New ammo law - California

[NsXMas]

So I have a propisition for you my friend.. what if being evil turns out to be the most effective way for the government to attain resources from their citizens? Check mate?

Evil may be a means to the end - money. :wink:

Again, this is all said in jest. I do not believe any faction of government or organization to be evil, I truly think everyone is trying to do what they think is best.

However, I think that in the pursuit of some smaller goals, the big picture is being lost by many, as amply evidenced in this thread.

It's been an interesting discussion.

 

[sahtt]

Sure, and they did a great job stopping heroin and meth use as well. Super high prices, incredibly stiff penalties, yet even the bums without even an IRA to their name seem to be able to get more than enough of the stuff. With absolute authority like that, who needs the police?

That's a good point I've considered before. I suppose the power attained from acquring votes by "war(s) against drugs" outweighs the massive profits of destabilizing the forces who go after these guys and turning them all into DRS (drug revenue service) agents.

Legalize, track, and tax. One thing about a devoted meth head-they are hard workers and get however much money they need. Federal deficit solved.

 

[Vega$ NSX]

So I have a propisition for you my friend.. what if being evil turns out to be the most effective way for the government to attain resources from their citizens? Check mate?

If that was the case, then yes, I would agree with you. But sorry, that isn't the case. A guy happy at his job, with freedom to the job the way he wants will make more money than a guy forced to work. Remember the story of the Matrix? You obtain more bees with honey than you do vinegar. Entrepreneurs make more money than factory floor drones. Freedom gets you the Bill Gates, Michael Dell’s and Warren Buffets of the world. Name one right and/or famous guy from dictator controlled countries like Sudan and formerly Iraq.

 

[Vega$ NSX]

It's been an interesting discussion.

X 10000. And fun too. I love discussions with who I know and can clearly see are very intelligent people.

 

[NsXMas]

If that was the case, then yes, I would agree with you. But sorry, that isn't the case. A guy happy at his job, with freedom to the job the way he wants will make more money than a guy forced to work. Remember the story of the Matrix? You obtain more bees with honey than you do vinegar. Entrepreneurs make more money than factory floor drones. Freedom gets you the Bill Gates, Michael Dell’s and Warren Buffets of the world. Name one right and/or famous guy from dictator controlled countries like Sudan and formerly Iraq.

Hugo Chavez thought it was easier just to seize property from those who are "rich" and have worked hard to obtain their assets. I've talked with some people I know who have lost much there thanks to this policy, and have escaped the country.

The easiest path often is the one that will be socially unjust.

 

[NsXMas]

X 10000. And fun too. I love discussions with who I can see are clearly very intelligent people.

Can't wait to have a beer and chat next year, Vegas in 2010 baby!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :biggrin::biggrin:

 

[sahtt]

If that was the case, then yes, I would agree with you. But sorry, that isn't the case. A guy happy at his job, with freedom to the job the way he wants will make more money than a guy forced to work. Remember the story of the Matrix? You obtain more bees with honey than you do vinegar. Entrepreneurs make more money than factory floor drones. Freedom gets you the Bill Gates, Michael Dell’s and Warren Buffets of the world. Name one right and/or famous guy from dictator controlled countries like Sudan and formerly Iraq.

It was just theoretical. In the last 100 years or so, besides plundering some 3rd world nations, not keeping the leash too tight has been successful for most governments.

Alternatively, it seems that most massive governmental intrusions/abuses occur during financial hardships. So for now, gates and buffet keep the system running.

 

[Vega$ NSX]

It was just theoretical. In the last 100 years or so, besides plundering some 3rd world nations, not keeping the leash too tight has been successful for most governments.

Alternatively, it seems that most massive governmental intrusions/abuses occur during financial hardships. So for now, gates and buffet keep the system running.

Yeah, I know we see eye to eye on our capitalistic ideals. I think we’ve both preached about natural market forces being the best path for money and growth, rather than some state controlled market.

So that goes back to my original point, if we can agree that the government is greedy and not necessarily evil, could it stand to be that this ammo bill is more about regulating or tracking the money on ammo sales rather than the evil intention of trying to take the right of ammo and firearms away from you (which is what everyone was initially scared of, to which I tried to belay?)

 

[Vega$ NSX]

Hugo Chavez thought it was easier just to seize property from those who are "rich" and have worked hard to obtain their assets. I've talked with some people I know who have lost much there thanks to this policy, and have escaped the country.

The easiest path often is the one that will be socially unjust.

Yeah and that's also an unsustainable system as well. We can just compare Venezuela's GDP and economy to ours to see what a dictatorship will get you in the long run. Our government is a very well refined machine to maximizing the profits of its people while taxing the crap out of them, all while maintaining the delicate balance of happiness and freedoms.

