be fraud with a program like this, it will still accomplish the following:

1. Taxpayers will be able to free themselves of excessive debts.

2. Financial institutions will not falter as they will receive the money used to pay off the debts without significant government regulation, but will have to understand that they will be allowed to fail later.

3. The national debt will be reduced in a more timely manner without significant hardships placed on taxpayers. Furthermore, there will be less need for tax increases once the number of refunds has been reduced to a smaller percentage.

I'm not sure that this idea is great, but it was just an idea and I'd like to see what people really think about. So, how about it???

I need to know if a servicemember's leave is considered a "right" because it's an entitlement or a "Priveleage" that can be suspended for administrative correction reasons. Please only respond if you have a resource you can quote that I can look up. Thank you for your responces.

I'm a service technician at a small shop and we have an 03 trailblazer with nearly 180k miles on it giving us an issue. The vehicle runs fine at highway speeds and then after driving for about 15 minutes on the highway, the truck feels like it wants to stall and the RPM's drop off sporatically. We've run it up on the portable computer and also the main diagnostic machine and we can't seem to locate the problem. If any other technicians out there have ever had this problem and was able to fix it, let me know as soon as you can because we're stumped. It's not triggering any codes and so other than the usual items you'd change and or check with this kind of problem, we're lost.

My wife and I are spending the first anniversary we've ever had together (She's in the Navy and been deployed for our first 3 anniversaries) and we are going to go to Las Vegas. I want to get a room with a jacuzzi in it and there are so many to choose from. I want to book early and so with our budget we can get any room we want. I just don't know which to choose. I've been to all of the major travel websites, but most reviews talk about staff, room quality, etc....I want to know specifically about opinions of hotels people have stayed in with jacuzzi's. So, if you've ever stayed in one in Vegas PLEASE chime in.

They died and in their last breath found out that it was all a fairy tale and there was no God, no Heaven, no Hell, or any type of after life....

So, my question is to those without Faith..... What will your excuse be if you die and you find out that you ARE judged and either allowed to enter Heaven or Condemned to Hell?

Seriously, as a hypothetical question for those without any religious beliefs. This question is not posed as a way of saying one side or the other is wrong. I just really want to know what those without any religious beliefs think they would do if they found out they were wrong.

We already know what will happen if religious people find out they are wrong.....nothing.

CHAD has become a household word in this country in one of the most debated election outcomes in our history. During that time, were we criticized by other countries around the world? (I really don't know, and haven't heard of any so I'm asking) And that being the case, although we enjoy freedom of speech here, should we have used it to accuse another country of having a fixed election when although there are reasons to believe it was fraudulant, there is no way of proving it? And by our criticism of Iran's election, would it be going too far out on a limb to say that our outward dissapproval is creating more hardships of the people of Iran that are protesting?

Despite their country's system of religion based power in the government, was the fact that they at least had an election NOT an example of democracy that can eventually lead to an Iran that allows more rights to be had by it's people?

With all of that in mind, was our government all that different in the beginning? Our laws were based on morality dictated by Christian beliefs and when that began to change, those who would support a more open idea of what is right and wrong were called "liberals" right?

To this day, do we not still mark our politicians as liberals and conservatives, and do they not still struggle in Washington for the power to shape our laws based on their views rather than what the majority of the people want?

Please chime in. But only if you have a serious angle on this.

I just received a letter that an unsecured line of credit that my wife and I have through Wells Fargo Financial will get nearly a 7% increase on our APR. They state in their Q&A section in the letter:

"Why are increases being made to my APR?- Well's Fargo practices 'risk-based pricing', which means customers with the best credit practices receive the best interest rates. We recently reviewed all of our customers' credit history, both internally and with data from a credit reporting agency, and after thorough risk analysis concluded that we needed to increase your APR."

Ummm.... My wife and I haven't opened any new accounts, nor have we been late on any payments on this account or any other. We have not made any new purchases on our accounts in well over 2 months yet suddenly we are at a higher risk? Is this in response to the new credit card law? Is this a violation of that law?

Furthermore, their "option" for us is if we do not agree to their new terms, Wells Fargo will close the account (and undoubtedly annotate that THEY are the ones that requested that it be closed) and that is pretty much the only way we get to keep the current interest rate is by paying off any remaining balance.

I thought the new Law stated that they cannot raise interest rates on current accounts unless we were late? And any new rate increases cannot apply to previous balances? I dunno...

Does anyone have an answer to this? Is it happening to anyone else?

Thanks.

PS...I'm asking a serious question and only request serious answers. If you have snide remarks, keep them to yourself.

