Thursday December 12, 2013
Jump to content
What an inspiration!
Sounds like his has polite bulls to not jump the fence. (:-)) They are naturally more cautious than the cows, and besides, why enter into a confined space if those very nice people will bring the food to them? (:-))
I live in the country near Waco. Draw a triangle between McGregor (West of Waco), Hewitt (South of Waco) and Lorena (Further South of Waco). I live in the center of that triangle, deep in the heart of Texas.
That's about half way between Wichita Falls and Port Arthur, then a bit west. (:-))
Yeah, I was house hunting in Pine awhile back and run across about 4 or 5 cows in a back yard. You see that in Estes too, but quite often you will also see 50 or 60 standing in the park downtown. And, I have this magnificent picture off the internet showing over a hundred on the Estes school ball field, which is a natural grazing area for them.
As for buffs, I remember barreling along a lonely twisting road in the Black Hills late one evening, and a large bull was standing in the middle of the road as I careened through a hairpin turn. I was in a small Volvo, and wound up looking up at the bull's face literally over my hood, when I stopped. He wasn't too impressed with me, and if I hadn't grabbed reverse, doing a high speed turnaround, there would have been squashed Volvo all over the road.
Imagine meeting a 2,000 lb. bull and some buff cows crossing the road in those tight turns above Strawberry, or between Pine and Payson. (And, that at night.) Could you stop before you trashed your car and maybe killed yourself? It's bad enough to hit a deer or an elk, but you'd lose big time if you hit a buffalo.
Duty calls, gotta go. Hope to talk again in the future.
Greetings from the great state of Texas. (:-))
Finally came up for enough air to at least say that.
I don't feel right in posting much, since I am not living there at present, but at least I can let friends know they are thought of.
God Bless and carry on. It's great to grab a peek at the rim country through your eyes once in awhile. I miss it so.
BTW, it wouldn't be hard to visualize cattle and buffs grazing together, but as supply increases, so do predators, and the cattle make easier pickings. So, I can't see cattlemen being happy about that. And the ladies would not appreciate them trampling their flower gardens. (:-)) Have you seen the elk herds in Estes Park? Hundreds, all over town.
Hi, Tom. Sorry to not be responding as I should.
I'm out of state right now, and holding down two jobs. Life is short, and burning the candle at both ends isn't conducive to good correspondence. (:-))
And, it seems wrong to continue to post here, as long as I'm out of state. No real reason for that, but that is how it strikes me.
As soon as this glut of work subsides, and I can get back, I'll sure pick it up.
Until then, amigo, Via Con Dios!
Frankly, I think you are exactly right in that last post. And, I don't have the time. I signed on today to tell someone in a roundup blog that I was having to bow out for awhile due to time constraints. I'm out of state right now, and holding down two jobs for some indefinite time.
So, first, I'm short of time, and second, if I'm not in the vicinity, why should I continue to post here? When I get back, that will be a different thing. (:-))
God bless and hope to be back soon.
"What "red tape?"" Look at it this way, I sell guns to friends and so forth from time to time. Not enough to be considered a dealer. I also buy guns. I've given some away, and have been given several.
Pass your law. I will not pay any attention to it. I will continue to buy, trade, sell and give away as I see fit. I will not run down to the post office to get the latest form, nor will I seek it on the internet. I will not file any document tracking those actions. It is the epitome of stupidity to think people will do such a thing for what otherwise takes 5 minutes to transact. The goal behind this push is to stop individual trafficking in guns. Not only me, but almost anyone with a lick of common sense will ignore it.
All you do is push more guns into the criminal hands to use against those who don’t have them. The free market now soon become a black market. And, that market will become much more susceptible to criminal control. If I can’t sell my gun that I want to sell to my next door neighbor (Because he says it’s too much trouble) guess who I’ll sell it to. I’ll sell it to ol’ Jim down the street, because everyone knows he traffics in guns without the red tape.
When you say “come on, do you seriously think a bunch of other people are going to die because Joe Blow didn't get his gun 2 days earlier?” You purposely misconstrued what I said. Which was “How many would fail to buy that gun to defend themselves with, because of all the red tape?”
Re-read what I’ve said above. I won’t go to the trouble to get a form. They may not go to the trouble to get the gun. The odds are that out of those people who say the paperwork is too much (As many do now) some may be victims without the gun they would otherwise buy. And, that is part of the intent on the restriction. Make it too hard for the average person to want to own a gun. The result is less guns. That is the ultimate goal of the liberal agenda. This is step 21 in a 100 step process to become a gunless society.
