peacefuljeffrey 0 #1 September 6, 2004 Well, what do you know -- the NBC Nightly News does a story just now on how that evil substance, ammonium nitrate, can -- *GASP* -- be purchased without a background check!! So who do you think they showed a sound bite of, calling for what, essentially, is "fertilizer control"? UpChuck Schumer. Needless to say, I'm not surprised he's the poster-boy for more bureaucratic "_____-control" from big, useless government. What a shitstain that man is. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #2 September 6, 2004 I -believe- that ever since Oklahoma City there have been limits on bulk purchases. I think it's prudent.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Balls 0 #3 September 6, 2004 QuoteI -believe- that ever since Oklahoma City there have been limits on bulk purchases. I think it's prudent. I take it your not in farming.---------------------------------------- ....so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #4 September 6, 2004 Quote I take it your not in farming. Nope, he's not. Although my family has a large farm, *I* am technically not a farmer, but I definately sympathize with the farmers if this bullshit gets stirred up by the uninformed left. All it will do is make life hard for the working farmer and drive the cost of fertilizer up, making the already very small profit margin even smaller. People just don't have respect for the working American, be it a farmer, miner, steel worker or some other hard working American.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #5 September 6, 2004 Educate me. How does putting limits (ID checks for large purchases for instance) a financial burden? I just don't see how that's unreasonable or makes life "hard". In pretty much every job I've ever had I've had to show my ID just to get in the door. Big deal. When I buy parts I have to show my ID to a merchant for credit card purchases or checks - again, big deal. I had to have a background check to jump into a race track the other day. I might not exactly -like it, but it's just part of doing business in today's world. Ok, I'll admit that a background check is a bit more involved than just whipping out your driver's license, but then again, we're talking about stuff you can make some pretty powerful bombs out of. What am I missing?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #6 September 7, 2004 QuoteOk, I'll admit that a background check is a bit more involved than just whipping out your driver's license, but then again, we're talking about stuff you can make some pretty powerful bombs out of. You can make some pretty powerful bombs out of a lot of household goods, its not hard. So where does it stop? I can make a bomb out of bleach, does that mean there should be a background check on bleach? What makes this a burden is that there is no such thing as a free lunch. The background checks would require new equipment for the feed stores and databases would have to be created for the "farmer" background check, there would be filing, paperwork, etc. These things are not free and where do you think the buck will be passed to? It'll trickle right down to the cost of the fertilizer. At a guess I'd say maybe $0.10 a pound. Do you understand how much that will cost a farmer each year? Lets just say a lot. You have the advantage of working in an industry that has a lot more money and free capital then farming. There's a reason why our government has to subsidize farmers, without that many farmers would be even further below the poverty line.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #7 September 7, 2004 I'm all for strict controls on large amounts of fertilizer. They could start with the oral sort produced by the Democrats!! Mike. (Yes, I have foremd an opinion on your forthcoming elections - Not who I'd vote for (can't vote), but definitely who I'd NEVER vote for. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #8 September 7, 2004 QuoteEducate me. I just don't see how that's unreasonable or makes life "hard". What am I missing? It's just... where does it stop, Quade? The same argument ("Someone could do something evil with it") can be applied to fertilizer, kitchen knives, guns, gasoline, diesel fuel, chainsaws, wood chippers. If we want to require I.D. and a paper trail for the purchase of every item that can be used to cause havoc or harm, we'd never get anything done because our lives would be spent filling out forms. And this is really just sticking one finger in one crack in the dyke. There are thousands of other cracks, so why single this one out? Every week, I buy enough gasoline to do a HUGE amount of damage to lives and property. Just imagine if I went around some house late at night where a family was sleeping, and doused it with gasoline all over -- even just one gallon, not the typical 9 or so gallons I buy each week -- and lit it on fire! And I didn't have to give my I.D. when I bought that gasoline! Think about the fertilizer thing: they want to I.D. people who buy the fertilizer half of a fertilizer/fuel-oil bomb! But if you look at each half of that bomb, it's the FUEL OIL (diesel) that is dangerous on its own -- yet that's the half that no one is demanding we produce I.D. in order to purchase! It's asinine, ignorant hand-wringing -- the earmark of the Left. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RoadRash 0 #9 September 7, 2004 QuoteQuoteOk, I'll admit that a background check is a bit more involved than just whipping out your driver's license, but then again, we're talking about stuff you can make some pretty powerful bombs out of. You can make some pretty powerful bombs out of a lot of household goods, its not hard. So where does it stop? I can make a bomb out of bleach, does that mean there should be a background check on bleach? What makes this a burden is that there is no such thing as a free lunch. The background checks would require new equipment for the feed stores and databases would have to be created for the "farmer" background check, there would be filing, paperwork, etc. These things are not free and where do you think the buck will be passed to? It'll trickle right down to the cost of the fertilizer. At a guess I'd say maybe $0.10 a pound. Do you understand how much that will cost a farmer each year? Lets just say a lot. You have the advantage of working in an industry that has a lot more money and free capital then farming. There's a reason why our government has to subsidize farmers, without that many farmers would be even further below the poverty line. Dave, I completely agree with you...I have lived in Indiana for 12 years. Some of my friends parents are farmers and many of my friends that I met at Purdue come from farming communities. More regulations on farming equipment and whatnot means more hardships for farmers...On a farm, every little bit counts... I don't believe it is prudent to make it more difficult for farmers to do their jobs and make a living... ~R+R...