 

[swerve2007]

Simple minds, simple minds....

couldn't be more wrong. i was a die-hard free market supporter until i realized that it really is 'free' only to those in control- there is no competition without a level playing field and that by itself is an oxymoron. for you to insult me based on difference of our experiences is truly ignorant- so you 'travelled', good for you, i've lived in 5 different countries (and no, not on 2-month military deployment) and can tell you that our society is not exactly educated or free thinking, thats why we have all these stupid laws because people can't do the right thing without a kick in the ass. you call it 'sheep', i call it responsible, courteous and considerate. you are mistaking 'freedom' with buck-wild do-as-you-please attitude which actually is the cause for all these laws you complain about.
lastly, you guys mentioned our financial system as being highest-regulated in the world and it failed anyway- it is not and never was. Clinton put some controls in effect that was then repealed by Bush and de-regulated even further- you know this. European systems would never allow the crap that went on here but they got screwed as well because of how deeply they were connected to wall street.

 

[swerve2007]

Yeah and that's also an unsustainable system as well. We can just compare Venezuela's GDP and economy to ours to see what a dictatorship will get you in the long run. Our government is a very well refined machine to maximizing the profits of its people while taxing the crap out of them, all while maintaining the delicate balance of happiness and freedoms.

you mean for the top 5% of capital owners, not the people.
chaves is a douchebag but at least he is trying to share the wealth of their natural resources, not just let some corporation plunder it for their profits. did you guys ever get any money from mobil or exxon for their use of 'our' oil?

 

[Vega$ NSX]

Don't they say money is the root of all evil? Therefore money = evil. :wink:

Uh oh, if you break out that equation then....

 

[bjmills]

...
btw- the ONLY liberty in usa that separates us from europe IS gun posession. and yes, everything in this country is about profit and thats what will bring it down.

Well, that and online gambling :tongue:

 

[sahtt]

you mean for the top 5% of capital owners, not the people.
chaves is a douchebag but at least he is trying to share the wealth of their natural resources, not just let some corporation plunder it for their profits. did you guys ever get any money from mobil or exxon for their use of 'our' oil?

.. if you own the surface rights they have to pay you to use the land to drill, sometimes with a production dividend. If you own the mineral rights, it is "your" oil. If it's on government land, they pay the government a fortune for it. Your vision of the world is blurry but your eyes are probably functioning ok.

While I was in Alaska this summer, a friend of mine who owns a home in Anchorage received 2500$ that year due to the state's oil revenue. If a state's citizens decide to go for that, more power to them. If oil is cheaper elsewhere, the oil companies will move on. Whether that's fair for those states paying higher prices with no revenue to counter it is a different discussion.

 

[swerve2007]

i am fully aware of mineral right laws etc. as i am a land owner- i am not an ignorant child like you try to portray. you guys try to see everything black or white because thats easy- well, there is only shades of gray and my 'blurry vision of the world' clearly sees the problems- why is oil is a 'posession' of people of alaska but not people of the us? what about offshore drilling? the states get the cut and that money should support social programs (like ss for instance) or decrease in property or income taxes but the money never trickles down to the 'people' - funds get 'lost' yet the corporations profit.
to your relief i will refrain from posting in the 'off topic' area as there can never be any conversation without 'finger pointing' or thinly veiled insults which only reflects the poster's mental capacity, no matter how well 'travelled'.

 

[sahtt]

i am fully aware of mineral right laws etc. my 'blurry vision of the world' clearly sees the problems- why is oil is a 'posession' of people of alaska but not people of the us? what about offshore drilling? the states get the cut but not the 'people' yet the corporations profit.

It's not complicated, if you understand it, you wouldn't be asking. You are confused on several points. Some land is federal-some land is state owned. If it's state owned, the state gets it. If it's federal, the national government gets it. If you want your money, all you have to do is move to alaska, live there for a year, and you get your share. Oil companies HAVE TO PAY for the right to drill. It's established by a BIDDING process. They DO NOT get their money back if they find no oil.

NEWSFLASH-corporations by DEFINITION are OWNED by their shareholders. Go buy some XOM, NOV, RIG, or whatever and stop whining.

Do you propose the national government taking account of every single resource-coal in the midwest, oil in the alaska, minerals in the rockies, lumber in oregon, the list goes on and on, deviding up the revenue, magically coming up with a good figure for the original land owner(s), then dispersing between every man, woman and child in the nation? The transaction costs would probably overwhelm the entire natural resource profitability. Most of the profit is made with what* you do with natural resources, on the the aquisition of them.

 

[swerve2007]

It's not complicated, if you understand it, you wouldn't be asking. You are confused on several points. Some land is federal-some land is state owned. If it's state owned, the state gets it. If it's federal, the national government gets it. If you want your money, all you have to do is move to alaska, live there for a year, and you get your share. Oil companies HAVE TO PAY for the right to drill. It's established by a BIDDING process. They DO NOT get their money back if they find no oil.

NEWSFLASH-corporations by DEFINITION are OWNED by their shareholders. Go buy some XOM, NOV, RIG, or whatever and stop whining.

