Bush dishonesty: Falsely denies owning timber company (during debate)
 

Bush misleads public: In debate denied owning timber company


Bush's Timber Company

Kerry: The president got $84 from a timber company that owns, and he's
counted as a small business. Dick Cheney's counted as a small
business. That's how they do things. That's just not right.

Bush: I own a timber company?

That's news to me.

(LAUGHTER)

Bush's Timber-Growing Company

Bush got a laugh when he scoffed at Kerry's contention that he had
received $84 from "a timber company." Said Bush, "I own a timber
company? That's news to me."

In fact, according to his 2003 financial disclosure form, Bush does
own part interest in "LSTF, LLC", a limited-liability company
organized "for the purpose of the production of trees for commercial
sales." (See "supporting documents" at right.)

So Bush was wrong to suggest that he doesn't have ownership of a
timber company. And Kerry was correct in saying that Bush's definition
of "small business" is so broad that Bush himself would have qualified
as a "small business" in 2001 by virtue of the $84 in business income.

"Florida Patriot" wrote in message

So Bush was wrong to suggest that he doesn't have ownership of a
timber company. And Kerry was correct in saying that Bush's definition
of "small business" is so broad that Bush himself would have qualified
as a "small business" in 2001 by virtue of the $84 in business income.

That was 2001. This is 2004. Does he still own an interest? If not, his
answer was correct.

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
m...

"Florida Patriot" wrote in message

So Bush was wrong to suggest that he doesn't have ownership of a
timber company. And Kerry was correct in saying that Bush's definition
of "small business" is so broad that Bush himself would have qualified
as a "small business" in 2001 by virtue of the $84 in business income.

That was 2001. This is 2004. Does he still own an interest? If not,
his
answer was correct.

The article is from factcheck.org, the site Cheney cited in his own defense
during the televised debate with Edwards.

"Jeff Harper" wrote in message
...

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
m...

"Florida Patriot" wrote in message

So Bush was wrong to suggest that he doesn't have ownership of a
timber company. And Kerry was correct in saying that Bush's definition
of "small business" is so broad that Bush himself would have qualified
as a "small business" in 2001 by virtue of the $84 in business income.

That was 2001. This is 2004. Does he still own an interest? If not,
his
answer was correct.

The article is from factcheck.org, the site Cheney cited in his own
defense
during the televised debate with Edwards.

The site does say that the Lone Star Trust owns a timber company (though its
holding of LSTF, LLC). However, the $84 was from 2001. Since the tree
company has had no income to date, it can't generate a profit. More
importantly, the Lone Star Trust is the blind trust that Bush's holdings are
in, so by the virtue of it being a blind trust, Bush should not be aware of
its holdings. This seems like a rather big omission from the factcheck.org
site, which is usually pretty fair IMHO.

todd

So who gives a flying ****?
Alex

I'm trying to picture that.

AAvK wrote:

So who gives a flying ****?
Alex

On 13 Oct 2004 03:52:45 EDT, Mark and Kim Smith
wrote:
I'm trying to picture that.

AAvK wrote:

So who gives a flying ****?
Alex


Mile High Club?

Well, you'll probably need to finger joint it to get the length . . .
might try turning 528 ten-foot pieces and finger joint the ends.

I'm not sure how you're gonna swing the sucker, but it's be impressive.

Mark and Kim Smith wrote in message ...
I'm trying to picture that.

AAvK wrote:

So who gives a flying ****?
Alex


http://67.15.5.133/beyond.html

--

FF

Todd Fatheree wrote:
"Jeff Harper" wrote in message
...

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
. com...

"Florida Patriot" wrote in message


So Bush was wrong to suggest that he doesn't have ownership of a
timber company. And Kerry was correct in saying that Bush's definition
of "small business" is so broad that Bush himself would have qualified
as a "small business" in 2001 by virtue of the $84 in business income.

That was 2001. This is 2004. Does he still own an interest? If not,

his

answer was correct.

The article is from factcheck.org, the site Cheney cited in his own

defense

during the televised debate with Edwards.


The site does say that the Lone Star Trust owns a timber company (though its
holding of LSTF, LLC). However, the $84 was from 2001. Since the tree
company has had no income to date, it can't generate a profit. More
importantly, the Lone Star Trust is the blind trust that Bush's holdings are
in, so by the virtue of it being a blind trust, Bush should not be aware of
its holdings. This seems like a rather big omission from the factcheck.org
site, which is usually pretty fair IMHO.

todd


Just so you know, factcheck.org does give information on why the
confusion. Honest error on Bush's part even if it is the case.

On 12 Oct 2004 15:48:37 -0700, (Florida
Patriot) wrote:

.... snip
In fact, according to his 2003 financial disclosure form, Bush does
own part interest in "LSTF, LLC", a limited-liability company
organized "for the purpose of the production of trees for commercial
sales." (See "supporting documents" at right.)