$0.02...~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ Fly the friendly skies...^_^...})ii({...^_~... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #10 September 7, 2004 QuoteMore regulations on farming equipment and whatnot means more hardships for farmers...On a farm, every little bit counts... I don't believe it is prudent to make it more difficult for farmers to do their jobs and make a living... Um, especially when there is little to no reason that the restrictions will accomplish any crimefighting objective. Paying a cost to not get anything delivered is just stoopid -- and typical of what the Liberals want to make us do. It is no surprise to me that the figurehead of this bullshit on the t.v. news was Chuck Schumer. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #11 September 7, 2004 Just a thought... But is we're gonna do ID chacks, shouldn't we start with purchases of: http://www.armynavymilitarysurplus.com/books-video-audio-army-navy-military/Books/military-books-anarchist/military-books-catalog3-ID-DPR00C150.asp http://www.armynavymilitarysurplus.com/books-video-audio-army-navy-military/Books/military-books-anarchist/military-books-catalog3-ID-DPR00C151.asp http://www.armynavymilitarysurplus.com/books-video-audio-army-navy-military/Books/military-books-anarchist/military-books-catalog3-ID-DPR00C152.asp As endorsed by The Royal Engineers EOD, Metropolitan Police SO13 and CT search units everywhere!! as required perusal so you know what you're looking for. Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #12 September 7, 2004 >Needless to say, I'm not surprised he's the poster-boy for more > bureaucratic "_____-control" from big, useless government. But . . . . but . . . it's all part of the war on terror! What, do you support the terrorists? That's the problem with using fear as a political tool; it makes people afraid, and fearful people vote for things that they think will protect them. Politicians realize this and follow right along. What politician is going to vote "to make explosives available to terrorists" ? Patriot 1 gave the government a lot of new freedoms in terms of what they could eavesdrop on, what you could be arrested for, and what could be confiscated from you - all in the name of "national security" of course. Patriot 2 will be even worse - companies (say, fertilizer or gun suppliers) can report people to the government without fear of legal repercussions even if they're wrong or lying. Everyone will be in a genetic database so they can be tracked from cradle to grave. At least that was in the latest proposal. When the next version of the Patriot Act passes, expect much worse than what we saw from Patriot 1. The biggest threat to personal freedom we face today isn't from any terrorist out there - it's from the government, who will make it harder for you to buy guns/fertilizer/RC airplanes/batteries/altimeters - all for your own good, of course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #13 September 7, 2004 Books? Information? Boy, we'll really be in a shit-world if we start trying to limit what people are allowed to learn. I know that there are countries that ban publication of various books (England has a history of this), but that shit won't fly here in the U.S. (Actually, I read a history of Mad Magazine that says that there were efforts to censor it, even at levels of government. Disturbing.) What if they did make it a crime to print and obtain books on things like improvised munitions? Would they criminalize teaching such knowledge to others? Of course such efforts would run afoul of the first amendment, until some liberal tried to liken teaching improvised munitions to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater and claimed no protection for that sort of speech. I'm sure Schumer would lead that idiotic crusade, too. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #14 September 7, 2004 >What if they did make it a crime to print and obtain books on things >like improvised munitions? Would they criminalize teaching such >knowledge to others? Sure. Read 1984 to get a feel for how that would be done. >until some liberal tried to liken teaching improvised munitions to > yelling "fire" in a crowded theater . . . You do realize that a republican-controlled legislature and executive passed Patriot 1, right? Odd that you think that voting them in again would prevent Patriot 2. If you want the same things to happen, vote the same people into office again. Basic rule of a representative government. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #15 September 7, 2004 Mike, those are the kinds of books that I would buy only with cash, at a gun show. Not giving my name and personal info on the internet where others could detect that I had availed myself of them. Anonymously is the only way to buy stuff like that. Blue skies, --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #16 September 7, 2004 Quote>What if they did make it a crime to print and obtain books on things >like improvised munitions? Would they criminalize teaching such >knowledge to others? Sure. Read 1984 to get a feel for how that would be done. Well, the Kerry-ites have a jump on us when it comes to indulging in the Five-Minutes' Hate. Still no released footage of their little convention festivities, huh? Fuggin' cowards. Don't want to let the real them be seen. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #17 September 7, 2004 QuoteYou do realize that a republican-controlled legislature and executive passed Patriot 1, right? Odd that you think that voting them in again would prevent Patriot 2. If you want the same things to happen, vote the same people into office again. Basic rule of a representative government. Bill, how utterly disingenuous of you -- and I see this in a huge number of your posts and I have called you on it before. I am surprised you continue to think these things will slip by me or us. Do you mean to put blame for Patriot I on Republicans just because they have a majority in Congress? It was passed with tremendous bipartisan support. Your comments would be meaningful if only the Democrats had been staunchly aligned against the act, but they were not. They were not. And more of your disingenuousness: Where in my post did I say anything about voting Republican to prevent passage of Patriot II? I didn't mention it at all! --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #18 September 7, 2004 >Well, the Kerry-ites have a jump on us when it comes to indulging >in the Five-Minutes' Hate. From Ann Coulter's column written about the DNC (she was fired from her commentator position after she wrote this for CBS:) "My pretty-girl allies stick out like a sore thumb amongst the corn-fed, no make-up, natural fiber, no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant hippie-chick pie wagons they call 'women' at the Democratic National Convention." More like a two-minute-hate. But in any case, we were talking about losing your personal freedoms. Odd that people are voting for the team that has _already_ done more harm to the Bill of Rights than any admistration since the 50's, and claiming they are _for_ personal freedom. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #19 September 7, 2004 Schumer is an asshat. As usual, "Big Guvmint" is the solution to a non-existent problem. Wasn't there a proverb that said "When your only tool is a hammer, you tend to see everything as a nail"? I remember the preface to my first-edition copy of "The Anarchist Cookbook". It went something like this: "This book was written for the people of the United States. The Weathermen and other groups already know the stuff that's in here." Talk about a slippery slope, and overkill, and gross overreaction. Edit to add: This ties in to gun control too, which isn't really about controlling guns, it's about controlling people. Black powder isn't a very powerful explosive in modern terms, but it can still do a lot of damage if used properly. I'm sure Schumer wants to ban that too. Unfortunately, even schoolchildren know that black powder is made from sulfur, potassium nitrate, and charcoal. Let's see that asshat Schumer try to ban those substances... mh . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #20 September 7, 2004 >Do you mean to put blame for Patriot I on Republicans just >because they have a majority in Congress? Partly, yes - but primarily because it was championed by a Bush appointee. >Where in my post did I say anything about voting Republican to >prevent passage of Patriot II? I didn't mention it at all! If you want Patriot II - vote back in the team that gave you Patriot I. Pretty straightforward. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflying 0 #21 September 7, 2004 i am not at all surprised that Chuck Schumer is involved with this -- he is the biggest media hound that exists and loves any opportunity to control access to those things he considers "weapons" but he is a true New Yorker... bless his soul (and his hair plugs...) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #22 September 7, 2004 QuoteYou do realize that a republican-controlled legislature and executive passed Patriot 1, right? Odd that you think that voting them in again would prevent Patriot 2. If you want the same things to happen, vote the same people into office again. Basic rule of a representative government. The US Patriot Act was passed by a nearly unanimous vote with virtually no debate. Nice try at blaming Republicans, though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #23 September 7, 2004 QuoteI -believe- that ever since Oklahoma City there have been limits on bulk purchases. I think it's prudent. So you don't support the Patriot Act, but do support background checks on innocent farmers? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #24 September 7, 2004 Quote>Do you mean to put blame for Patriot I on Republicans just >because they have a majority in Congress? QuotePartly, yes - but primarily because it was championed by a Bush appointee. Sounds like you are insinuating the Dems are a bunch of dumb sheep who can't resist the Republicans. >Where in my post did I say anything about voting Republican to >prevent passage of Patriot II? I didn't mention it at all! [replyIf you want Patriot II - vote back in the team that gave you Patriot I. Pretty straightforward. Would your suggestion include Kerry? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #25 September 7, 2004 Quote So you don't support the Patriot Act, but do support background checks on innocent farmers? I think that large quantities of materials that can easily be turned into explosives need to be tracked from manufacture to use. Like a lot of things, I think it's a matter of degrees as to how this is gone about. I've been thinking about this off and on for the better part of the afternoon and I can't really say that I agree that it would automatically be a burden on the farmers. The DHS does a background check on every PRO jumper into certain types of demos and it doesn't cost the jumper a dime so I'm not really sure why this would cause the price of anything to go up in any significant manner -- possibly a small fractional percentage on taxes but I assume this would be system wide, spread among -all- tax payers, and not specific to farmers. I further assume that farmers would have this done once with an annual renewal or possibly some sort of computer database that automatically looks for new violations. In other words, I -seriously- doubt AggieDave's estimate of an increase of $.10 per pound. So, on the financial side, I just don't agree with the argument against. On the "where does it stop?" and "slippery slope" arguments, I'll conceed that, but try buying some yellow cake and see how far you get. The facts are that for some items there does need to be some accountability. Like I said, it's all a matter of degrees and in this particular instance I don't think it's imprudent to track this material and its usage -- including who is using it. Of course, feel free to disagree with me. That's what we're here (in this forum) for.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