Yesterday, on my way to the store, I nearly drove straight into the side of a late model BMW sedan with deep tinted windows because the driver didn't even slow down at a stop sign at an intersection for vehicles entering the parking lot. Because I was reeeeeaaaallllyyy upset about this because I had to SLAM on the brakes to avoid the car by less than 3 feet or so, I followed the car to a parking spot. The driver took about 2 minutes to park the car because they just either couldn't get it right, or just weren't happy with where they were lined up. I parked my truck and got out to confront the driver....... I was expecting some young punk to get out. To my surprise, it was an elderly lady that had a hard enough time getting out of the car and walking, let alone driving. I actually question why she didn't have a handicap tag and park in the handicap spot because as she was walking towards the store, she was obviously not the most nimble person in the world.

I approached her and asked her why she didn't stop at the stop sign a few minutes before. ( Yes, I did this calmly with respect. I may have been mad but I'm not a jerk) She looked at me and said, "what stop sign?" When I pointed it out to her, she said, "Oh, they must have just put that in." When I asked her if she saw me almost hit her car she told me that she would have remembered nearly getting hit like that.

I wished her a good day and went about my business.

Although not all "elderly" persons have reduced reflexes and situational awareness, shouldn't there be an age where your skills are tested again to ensure you can still safely operate a vehicle? We have banned drinking and driving, driving under the influence, and in most states you can't talk on a hand held cellphone. Why can we not put a control in place to ensure that a driver with reduced motor skills because of their age doesn't cause an accident or get injured themselves because they were unable to avoid an accident?

Chime in....

http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm

I've done a lot of poking around and I can't find any real significant press coverage or stories that truly point the finger at the main reason for the demise of the real estate market and ultimately, the world economy. The recent elections here in the US showed that a main topic for both candidates was searching for alternative energies, but the bottom line is that the real estate market's failings were blamed on the current world economy, when the reality of the situation is that if the cost of petroleum products were at the root of the problem. The families that were doing fine at the time had to choose what to pay for when each week they were having to pay two or three times as much for a gallon of gas long before the real estate collapse. In the end, many with mortgages had to abandon their homes because of the jump in inflation of products and services coupled with the inability of their employers to increase their wages accordingly. When you ask what caused our current economic situation, everyone seems to say "Real Estate", when the reality of the situation was that the greed of OPEC is what drove up inflation in the first place. For real, are we supposed to just ignore that tens of thousands of mortages went into foreclosure at the same time the prices of gasoline hit record prices at the pumps? Was that just coincidence? Is the greed of OPEC bound for "footnote" status in the history books 10 years from now when children are reading about the economic disaster of 2008? Chime in , please....

What would be a good Politically Correct term for someone who lives in a country by choice, but carries a belief that everything about the laws of the country they live in are wrong?

For instance, a person living here in the United States that believes our government is the worst in the world, yet enjoys the liberties that it provides.

I ask this because I've been around people that are constantly saying that our government is useless, yet, without it we'd have lawlessness.

I've witnessed conversations where citizens of this country believe that almost every aspect of our government and way of life is screwed up beyond belief, but when asked why they don't move to another country and get citizenship somewhere else, they can't come up with anything resembling a legitimate reason.

We criticize our governments mistakes because we can. It's our right. And most of us believe that despite it's mistakes, it could always be worse somewhere else. But for the select few that have nothing at all good to say about where they live, what do you call them? They're not traitors, their not neccessarily hypocrates, so what would that be called. They're kind of like impotent extremest against the US yet, because they do nothing but blame the country for everything... I dunno. Anyone got any good thoughts? "Antogizens?" "Hypocritizens?" It's not just here, it's other countries too. Just not as noticable because in some other countries in the world, the government quashes people with opinions that aren't aligned with the ruling parties belief system.

Okay, so, I have a savings account that I opened years ago with a financial institution we'll just call NFCU because there are a lot of banks that can use that acronym. I opened it with $5 in a savings account. When I check my balance online they always show my account as having whatever my balance is with the $5 and balance available an amount minus the $5. I have overdraft protection on my checking account and although I'm not the type to "float checks", because I don't have a checkbook, I do have and use a Visa CheckCard. On the few occaisions that I overdrafted, it happened because I was out and about and went over what was in my account by less than $0.50. I didn't have a "balance available" in my savings account, but there's the $5 that the bank has that if I were to close my account would be paid back to me. That being said, even though you "not allowed" to use your own $5, if you have overdraft protection and you go over by less than a whole dollar, is it really fair for the bank to charge you $35 for insufficient funds when the funds were indeed in your account, but they hold $5 for the sake of having an account? It seems a bit shady especially when you have direct deposit and get paid weekly.

I'm interested in buying shares of either Chrysler or GM druing this whole restructure thing. If they go into bankruptcy, are their shares still traded? And if so, if I buy them and the company emerges from bankruptcy will those shares still be valid, albeit, not worth much? I'm just curious because I'm considering buying less than 100 shares and holding on to them until the company is gone or they bounce back. If I lose, I'm only out a few bucks... What do y'all think?

If light from 1 light year away takes the year to get here and we use a telescope to see it, how can we be assured that the light or object the telescope is using to see the light is not seeing something that has not yet reached earth?