So Bush was wrong to suggest that he doesn't have ownership of a
timber company. And Kerry was correct in saying that Bush's definition
of "small business" is so broad that Bush himself would have qualified
as a "small business" in 2001 by virtue of the $84 in business income.

... and this $84 would have influenced Bush's decisions how?

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
news:1097726011.XmOIVZjVbAPtfP+y1kB6MQ@teranews...
On 12 Oct 2004 15:48:37 -0700, (Florida
Patriot) wrote:

... snip
In fact, according to his 2003 financial disclosure form, Bush does
own part interest in "LSTF, LLC", a limited-liability company
organized "for the purpose of the production of trees for commercial
sales." (See "supporting documents" at right.)

So Bush was wrong to suggest that he doesn't have ownership of a
timber company. And Kerry was correct in saying that Bush's definition
of "small business" is so broad that Bush himself would have qualified
as a "small business" in 2001 by virtue of the $84 in business income.

... and this $84 would have influenced Bush's decisions how?


Uh, Kerry used Bush to illustrate that the Bush stats considered Bush a
small business owner.

"Jeff Harper" wrote in message
...

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
news:1097726011.XmOIVZjVbAPtfP+y1kB6MQ@teranews...
On 12 Oct 2004 15:48:37 -0700, (Florida
Patriot) wrote:

... snip
In fact, according to his 2003 financial disclosure form, Bush does
own part interest in "LSTF, LLC", a limited-liability company
organized "for the purpose of the production of trees for commercial
sales." (See "supporting documents" at right.)

So Bush was wrong to suggest that he doesn't have ownership of a
timber company. And Kerry was correct in saying that Bush's definition
of "small business" is so broad that Bush himself would have qualified
as a "small business" in 2001 by virtue of the $84 in business income.

... and this $84 would have influenced Bush's decisions how?


Uh, Kerry used Bush to illustrate that the Bush stats considered Bush a
small business owner.

Remind me why this is important.

todd

(snip) Uh, Kerry USED Bush to illustrate that the Bush stats considered Bush
a
small business owner.

The key word here is "used". Kerry used this as a diversion so the focus
wouldn't be on all the legitimate small business owners that would suffer
under Kerry's tax rollback. In essence, what Kerry stated was, "I want to
impose a higher tax burden on a man who's reported income is over $200k so
that rich people can't use these deductions to avoid paying miniscule taxes
on "odds and ends" income. So what if that means a successful self-employed
individual gets hurt?"

If he is successful, part of the tax burden will fall onto those individuals
who run small businesses. In the rhetoric that's spewed about the concerns
for jobs, what Kerry wants to do is in fact encourage the spread of
"corporate giants" and limit the ability for success for the individual.
Especially those individuals who keep potential workers from becoming
dependent on large corporations for jobs.

To put it in simpler terms..... Kerry doesn't want you to be encouraged to
start your own ketchup company.

"mel" wrote in message
...
(snip) Uh, Kerry USED Bush to illustrate that the Bush stats considered
Bush
a
small business owner.

The key word here is "used". Kerry used this as a diversion so the focus
wouldn't be on all the legitimate small business owners that would suffer
under Kerry's tax rollback. In essence, what Kerry stated was, "I want to
impose a higher tax burden on a man who's reported income is over $200k so
that rich people can't use these deductions to avoid paying miniscule
taxes
on "odds and ends" income. So what if that means a successful
self-employed
individual gets hurt?"

If he is successful, part of the tax burden will fall onto those
individuals
who run small businesses. In the rhetoric that's spewed about the
concerns
for jobs, what Kerry wants to do is in fact encourage the spread of
"corporate giants" and limit the ability for success for the individual.
Especially those individuals who keep potential workers from becoming
dependent on large corporations for jobs.

To put it in simpler terms..... Kerry doesn't want you to be encouraged to
start your own ketchup company.



That interpretation is plain wrong, crazy even.

and you backed your point up so well.

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 17:22:14 GMT, mel wrote:
and you backed your point up so well.

Who did? About what? I don't see any context.

Dave I was referring to the comment made by Jeff in response to my earlier
post where he only states

(snip)That interpretation is plain wrong, crazy even.


My response, to how well he made his point, was my effort to point out that
he didn't do a very good job at substantiating his claim. If you want to
talk about a crazy concept it would be that Bush's tax policies are designed
to allow himself the ability to not pay taxes on an $84 gain in income.
That fact is the best Kerry could come up with in order to justify rolling
back the tax cuts and placing that burden back on the small business owner.

