Gavin Allan
Well-Known Member
I don't know about that. However, if I wanted a job in the Auto Industry, I'd probably go look in the southern states before I 'd go looking in the northern states.
Economy is Booming!!!
- Thread starter KentheREALone Z
- Start date
Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Gavin,
Agreed. The main reasons the plants are being built in the south is because of the lower costs to build, lower costs to operate (lower taxes, lower average pay for future employees), and high availability of those low-cost future employees.
That would imply that the southern states where these plants are being built are more depressed then their northern counterparts.
TJR
Agreed. The main reasons the plants are being built in the south is because of the lower costs to build, lower costs to operate (lower taxes, lower average pay for future employees), and high availability of those low-cost future employees.
That would imply that the southern states where these plants are being built are more depressed then their northern counterparts.
TJR
Shelby Crane
Active Member
Georgia gave KIA $410 million in cash/tax rebates to build here.
Bill V
Well-Known Member
"Paranoia strikes deep..."
Bill Barber
Well-Known Member
Ironbar
You cannot ban the manufacture of AKs or uzis as they are not made in this country.
But you can ban the import of them.
They serve no legal purpose in this country, even the so called legal semi-autos that you can buy can be converted to full autos no problem.
Is an estimated 100 Million AKs in the world, the cost to manufacture them is as little as $5.00 each in some countrys.
Read the book AK 47 by Larry Kahaner.
Sales of any AK or Uzi should be banned, the feds should free up a billion or so and offer to pay anyone who turns one in say a 1000 bux, no questions asked.
My point is, are just to many guns in this country that serve no purpose other than being WMDs
You cannot ban the manufacture of AKs or uzis as they are not made in this country.
But you can ban the import of them.
They serve no legal purpose in this country, even the so called legal semi-autos that you can buy can be converted to full autos no problem.
Is an estimated 100 Million AKs in the world, the cost to manufacture them is as little as $5.00 each in some countrys.
Read the book AK 47 by Larry Kahaner.
Sales of any AK or Uzi should be banned, the feds should free up a billion or so and offer to pay anyone who turns one in say a 1000 bux, no questions asked.
My point is, are just to many guns in this country that serve no purpose other than being WMDs
While I do agree with you, I do not believe a gun like that should be perfectly legal to own by a law abiding person. I have no desire to own one myself, it this time.
I work with a guy at work that has two of them. One at the front door and one at the back door. He is witing for Obama to come to his house to take his guns. He said he is ready. He will single handedly going to stop it from happening...or so he says.
Tom
Bill Barber
Well-Known Member
sad, is the attitude of your co-worker that the anti-gun crowd loves, just more fuel on the fire.
Would love to be there when he opens fire and a police sniper puts a round thru his head from 300 yds away.
Would love to be there when he opens fire and a police sniper puts a round thru his head from 300 yds away.
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Bill Barber said:
Sounds like irony coming from someone who also said:
Some would say that you have too many guns with no real useful purpose. I'm not saying that, just pointing out that some would.
TJR
Sounds like irony coming from someone who also said:
Some would say that you have too many guns with no real useful purpose. I'm not saying that, just pointing out that some would.
TJR
Gavin Allan
Well-Known Member
"From my cold dead hands..."
Bill Barber
Well-Known Member
Not Irony TJR, have been a gun collector for 50 yrs, don't hunt much anymore, but fine vintage guns are also works of art, sorta like colecting artwork.
gavin, sorry for your demise.
gavin, sorry for your demise.
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Bill Barber,
I said irony because one definition of irony from MW is:
Therefore, your statements seemed ironic to me due to the incongruity that has you, on one hand, admit to owning many more guns than the average person, but then on the other hand indicate that they are too many guns in this country.
I get that you are collector. But you are outside of the expected profile of someone wanting more gun control.
P.S. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with your statements...they just struck me as ironic. That's all.
TJR
I said irony because one definition of irony from MW is:
Therefore, your statements seemed ironic to me due to the incongruity that has you, on one hand, admit to owning many more guns than the average person, but then on the other hand indicate that they are too many guns in this country.
I get that you are collector. But you are outside of the expected profile of someone wanting more gun control.
P.S. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with your statements...they just struck me as ironic. That's all.
TJR
Bill Barber
Well-Known Member
I said certain types of guns TJR
My Dad was a gunsmith, I grew up in a gun shop.
