samhill wrote:Once again I'm guessing that a lot has to do with local laws, in Pa. you have had to pass a clearance & background when you wanted a CCP, when buying a gun from a legal dealer there had to be paperwork. All that wouldn't change as far as I know but you couldn't go to a gunshow or private individual & buy "no questions asked). If you ask why it's because people ruined it for themselves, I almost bought a nine MM off a guy I worked with & then found out he buys two a pay at a discount price & sells one to make some money back. Legal but selling one every two weeks to whoever comes up with the cash first, I just didn't feel comfortable buying from him, it's comes down to personal preference. When in business I always sold through a dealer just to cover myself & the seller, if they didn't want the paperwork the next guy would buy. If some talking head makes it into something more then that just furthers my point.
samhill wrote:Flyer, I don't have time right now to listen to the entire thing but are you implying that only liberals are interested in gun safety & restrictions & that it is somehow unconstitutional or whatever else for them to teach but at the same time OK to hold gun support rallies? Are the rallies restricted to only cons where you are since I have never seen that at anything around here. It' not as easy as left or right.
samhill wrote:Just exactly which freedoms have been taken away by Obama? Remember he is the first one since who knows when to allow guns in Fed. Parks for self protection & such. There is a sinister (maybe not the best word) group that has a huge self interest in all of this, once again clouding up issues with emotions & innuendos.
samhill wrote:Flyer, as for the choice those cheap BC pills don't mean crap except to confuse the issue, don't know about now but years ago because they were a prescription med. & you had to see a doc. to get them it made them a covered med. & they are widely used for other reasons as well. The same with Viagra & other blood pressure meds. (I know WTF am I talking about) but that's what it was for & it was a script required med. so covered. The thing that raised my HI a bit was they had to add dental & eye which I never had before. Some may say I don't need glasses so why should I pay & I could counter with I don't need the pre natal care but it all becomes less costly if included in a blanket policy. Just like why do home owners that are childless pay school tax, life isn't always fair.
samhill wrote:SB, if your referring to me I do complain about extremes either way but in reading your reply you start off in the middle & then make a sudden sharp right.
samhill wrote:Jpete, I always say that both sides say they pretty much agree that some things are out of hand & they would like to either change or entirely get rid of them. Both sides have had their chance in recent history but yet we still have the same problems & somehow they grew. The left for example want to lessen Corp. welfare while the right wants to increase it but which one costs the most & does the least? Right wants to be thought of as fiscally responsible but which one has cost the most? There are many things that need changed that both agree on but it's the direction that differs & then there's other things that are way out of hand & neither side will even talk about yet alone compromise on. Both sides share fault I just don't blame one or the other for what they didn't cause or even help to prevent. Going into two wars & having the Pharm. Industry write a script plan while not only not paying for them but cutting taxes (income) as well just somehow doesn't sound prudent to me. The same as constantly extending UC is wrong as well, if they can't find a equal job then take what they can but don't keep paying them.
samhill wrote: ................ the lower end spends every dime they get just to survive & that all stays right here.