Do you propose the national government taking account of every single resource-coal in the midwest, oil in the alaska, minerals in the rockies, lumber in oregon, the list goes on and on, deviding up the revenue, magically coming up with a good figure for the original land owner(s), then dispersing between every man, woman and child in the nation? The transaction costs would probably overwhelm the entire natural resource profitability. Most of the profit is made with what* you do with natural resources, on the the aquisition of them.

again, you again assume that i don't know these things and are oversimplifying- what i am questioning is what makes the citizen of alaska better than a citizen of california, get it? just because the oil is in alaska it is still the property of the nation- either pay everyone or nobody- be consistent. lastly, as a matter of fact, national resources should be considered as such and whatever comes out of the ground in usa should be available to all citizens at a cost of production (like in other countries) not with 'profits' to a third party. and no, that would not require counting every tree in the states- this kind of reply is in the same league as the 'death panels' in healthcare debate.

 

[swerve2007]

Do you propose the national government taking account of every single resource-coal in the midwest, oil in the alaska, minerals in the rockies, lumber in oregon, the list goes on and on, deviding up the revenue, magically coming up with a good figure for the original land owner(s), then dispersing between every man, woman and child in the nation? The transaction costs would probably overwhelm the entire natural resource profitability. Most of the profit is made with what* you do with natural resources, on the the aquisition of them.

the government has no problem doing that to you when they tax you, right? and it still goes on no matter how big of PITA it is.

 

[WillErickson]

That is an insane law. The amount of paperwork is going to be tremendous for the shop owners and the local gov offices. Also, how is California going to pay for the extra work required to register all of these sales? I thought the state was bankrupt.

I'm not a gun owner but this was my first reaction too...

Second reaction is that it won't solve any crime, it'll just allow the crazy California liberals to feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Bold prediction, Walmart will cease selling ammo in California in the next 12 months.

 

[passline]

Bold prediction, Walmart will cease selling ammo in California in the next 12 months.

That is bold. My prediction: Walmart will be the only ones selling ammo in California.
And I will still, never shop there.
I will load my own casings if need be. :smile:

 

[Cragar]

Second reaction is that it won't solve any crime, it'll just allow the crazy California liberals to feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
months.

100% true , plus the politicos have taken one one step closer to a complete gun ban , that will make them all warm and fuzzy.

 

[Cragar]

Bold prediction, Walmart will cease selling ammo in California in the next 12 months.

They have already stopped selling guns and ammo ( except 12 gauge field loads ) here in Connecticut.

 

[swerve2007]

this law is trying to control the 'marriage' between guns and ammo- obviously one does nothing without other. if all guns ever sold in us were subject to the background checks like we have now, this law would never appear. the problem is that you cannot get all the 'legacy' guns off the streets or out of the hands of criminals so the 'next step' is to control the ammo. we may hate it but there is some logic behind it. we all agree that criminal don't care about law so some may argue this is pointless- well, either we deal with the 'thumbprint' now or face total gun ban in the future if things keep going the way they are. look at mexico- where do you think all those weapons came from?
few of you think that i am advocating this law- not true. i just understand that the majority of population is against guns so we have a choice to agree to some form of regulation to allow us to have guns or face a ban in the future. majority rules and we are not a majority.

 

[Cragar]

Majority against guns in the US ?

Nope. Sorry , not buying that.

Just like I am not buying that fact that most of the guns in Mexico come from the US. Another lie.


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VlnZ8yq6wJA&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VlnZ8yq6wJA&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>



<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QNuQ8mdIMog&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QNuQ8mdIMog&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object

 

[sahtt]

the government has no problem doing that to you when they tax you, right? and it still goes on no matter how big of PITA it is.

You are still missing the point. I don't mean to over simplify anything on purpose, it just helps me setup a clear, linear argument (in my mind anyways).

Did you know almost one third of income taxes go towards the collection of income taxes? Do you consider that efficient? A feel good "divide it up for everyone" without a realistic method of implementation is worthless.

There are in fact nations that do as you proposed, that is true. However, they are almost all simple economies. Of those that are slightly more developed, say Kuwait, citizenship is almost impossible to obtain. Our country is founded on immigration (legal). There is no known way to even remotely take account of all natural resources in a country 10% as complex as ours, somehow "value" them, distribute the resources "fairly", keep immigration rights fair for citizens and future citizens, all while avoiding civil war. Alaska does it for special reasons and after studying it and visiting there myself, I can understand why they chose to do that.

In all reality, the profits of the vast majority of these resources ARE distributed right back into the economy. For those that buy MB's or Japanese electronics, if the government gave them money, they'd buy the exact same $hit. You are wanting to create a bureaucratic catastrophe that's completely unrealistic and unheard of outside of a few unnamed, choice books on "philosophy" I won't mention.

Transaction costs and property rights are extremely noteworthy. I studied the work of a Nobel economics laureate who spent over a decade analyzing it.