Every piece I own was and still are hunting and target pieces, most are close to 100 yrs old, classic americana, Beautiful worksmanship.
I do not fit todays profile of gun owners because I started collecting guns 50 yrs ago, and still do.
Part of my collection has been used to fund college educations for my children, they were considerd investments, and they paid off very well when guns were easy to sell.
In todays world, I do support forms of Gun control as the wrong types of guns are getting in the wrong hands.
Pls note: certain types of guns should be banned, plain and simple, is really a no brainer.
My Dad was a gunsmith, I grew up in a gun shop.
Every piece I own was and still are hunting and target pieces, most are close to 100 yrs old, classic americana, Beautiful worksmanship.
I do not fit todays profile of gun owners because I started collecting guns 50 yrs ago, and still do.
Part of my collection has been used to fund college educations for my children, they were considerd investments, and they paid off very well when guns were easy to sell.
In todays world, I do support forms of Gun control as the wrong types of guns are getting in the wrong hands.
Pls note: certain types of guns should be banned, plain and simple, is really a no brainer.
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Bill Barber,
Your reason for owning the guns you own is for collecting, primarily.
What types of guns do you think should be banned?
Who is to say that some of the guns on your banned list aren't also guns that others want to collect?
Sure does anyone NEED an Uzi? Nope. Does anyone need to collect an Uzi? Again, nope. But no one needs, or needs to collect a flintlock either.
In my opinion, our problem isn't the number of guns we have, or even the types. Our problem is a societal problem. Canada has more guns per-capita then the US, but less gun violence. Why is that?
TJR
Your reason for owning the guns you own is for collecting, primarily.
What types of guns do you think should be banned?
Who is to say that some of the guns on your banned list aren't also guns that others want to collect?
Sure does anyone NEED an Uzi? Nope. Does anyone need to collect an Uzi? Again, nope. But no one needs, or needs to collect a flintlock either.
In my opinion, our problem isn't the number of guns we have, or even the types. Our problem is a societal problem. Canada has more guns per-capita then the US, but less gun violence. Why is that?
TJR
Bill Barber
Well-Known Member
TJR
Is painfully obvious that your only reason for watching this thread is to make non-sensical comments.
read above to learn what i feel should be banned.
An Uzi is a Uzi as is an AK 47, should I have a want to collect samples of musterd gas, Ricin and anthrax, Should I be allowed to do so?
Hand made flintlock rifles are the finest form of early america, many are worth hundreds of thousands of dollors.
Do's anyone need to collect them?all gun collectors would die to own a few nice flintlocks.
And by the way at the time the 2nd amendmant was drafted, the flintlock was about all this country had.
As I have stated above many times, My feelings as an avid gun advocate and collector is that some form of gun control is needed
granted the gun problem in this country is societal.
Is painfully obvious that your only reason for watching this thread is to make non-sensical comments.
read above to learn what i feel should be banned.
An Uzi is a Uzi as is an AK 47, should I have a want to collect samples of musterd gas, Ricin and anthrax, Should I be allowed to do so?
Hand made flintlock rifles are the finest form of early america, many are worth hundreds of thousands of dollors.
Do's anyone need to collect them?all gun collectors would die to own a few nice flintlocks.
And by the way at the time the 2nd amendmant was drafted, the flintlock was about all this country had.
As I have stated above many times, My feelings as an avid gun advocate and collector is that some form of gun control is needed
granted the gun problem in this country is societal.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Bill Barber,
Why the hostility?
I'm merely trying to discuss and understand the merit of proposed gun laws that draw a line somewhere in the sand as to which types of guns can be owned, without regulation, and which ones cannot.
As I see it, on one side of the line are assault weapons. Most would agree with that. On the other side are collectible guns and guns used for hunting and personal protection. Somewhere in the middle a line is drawn by our regulations and laws. I suspect it isn't always clear which side of the line a certain gun should fall.
If we keep passing additional laws and tightening regulations then that may make us feel safer as a society. But I doubt such additional regulations will have any real impact on reducing violent gun deaths and crimes.
You say that we need some form of gun control? Is that "additional" forms of gun control needed, in your opinion? If so, what should they look like?
I'm still trying to understand both sides of this debate. I support the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (as defined by Scalia in last years Washington D.C. gun ownership case), yet then again, I don't see why people would feel the need to have an arsenal of attack weapons. However, if they are law abiding citizens and can keep the guns secure and intend to do nothing unlawful with such an arsenal, then what is the harm?