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 18:07:29 GMT, mel wrote:

My response, to how well he made his point, was my effort to point out that
he didn't do a very good job at substantiating his claim. If you want to
talk about a crazy concept it would be that Bush's tax policies are designed
to allow himself the ability to not pay taxes on an $84 gain in income.
That fact is the best Kerry could come up with in order to justify rolling
back the tax cuts and placing that burden back on the small business owner.

Right, the problem with Kerry's approach there is that he was trying to
imply that because Bush fits a definition of "small business owner",
then the tax cuts for small businesses would typically benefit
only people like Bush. This is disingenuous at best (how surprising,
Kerry stretching the truth).

I wanna know how OBL has been helped by the lifting of the flash surpressor,
bayonet lug, and pistol grip on semiautomatic rifle manufacturing ban.
Kerry seems to think that terrorists shop for weapons here, instead of
buying actual machine guns in their home countries. Is he lying, or just
_that_ ignorant? I can't tell. Any ideas? How about you guys, Jeff and
Nate? Which is he, ignorant or stupid?

My response, to how well he made his point, was my effort to point out
that
he didn't do a very good job at substantiating his claim. If you want to
talk about a crazy concept it would be that Bush's tax policies are
designed
to allow himself the ability to not pay taxes on an $84 gain in income.
That fact is the best Kerry could come up with in order to justify rolling
back the tax cuts and placing that burden back on the small business
owner.


Only a moron or a person deliberately misinterpreting Kerry on this point
would think that. There's no poin in arguing with either.

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 18:07:29 GMT, mel wrote:

My response, to how well he made his point, was my effort to point out
that
he didn't do a very good job at substantiating his claim. If you want to
talk about a crazy concept it would be that Bush's tax policies are
designed
to allow himself the ability to not pay taxes on an $84 gain in income.
That fact is the best Kerry could come up with in order to justify
rolling
back the tax cuts and placing that burden back on the small business
owner.

Right, the problem with Kerry's approach there is that he was trying to
imply that because Bush fits a definition of "small business owner",
then the tax cuts for small businesses would typically benefit
only people like Bush. This is disingenuous at best (how surprising,
Kerry stretching the truth).

Right? You said right to Mel's insane spin and then explained it quite
differently..more reasonably but still inaccurately.


I wanna know how OBL has been helped by the lifting of the flash
surpressor,
bayonet lug, and pistol grip on semiautomatic rifle manufacturing ban.
Kerry seems to think that terrorists shop for weapons here, instead of
buying actual machine guns in their home countries. Is he lying, or just
_that_ ignorant? I can't tell. Any ideas? How about you guys, Jeff and
Nate? Which is he, ignorant or stupid?


Again you misrepresent. Kerry talked about police chiefs being opposed to
lifting the ban on assault weapons because it means criminals will find it
easier to be better armed.

I think as an aside he mentioned the report that possible terrorists have
crossed the border into the U.S. from Mexico recently and if so will be
purchasing weapons here. The ban on assault weapons made it more difficult
for them to find the kind of artillery they would like.

I think you know this, you just have no integrity..no respect for truth and
reason..and are prepared to mislead and deceive when you perceive it as
helping your candidate.

Jeff Harper

"Todd Fatheree" wrote in message ...
"Jeff Harper" wrote in message
...

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
news:1097726011.XmOIVZjVbAPtfP+y1kB6MQ@teranews...
On 12 Oct 2004 15:48:37 -0700, (Florida
Patriot) wrote:

... snip
In fact, according to his 2003 financial disclosure form, Bush does
own part interest in "LSTF, LLC", a limited-liability company
organized "for the purpose of the production of trees for commercial
sales." (See "supporting documents" at right.)

So Bush was wrong to suggest that he doesn't have ownership of a
timber company. And Kerry was correct in saying that Bush's definition
of "small business" is so broad that Bush himself would have qualified
as a "small business" in 2001 by virtue of the $84 in business income.

... and this $84 would have influenced Bush's decisions how?


Uh, Kerry used Bush to illustrate that the Bush stats considered Bush a
small business owner.

Remind me why this is important.


Bush can afford to pay more taxes.

You're welcome.

It is not unimportant that numerous OTHER small busines owners
are less able to afford that.

But it is absurd to suppose that taxes should never be raised
(or lowered). A reasonable consideration of which, when and
on whom and what would be nice but I abandoned all hope of
that happening long ago.

--

FF

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 17:20:21 -0400, Jeff Harper wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

Right, the problem with Kerry's approach there is that he was trying to
imply that because Bush fits a definition of "small business owner",
then the tax cuts for small businesses would typically benefit
only people like Bush. This is disingenuous at best (how surprising,
Kerry stretching the truth).

Right? You said right to Mel's insane spin and then explained it quite
differently..more reasonably but still inaccurately.

OK, how do _you_ misrepresent it, Jeff?

