don alejandro robaina


Recommended Posts

rob, not sure why you think i am willing, if i read you correctly.

as for the last point, all for democracy but if you follow that literally, you'd have been two thumbs up for adolf in germany late 30's.

as for guns, we've done this to death and i doubt anyone is going to change their views because of this forum but if others are sticking their two cents in, i'll say again (and the reference to warfare is a completely different kettle of fish) that it is utterly incomprehensible to me how any sane society could go down the route that the states has chosen.

I'll chime in on this one. Our US constitution gives our citizens the right to keep and bear arms. Rightly so, I think, given the mistrust we as a people can sometimes have vis a vis our goverrment.

I think we have seen a country where all the guns were in the hands of the government in Cuba, Ken. That is kind of scary.

I happen to live in a rural area of the USA. Once, my wife mistakenly dialed 911. It took law enforcement over 30 minutes to get here (good thing for me she wasn't molesting me at the time)

So where was my protection? Out here it's in my top drawer .357 magnum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

was cleaning out the computer and came across this. from the first trip rob and i took. we got to spend a morning with don alejandro, fabulous visit (even if one of our number announced he didn't smok

Hey Ken, sorry it has taken me so long to get back to this. With a bunch of personal correspondences left unanswered and the loss of Chuck I have been a little less than motivated to finish this reply. I hope it is not too late for this one as I wanted to make some further points.

No actually Ken the last bit was a statement of confidence in you. I was indicating that despite my observations and perception of what you write, I credit you for being who you claim to be and not what I would believe you to be, based on my perception of your writing. I hope that makes sense. It is why I stated that I think you are misunderstood. I admit to being one who has misunderstood you.

I wrote quite a bit earlier about how people tend to classify other people. It was long and drawn out and frankly I made a bit of a mess out of it in trying to make the "classification" of people sound less offensive or less prejudicial. I don't know what it is about persons making assumption of others based on what they write or what they say that is offensive but it appears to come out that way no matter how I write it. Although I am not a politically correct person I am sensitive to those who are sensitive to prejudice. Categorizing people, perhaps unless in some government list of statistics, is redolent of prejudice. I don't want to write tens of pages to fight the stigma. I don't agree with it! I hate political correctness, but I am not here to offend a bunch of people either.

As I said earlier, I misunderstood you. It took efforts, like Rob said about meeting people, to get to know you, to realize that my categorization of you as a leftist was perhaps incorrect. However I do believe that what you write about leads people to believe you are one!

I really do think that there are some outspoken people whose opinions are so diametrically opposed to those of others that they may think another is an extremist of some sort. My opinions allow me to be categorized as one by some people. Denial on my part would be naive of me. I see, feel, smell and taste, I classify my surroundings into things I like and dislike, people that I like and dislike. I therefore believe that my fellow man does the same. While I can see that we all have differing perspectives, I believe that human behavior is a group of actions that we all share certain subsets of. Those common subsets are called normality. I can extrapolate enough from this to make a point. There are innate similarities on many levels between individuals and one is that we tend to categorize things into groups. Without categories we could not differentiate between friends and enemies; likes and dislikes or even light and dark laundry! With that all said, I believe that you may be viewed as one who is not "who" he really is! Anyone who speaks up allows himself to be classified by his opinions; you, me, everyone.

While I did not write this to enter into the realm of specific political topics I need the topics to make a point. The topics that you speak passionately about are representative of those used as major platforms of the political left. The same can be said about me with my talking points as they relate to the political right (wing). I accept being categorized, it is the price of sharing my opinion. I recognize that I can be classified by anyone willing to give thought to it and I may rightfully belong to some of the catagories.

I therefore see you, or better stated, see "how" you are likely perceived the same way I see how I am likely perceived. You take platforms that are commonly associated with a political group, therefore you are likely categorized in that group. You appeared to be shocked or at least surprised at the thought. I don't think you should be and as a friend I wanted to explain it to you.

What I gain from this is that I am hoping that through these conversations I can understand you a bit better. You are still somewhat of an enigma to me. One thing I don't understand is how you can possess some strong opinions associated with the left and not consider yourself a leftist? This is why I choose to explore your personality so much. I want to understand how we can share a core principle, for example a dislike of oppressive government, and yet hold different viewpoints on what rights free people need to posses to preserve their freedom and limit oppressive governments. On my part I think it may be that I fear oppressive governments as I have seen what they do to people. Perhaps you possess no such fear.