And, your rationale about the buyer maybe going around on a rampage is rather foolish. The stats are highly against that, and you want all citizens burdened on this highly misguided idea that a piece of paper will stop the insane from their goal of mayhem. That isn’t only illogical, but borders on the irrational.
Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the nation, but the death rate there is horrific. Children shot down in the streets, store owners murdered for $25.00 or less and the average citizen lives in abject fear. And, you want to see us take one step closer to that? If the restriction is successful, in 6 months it will be another step. ‘Oh, it’s just another document. What’s another week? Why do you need that type gun, anyway? And on, and on.
This push is not just despicable, but is an affront to honest people presumed dishonest because you are looking for the needle in the haystack.
He calls their influence "undue". That means that those groups take unfair advantage, does it not?
On the one hand, you defend this man's attempt to reduce the "undue Influence", and in the next breath say "each organization can and does exert influence. That is the mission of all organizations" wherein you acknowledge the rightful position that such organizations play.
When he says " we, the electorate, can neutralize the undue influence exerted by the organizations mentioned above" he isn't saying just a few of them. (If he were, guess which he'd say were 'exerting undue influence'. It wouldn't be those he likes.)
And, yes, we should all do our homework. We should also be ready to defend our First Amendment rights, whenever well intentioned folk, (Like Mr. Meszar) make statements that sound great, until you see the damage that type of thinking can have on the First Amendment rights we hold so dear.
The sheriff's in Oregon are a few among several who have put everyone on notice that they will thwart any attempt to cram unconstitutional laws between the people and their liberties.
There's been a couple in Texas, and I've also heard of this in Vermont, as well, though I don't have any information on those.
Oklahoma and Utah have instituted laws to the same effect.
Are they a flash in the pan? Or, is this finally the head of the people rising up against oppression?
Patience, my friend. I’ve been trying to get the time to answer. I have done a few short things elsewhere; but this requires some work. (:-)
You realize that the states can’t just call a convention. The Constitution says at least 2/3’s of the states must apply to the congress, which then would call the convention. That would not be so easy to get past congress, for they would realize the states would pull their playhouse down. I suspect that the congress would not call a convention until its back was against the wall.
When you say “president would be a member of the most populous party”, that hasn’t always been the case. Nixon won the popular vote, but Kennedy moved into the White House. It’s been that way in many elections.
The more I hear about a triad at the top the less I’m convinced it would work. They would be constantly at odds, and obviously they would hold more power than the current VP. Additionally, they would work for the Pres., and when that happens, you don’t usually have equality. I recognize several of the benefits you’ve presented, but still think those men long ago, who put a lot more time into this, than we have here, called it right.
Regarding what a republic is, it’s my understanding that it is simply representative government, rather than a true democracy, oligarchy or dictatorship. Every nation that depended on a democracy in the past failed. So, the founders formed a “Federal Constitutional Republic” as opposed to a simple republic. Rome had a republic of sorts, and was successful for about 350 years or so, but then it became dominated by a handful of senators and finally by what was to become the emperor. But, in that transition, while not still a republic the rulers kept that illusion, as is being done now.
With our constitution, the committee form of representation fulfills 2/3’s of the government, but the other 1/3rd is in the hands of one man. They did this, recognizing the fallacy of leaving defense and certain necessary functions (Like the treasury, postal service and so forth) in the hands of a capable administrator. This system worked well for about 125 years or so. Then, the ‘progressives’ took over, and its been downhill since then.
So, as interesting as your theories are, I have to opt for the original. But, like you, I think we are with our backs to the wall. If the situation can be saved, it will only be saved if a Constitutional Convention can be called in order to restore the Federal Government as it once was. Not by reinventing the wheel. The only additional things that should take place is limiting the number of departments, limiting the number of things the government should be involved in and limiting the ability of the congress to pass laws that don’t strictly adhere to that constitution. Without that, we slowly drift towards dictatorship.
You might save some lives by doing that; but you might also cost many more. How many would fail to buy that gun to defend themselves with, because of all the red tape? We read often of people successfully defending themselves by killing the would be attacker.
Therefore, how many will die at the hands of a disgruntled employee, an estranged mate or just a burglar because they were trying to dial 911, or waiting for the cops to arrive?
Last login: Wednesday, November 27, 2013