So, I guess I'm conflicted on the subject and I hoped to use you as a sounding board for my thoughts and questiions.
TJR
Why the hostility?
I'm merely trying to discuss and understand the merit of proposed gun laws that draw a line somewhere in the sand as to which types of guns can be owned, without regulation, and which ones cannot.
As I see it, on one side of the line are assault weapons. Most would agree with that. On the other side are collectible guns and guns used for hunting and personal protection. Somewhere in the middle a line is drawn by our regulations and laws. I suspect it isn't always clear which side of the line a certain gun should fall.
If we keep passing additional laws and tightening regulations then that may make us feel safer as a society. But I doubt such additional regulations will have any real impact on reducing violent gun deaths and crimes.
You say that we need some form of gun control? Is that "additional" forms of gun control needed, in your opinion? If so, what should they look like?
I'm still trying to understand both sides of this debate. I support the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (as defined by Scalia in last years Washington D.C. gun ownership case), yet then again, I don't see why people would feel the need to have an arsenal of attack weapons. However, if they are law abiding citizens and can keep the guns secure and intend to do nothing unlawful with such an arsenal, then what is the harm?
So, I guess I'm conflicted on the subject and I hoped to use you as a sounding board for my thoughts and questiions.
TJR
Last edited by a moderator:
Bill Barber
Well-Known Member
No hostility intended TJR
being your sounding board is not an option thank you.
You feel that law abiding citizens should be able to own any type of firearm they desire.
So be it.
Now go actually educate yourself on the gun problem in this country.
pls ck back when you figure it out.As I am certain you will.
being your sounding board is not an option thank you.
You feel that law abiding citizens should be able to own any type of firearm they desire.
So be it.
Now go actually educate yourself on the gun problem in this country.
pls ck back when you figure it out.As I am certain you will.
KentheREALone Z
Well-Known Member
Now that's why I posted this thread !:lol:
Only thing is, I thought Tom would be in there too... but his IM was a blast ...
Thanks guys. This is top class entertainment.
Only thing is, I thought Tom would be in there too... but his IM was a blast ...
Thanks guys. This is top class entertainment.
gary s
Well-Known Member
oh no lil fella
run & hide !!, you could be next !!
[Broken External Image]:
bill v.,
i like your buffalo springfield refrence
run & hide !!, you could be next !!
[Broken External Image]:
bill v.,
i like your buffalo springfield refrence
Last edited by a moderator:
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Bill Barber,
You said:
Actually, I didn't say that. I asked what would be the harm? The question wasn't rhetorical. So, I will ask again, what would be the harm? Or asked another way, what is hoped to be gained by restricting the type of guns that law abiding citizens can have, and what evidence is that hope based?
As I said, I don't see us as having a "gun problem" in this country. I see the problem as a violence problem. Again, as I said, Canada has more guns but less gun violence. So, logically, reducing guns or restricting guns won't likely help the problem.
I live next to a city where gun deaths are very bad (Philadelphia). Cops are getting killed, and in larger numbers the citizens are killing each other. The deaths by and large aren't coming from assault weapons. Nope, the murders are ocurring with the same guns that have been around for decades; 22s, 38s, 44s, Sat-Night Specials.
A ban on assault weapons won't curb the violence in the inner cities like Philadelphia...it would only be a band-aid on a much larger problem.
So how do we fix the real problem?
TJR
You said:
Actually, I didn't say that. I asked what would be the harm? The question wasn't rhetorical. So, I will ask again, what would be the harm? Or asked another way, what is hoped to be gained by restricting the type of guns that law abiding citizens can have, and what evidence is that hope based?
As I said, I don't see us as having a "gun problem" in this country. I see the problem as a violence problem. Again, as I said, Canada has more guns but less gun violence. So, logically, reducing guns or restricting guns won't likely help the problem.
I live next to a city where gun deaths are very bad (Philadelphia). Cops are getting killed, and in larger numbers the citizens are killing each other. The deaths by and large aren't coming from assault weapons. Nope, the murders are ocurring with the same guns that have been around for decades; 22s, 38s, 44s, Sat-Night Specials.
A ban on assault weapons won't curb the violence in the inner cities like Philadelphia...it would only be a band-aid on a much larger problem.
So how do we fix the real problem?
TJR
Bill Barber
Well-Known Member
You tell us, all mighty one.