I would like nothing more than to convince you that some of your views are conflicting. As you have stated, it probably won't happen. This is my perception of course and it is not meant cast any insult upon you. I can only speculate that you may think the same of me. But it is in your dislike for oppressive government I see a core belief that we share. That is a powerful core belief. I think that if you are someone who realizes what damage can be inflicted on humanity by a man and gun (a position you are passionate about) you can be shown that it is miniscule to what genocides can be inflicted by a government or other group of men on a population unable to defend themselves with them. Perhaps you fear men with guns, or guns themselves. What I fear are tyrants with guns or any other source of power.

I would enjoy the exploration of these commonalities more with you if it does not wreak havoc on the board at the same time. In the mean time I would like you to consider a few things.

What would have been the outcome of 6 million armed Jews on kristallnacht? Have you ever paused to think about that?

How would the armed Chinese farmer have met imperialist Japanese troops as they embarked on their campaigns of beheadings? How would Maoist tax collectors been met by the collective farmers as their crops were stolen to make communist farming quotas which left them to starve by the millions?

You stated earlier something about not wanting counties to go down the same path as the US; what would our world look like if King George succeeded in disarming the colonies and they did not have the ability to fight for the freedom they possess now? Would Europe be speaking German. Would Australia be speaking Japanese? Who knows?

How many millions of slaughtered, starved, gassed and beaten, oppressed people would be alive today if they only possessed the ability to defend their own lives, property and freedom from those who would steal it from them? Those people died in the course of history and their blood while not on my hands is on my mind; everyday! My argument for gun rights in not about plinking cans or defending my home. It is not one of tradition but of the innate human right of freedom. It is about the hundreds of millions of souls lost to tyrants and tyrannical governments who had a chance to live freely... if they were only able to arm themselves and defend their freedom to live.

Best, Ray

hi ray,any time to respond is fine. this in turn will be quicker and briefer than i'd like, and than you deserve, as still sorting tax, have been away non stop for some time, have editors' deadlines and might be off to italy on some winery thing next week so in a panic but didn't want to leave any response at all for too long. re right or left, i mentioned to some of my oldest mates recently, some of whom have known me for more than 4 deacdes, that there were some members on the forum who considered me a leftie. universal stunned mullet expressions. one bloke fell off the bar. they thought i was taking the piss. some still simply do not believe that anyone could find me in that camp. but these things are never as easy as that. it may be that i am not so vocal in support of what would be perceived as the right wing on many issues that arise on the forum simply because i perceive that there is far more support here already and my voice not needed. it does not mean i am not a supporter of those issues/causes but that i simply have not joined the throng. i do think we share many core values, perhaps more than you think. and suspect that is so for me with a great many forum members. but there are some issues on which we do not see eye to eye. and i can say that about almost every single friend i have and suspect so could many members. this perception of me as a leftie (and there honestly is a sentence i never thought i'd write) seems to come back to a couple of issues - guns and the environment. and possibly cuba itself. on the environment, i am a very long way from some tree hugging, live in rags, no development nut case, or at least i think i am (would be a touch hypocritical if i wasn't as i make a reasonable % of my income from trading in resources shares and was a banking lawyer for many years). i suspect the pros and cons re support for the environment comes down to individual issues for me. whaling is one oft discussed here. i am strongly opposed to it - and would have no problem with the death penalty for anyone who sticks a harpoon into a whale. to cover all aspects of this would take many many evenings and drinks and cigars. cuba is a stranger one. i love the place but i hate what the incumbent govt has done to it and the people, though i recognise that without that govt and its actions, cuba would be a very different place and one i may have far less interest in. it is a paradox that i struggle to resolve in some ways. i do think the embargo is a braindead act (now and for quite a fw years even if there may have been legit reasons at the time - it seems to me it is still there as successive presidents can't stand the thought that anyone would think castro beat them and they would rather condemn a people to the horrors of what they face in cuba than lose face - any wonder i dislike politicians) and am convinced that if the states wants to 'win' this bizarre battle its has had with a tiny insignificent island for fifty years, it needs not to do much more to start an inevitable change there than to lift the embargo. no idea if that makes me left or right or what?guns is something we will presumably forever disagree about. i probably detest politicians a lot more than i dislike governments but it is a thin line. you say we hold "different viewpoints on what rights free people need to posses to preserve their freedom and limit oppressive governments" - i understand that. to me, it seems that you believe you need personal arsenals to preserve yours. i have no doubt that the vast majority of australians also hate oppressive govts, to some degree or other, but that a very considerable percentage would not consider the need to fill their homes with guns as something essential to preserving their freedom. we just don't think that way, i don't ever want to think that way and nor i think do the vast majority of australians. that was the comment re the american path, not defeating the british. we've just seen a bunch of christian fundamentalist whack-jobs in oregon, i think, armed to the teeth, attempt to set of some sort of revolution. how the hell that is preserving freedom is beyond me. i simply don't understand that. your arguments re jews in europe etc, i understand, but - and i really don't have the time to explain this properly - where and who draws the line? there are obvious examples but those arms in the wrong hands have also resulted in million of innocent deaths. your argument almost sounds like we are at some primitive stage where it is every man for themselves if they don't agree. isn't that why we have govts? as failable as they are? imagine you and i think the govt is oppressive but old mate next door does not. who is right? but bcause we think that they are oppressive, we can take up arms against them? don't we have elections? i may detest some of the decisions our govt makes but they got there in a supposedly free and fair election. just because i am diametrically opposed to some of their actions, i can shoot them?how many americans honestly have guns in their homes because they genuinely believe that they will need them to deal with an oppressive govt? the king george example belongs to a different era and completely different circumstances and has nothing whatsoever to do with the currrent american path. you have a govt and the days of america as a british colony are long gone. a lot of your examples, to me, scream of people being let down by their respective govts (or the govts of the world) - often resulting in horrendous tragedy. do you arm everyone and say that the weapons are only to be used in certain circumstances? it doesn't work. i do have to sign off and i know that this is but a fraction, and a very poorly expressed fraction, of what i'd like to convey but i think to go any further is best done when, hopefully before too long, we can sit down and discuss it over cigars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simply amazing posts and, like others I wish I had more time to add a real quantity of value.

I will be brief however and say only this...

While I and others see responsible citizens being able to posses guns as a positive... Others from their own personal views and subsequently do not share the same belief. No matter the topic, some will aggressively be for while some will whole-heartedly be against. At the end of the day, all our opinions are trying to express is our inner desire for a safer society, an altruistic society, the ability to flourish as a family unit or individual, the ability for our children and ourselves to feel safe and aim high, equality and fairness for one and all on earth...

Now, while we all have a different way of hypothetically attaining this balance in the lives of all we care for (environment, guns, tax, welfare, health, sentencing etc)... it is important to remember...

We all have same goal at heart.

Matt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ray and Ken, bravo.

It's a pleasure to read a discussion between two gentlemen who have respect for one and other.

The old firearms debate is a hard one to agree on and always will be.

Many good people hold the opinion that we as a population should not have them in our possession.

But many good people also hold the opinion that we should have the right to bear arms to protect what is ours and what we hold dear.

Our freedom.

Our property.

Our loved ones.

All of these things are worth protecting.

These are all things that as Americans and Australians we share as values.

Some time ago our government in it's wisdom decided that they needed to reduce the amount of firearms that we as Australians possessed.

We had a big buy back scheme and thousands of guns were surrendered and some of us felt a little safer knowing that all these firearms were no longer out there.

Who do you think surrendered these guns?

It was the meek.

It was the law abiding citizen.

It was the part of the population that was less of a risk.

The part of the population intent on damage still kept their firearms, after all who were we kidding to think they would surrender them.

Yes guns will always be a danger but it is not the gun alone that is a danger but the way they are kept and used and who is in possession.

The sad fact about the human race is that we will always find a way to hurt each other.

Guns are just a means to an end and if they didn't exist we would find other ways to cause damage to our fellow man.

I used to be a serious competitor in the sport of pistol shooting.

I once won a state title and have competed in comps in Australia, New Zealand , and the US.

I don't shoot any more and no longer have guns in my possession but if I was to find myself in a situation where I needed to defend myself I would be looking for the most efficient method of doing so.

I doubt that many of us when put in the position where we were faced with our own mortality due to attack would come over all Gandhi.

As Australians I don't believe we have the right to tell Americans that they need to give up their firearms.

As Americans I don't believe you have the right to say we are wrong for not holding onto firearms with all our might.

We may have had similar beginnings in the British empire but from there we have had different upbringings.

The US has had the war for independence and then the civil war as a start to nation building.

Australia has not had that kind of turmoil on it's own soil in it's journey to nationhood.

You may say that these are all in the past but you can't ignore that the past shapes our way of thinking.

Ken lives by himself in the bush next to a creek.

He has constant battles with the airlines, the postal service, Telstra, and the Tax department.

He also has a constant supply of alcohol.

Personally I am thankful to God that he does not like guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KG...you make some good points as does Ray re Gun Control. Guns are not inherently dangerous. It is the person who has their finger on the trigger. While I think that guns in the hands of the wrong people have certainly caused millions of deaths, I think that guns in the hands of the right people have saved even more. I live in America and served this country, and am a firm believer in the right to bear arms. However, my wife is deathly afraid of them. I can't even keep my service sidearm in the house, I need to rent a locker at the local gun club. Oddly, enough I live in a country that gives me the right to bear arms, but I can't do so in my own home. I guess that is a story fro another day. Different countries may have different laws, but in America the right to bear arms is an old law/right, and IMHO a good one. No government should have the right to strip me of the right/ability to defend myself or my family from all threats whether they be foreign or domestic. In this instance where I say domestic, I am actually talking about our own government in the states. I say this because of what I have been seeing. I don't know if it is because of the industry I work in, or the type of people in the industry I am in, but for more than a year now, a surprisingly large number of hedge fund managers, portfolio managers and analysts that I meet with on a regular basis have been buying gold bullion...not GLDs, but the actual metal that they are socking away. We aren't talking a little, we are talking huge amounts, and they want physical delivery. I think this is a testament to the lack of faith in our government and the direction it has been taking. On top of this, they have been buying up: pistols, shotguns, assault rifles, ammunition, freeze dried food, etc. Let's just say they aren't planning on going hunting. These aren't religious zealots, or some other type of psycho (at least not to the best of my knowledge). These people are the byproducts of many of the best schools in this country. Most would consider them to be highly educated. On top of that, we're looking at individuals that fall on both side of the political spectrum, conservatives and liberals...Republicans and Democrats. As much as we hate, or don't even bother to think about it...no government, no matter how strong, lasts forever. And when the **** hits the fan (God forbid) and the protection of your family and home is the only thing that matters, do you want to be the person holding the gun, or the person staring down the barrel? Bleak? Yes...but there are quite a few well educated people thinking along those lines in NYC, arguably a city which is a bastion for liberalism in the U.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, guns are a tree - the forest is government control. Unfortunately, governments often forget their place.

So who is the lumberjack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hi ray,any time to respond is fine. this in turn will be quicker and briefer than i'd like, and than you deserve, as still sorting tax, have been away non stop for some time, have editors' deadlines and might be off to italy on some winery thing next week so in a panic but didn't want to leave any response at all for too long. re right or left, i mentioned to some of my oldest mates recently, some of whom have known me for more than 4 deacdes, that there were some members on the forum who considered me a leftie. universal stunned mullet expressions. one bloke fell off the bar. they thought i was taking the piss. some still simply do not believe that anyone could find me in that camp. but these things are never as easy as that. it may be that i am not so vocal in support of what would be perceived as the right wing on many issues that arise on the forum simply because i perceive that there is far more support here already and my voice not needed. it does not mean i am not a supporter of those issues/causes but that i simply have not joined the throng. i do think we share many core values, perhaps more than you think. and suspect that is so for me with a great many forum members. but there are some issues on which we do not see eye to eye. and i can say that about almost every single friend i have and suspect so could many members. this perception of me as a leftie (and there honestly is a sentence i never thought i'd write) seems to come back to a couple of issues - guns and the environment. and possibly cuba itself. on the environment, i am a very long way from some tree hugging, live in rags, no development nut case, or at least i think i am (would be a touch hypocritical if i wasn't as i make a reasonable % of my income from trading in resources shares and was a banking lawyer for many years). i suspect the pros and cons re support for the environment comes down to individual issues for me. whaling is one oft discussed here. i am strongly opposed to it - and would have no problem with the death penalty for anyone who sticks a harpoon into a whale. to cover all aspects of this would take many many evenings and drinks and cigars. cuba is a stranger one. i love the place but i hate what the incumbent govt has done to it and the people, though i recognise that without that govt and its actions, cuba would be a very different place and one i may have far less interest in. it is a paradox that i struggle to resolve in some ways. i do think the embargo is a braindead act (now and for quite a fw years even if there may have been legit reasons at the time - it seems to me it is still there as successive presidents can't stand the thought that anyone would think castro beat them and they would rather condemn a people to the horrors of what they face in cuba than lose face - any wonder i dislike politicians) and am convinced that if the states wants to 'win' this bizarre battle its has had with a tiny insignificent island for fifty years, it needs not to do much more to start an inevitable change there than to lift the embargo. no idea if that makes me left or right or what?guns is something we will presumably forever disagree about. i probably detest politicians a lot more than i dislike governments but it is a thin line. you say we hold "different viewpoints on what rights free people need to posses to preserve their freedom and limit oppressive governments" - i understand that. to me, it seems that you believe you need personal arsenals to preserve yours. i have no doubt that the vast majority of australians also hate oppressive govts, to some degree or other, but that a very considerable percentage would not consider the need to fill their homes with guns as something essential to preserving their freedom. we just don't think that way, i don't ever want to think that way and nor i think do the vast majority of australians. that was the comment re the american path, not defeating the british. we've just seen a bunch of christian fundamentalist whack-jobs in oregon, i think, armed to the teeth, attempt to set of some sort of revolution. how the hell that is preserving freedom is beyond me. i simply don't understand that. your arguments re jews in europe etc, i understand, but - and i really don't have the time to explain this properly - where and who draws the line? there are obvious examples but those arms in the wrong hands have also resulted in million of innocent deaths. your argument almost sounds like we are at some primitive stage where it is every man for themselves if they don't agree. isn't that why we have govts? as failable as they are? imagine you and i think the govt is oppressive but old mate next door does not. who is right? but bcause we think that they are oppressive, we can take up arms against them? don't we have elections? i may detest some of the decisions our govt makes but they got there in a supposedly free and fair election. just because i am diametrically opposed to some of their actions, i can shoot them?how many americans honestly have guns in their homes because they genuinely believe that they will need them to deal with an oppressive govt? the king george example belongs to a different era and completely different circumstances and has nothing whatsoever to do with the currrent american path. you have a govt and the days of america as a british colony are long gone. a lot of your examples, to me, scream of people being let down by their respective govts (or the govts of the world) - often resulting in horrendous tragedy. do you arm everyone and say that the weapons are only to be used in certain circumstances? it doesn't work. i do have to sign off and i know that this is but a fraction, and a very poorly expressed fraction, of what i'd like to convey but i think to go any further is best done when, hopefully before too long, we can sit down and discuss it over cigars.

Frankly Ken this is one of the best crafted arguments I have seen you make here if you don't mind me saying so. While I largely disagree with it I say, "bravo!"

I have so many targeted specific disagreements I don't know where to begin... I may let this one rest awhile; I have yet to decide. Many of the points that you make I could write pages about. I got myself in a box on this one!!! -LOL

I am very glad that you did not view this as a personal attack and that is my first point. While it is apparent that this is more than mere academia to both of us I certainly don't want a big falling out over it. I think I may take a point or two for discussion and we can go from there.

I have got to print this one out and head off to the cardiologist. It might require a Monte #2 and some time to ponder to which of your flanks I will direct my next salvo!!! Cheers mate! Thanks for the thoughtful reply. -Ray

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Warren, keeping it brief, my hope is that it would be the overtaxed and overburdened. My ax is sharpened, but I fear it won't nearly be enough.

Just trying to keep the metaphors straight-- the guns are trees; the government is the forest; the taxpayers are the lumberjacks? So taxpayers are going to cut down guns? I'm lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

guys, we might never agree on much of this and as much fun as it is to debate, though it would be far more fun in person - armed only with good cigars and top notch rum - i have learnt one thing from all this...

i am NEVER again going to post a photo of a nice old man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would have been the outcome of 6 million armed Jews on kristallnacht? Have you ever paused to think about that?

Actually, it was Kristallnacht that was used as a pretext for confiscating Jews' firearms. So to answer your question, the outcome was what actually happened. It wasn't until after Kristallnacht that Jews were deprived of the right to firearms. I believe the Polish nation was armed as well, and how were they served by this armament against the Nazis?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just trying to keep the metaphors straight-- .........I'm lost.

Well, a bear pooped in the woods, but nobody was there to see it, so it might not have really happened. But by chance, an enterprising squirrel happened

upon the poop, and working diligently, took the poop home for his garden. He toiled day in and day out, and was rewarded for his work with a bountiful

harvest of delicious vegetables he could be proud of.

The government getting wind of these events, in their infinite wisdom, decided to tax the squirrel, first on the poop, then on the fruits of his labors. Their

"logic" was that by taxing the hard working squirrel, they could provide food for the less industrious forest dwellers, making them more and more reliant

on the government, and in the end, more easily controlled.

After some time, the squirrel, unable to continually endure the burden of the new entitlement state, died in the forest.

His family was cited for improper disposal of hazardous waste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since this thread has gone all over the place - received this one via email yesterday:

---

Times are tough, everybody is in debt, and everybody is living on credit…

A rich tourist drives through town, stops at the motel, and lays a $100 bill on the desk saying he wants to inspect the rooms upstairs to pick one for the night.

As soon as he walks upstairs, the owner grabs the bill and runs next door to pay his debt to the butcher.

The butcher takes the $100 and runs down the street to retire his debt to the pig farmer.

The pig farmer takes the $100 and heads off to pay his bill to his supplier, the Farmer's Co-op.

The guy at the Farmer's Co-op takes the $100 and runs to pay his debt to the local prostitute, who has also been facing hard times and has had to offer her "services" on credit.

The hooker rushes to the hotel and pays off her room bill with the hotel owner.

The hotel proprietor then places the $100 back on the counter.

At that moment the traveler comes down the stairs, states that the

rooms are not satisfactory, picks up the $100 bill and leaves town.

No one produced anything. No one earned anything.

However, the whole town is now out of debt and looks to the future with a lot more optimism.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how Government is conducting business today…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just because i am diametrically opposed to some of their actions, i can shoot them?how many americans honestly have guns in their homes because they genuinely believe that they will need them to deal with an oppressive govt?

All this coming from a man who was seen in a video review wearing an official NRA cap, holding a 647 gr. 50 BMG slug, wondering if it’s going to go off.

Coincidently enough, the review he was doing was a Vegas Robaina Don Alejandro DC.

post-66-1269986407.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, a bear pooped in the woods, but nobody was there to see it, so it might not have really happened. But by chance, an enterprising squirrel happened

upon the poop, and working diligently, took the poop home for his garden. He toiled day in and day out, and was rewarded for his work with a bountiful

harvest of delicious vegetables he could be proud of.

The government getting wind of these events, in their infinite wisdom, decided to tax the squirrel, first on the poop, then on the fruits of his labors. Their

"logic" was that by taxing the hard working squirrel, they could provide food for the less industrious forest dwellers, making them more and more reliant

on the government, and in the end, more easily controlled.

After some time, the squirrel, unable to continually endure the burden of the new entitlement state, died in the forest.

His family was cited for improper disposal of hazardous waste.

I do love a good parable. Do you think we could see this in the cinemas in 3D with someone like Eddy Murphy playing the squirrel?

That exact same parable plays out here in much the same manner every day.

You think it would get easier to live in modern times but the cost of living just seems to keep going through the roof.

The only growth industry seems to be bureaucracy and that bureaucracy just keeps voting themselves pay rises. Just the other day those already on $500,000 have decided that they need another $100,000 per year.

Who pays for that?

The squirrels that's who.

What we need is a team of lumberjacks to come through and do a spot of clear felling.

Hey do you think the FBI and ASIO read this **** or with all this talk of logging would it be the department of primary industries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this coming from a man who was seen in a video review wearing an official NRA cap, holding a 647 gr. 50 BMG slug, wondering if it's going to go off.

Coincidently enough, the review he was doing was a Vegas Robaina Don Alejandro DC.

post-66-1269986407.png

nice! both presents from you that i donned for the day. next time you are on the balcony, you'll be photo'd wearing redskins gear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how Government is conducting business today…

Damn straight, there just a bunch of $100 hookers and they give us all a good shagging every day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You think it would get easier to live in modern times but the cost of living just seems to keep going through the roof.

Warren, when I allow myself to really think about this fact, and all associated with it, the air is sucked from my lungs.

But I always try to keep in mind that there are those who are "doing it tougher" than I might feel I am.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, a bear pooped in the woods, but nobody was there to see it, so it might not have really happened. But by chance, an enterprising squirrel happened

upon the poop, and working diligently, took the poop home for his garden. He toiled day in and day out, and was rewarded for his work with a bountiful

harvest of delicious vegetables he could be proud of.

The government getting wind of these events, in their infinite wisdom, decided to tax the squirrel, first on the poop, then on the fruits of his labors. Their

"logic" was that by taxing the hard working squirrel, they could provide food for the less industrious forest dwellers, making them more and more reliant

on the government, and in the end, more easily controlled.

After some time, the squirrel, unable to continually endure the burden of the new entitlement state, died in the forest.

His family was cited for improper disposal of hazardous waste.

thanks for clearing that up. So the guns are the trees, then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Community Software by Invision Power Services, Inc.