I wanna know how OBL has been helped by the lifting of the flash
surpressor,
bayonet lug, and pistol grip on semiautomatic rifle manufacturing ban.
Kerry seems to think that terrorists shop for weapons here, instead of
buying actual machine guns in their home countries. Is he lying, or just
_that_ ignorant? I can't tell. Any ideas? How about you guys, Jeff and
Nate? Which is he, ignorant or stupid?

Again you misrepresent. Kerry talked about police chiefs being opposed to
lifting the ban on assault weapons because it means criminals will find it
easier to be better armed.

Actually, the example was that he was talking to a Sheriff about an incident last
year (during the ban, by the way) during which the criminal had "An AK-47".
Now, I'm guessing you don't know a lot about this issue specifically. That's why
you're ideal for Kerry to lie to, because you just take it at face value. Let's
look at the problems with his example.

1. This was _during_ the "assault weapons ban" (actually a "flash-surpressor,
bayonet lug, and pistol grip on semi-auto rifles that look like machine guns"
manufacturing stop order). If it shows anything, it shows that the "ban"
was ineffective. If the ban worked, you see, then said criminal would have
obeyed the law. Maybe _you_ are in favor of ineffective laws that inconvenience
only the honest, but I am not.

2. If it was an "AK-47" (Kerry's words, not mine), then it was by definition
full-automatic, _not_ an "assault weapon" as defined by the ban, and not just
illegal, but _very_ illegal. As in, "send the criminal to federal pound-me-
in-the-ass-prison" illegal.

3. If, as logic would indicate, this was an AK-47 _looking_ semi-automatic rifle,
then (A) He's lying when he said it was an AK-47, (B) He's lying when he implied
that a machine-gun has _anything_ to do with the bayonet lug etc. "ban", and
(C) once again, he's not being straight with anyone. All it means is that
this Democratic nominee was able to find a Sheriff somewhere in the country to
tell him a story.

I think as an aside he mentioned the report that possible terrorists have
crossed the border into the U.S. from Mexico recently and if so will be
purchasing weapons here. The ban on assault weapons made it more difficult
for them to find the kind of artillery they would like.

No, it didn't. The "ban on assault weapons" banned strictly superficial,
cosmetic features on guns that look like their military counterparts. Nothing
more. Bayonet lugs and so on do not make a gun any more attractive to a
terrorist than that same gun without a bayonet lug. This is the fundamental
lie that Kerry is exploiting to make his point. This is central to his lie.
The rifles that the "ban" involved are functionally identical to hunting rifles made for
the last century or so, they just "look scary" and public confusion vs.
machine guns is easier when they look like what you see on the evening news.

I think you know this, you just have no integrity..no respect for truth and
reason..and are prepared to mislead and deceive when you perceive it as
helping your candidate.

Tell me specifically (there I go again, trying to pin down Jeff...) what
detail, nuance, or fact in what I have stated in this message is inaccurate.
You can't, because it's not.

Go ahead Jeff, tell me where I am stating something not true.
Dave Hinz

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 17:20:21 -0400, Jeff Harper
wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

Right, the problem with Kerry's approach there is that he was trying to
imply that because Bush fits a definition of "small business owner",
then the tax cuts for small businesses would typically benefit
only people like Bush. This is disingenuous at best (how surprising,
Kerry stretching the truth).

Right? You said right to Mel's insane spin and then explained it quite
differently..more reasonably but still inaccurately.

OK, how do _you_ misrepresent it, Jeff?

I wanna know how OBL has been helped by the lifting of the flash
surpressor,
bayonet lug, and pistol grip on semiautomatic rifle manufacturing ban.
Kerry seems to think that terrorists shop for weapons here, instead of
buying actual machine guns in their home countries. Is he lying, or
just
_that_ ignorant? I can't tell. Any ideas? How about you guys, Jeff
and
Nate? Which is he, ignorant or stupid?

Again you misrepresent. Kerry talked about police chiefs being opposed
to
lifting the ban on assault weapons because it means criminals will find
it
easier to be better armed.

Actually, the example was that he was talking to a Sheriff about an
incident last
year (during the ban, by the way) during which the criminal had "An
AK-47".
Now, I'm guessing you don't know a lot about this issue specifically.
That's why
you're ideal for Kerry to lie to, because you just take it at face value.
Let's
look at the problems with his example.

1. This was _during_ the "assault weapons ban" (actually a
"flash-surpressor,
bayonet lug, and pistol grip on semi-auto rifles that look like machine
guns"
manufacturing stop order). If it shows anything, it shows that the "ban"
was ineffective. If the ban worked, you see, then said criminal would
have
obeyed the law. Maybe _you_ are in favor of ineffective laws that
inconvenience
only the honest, but I am not.

i also thought it pretty odd that an example of the law not working was an
argument for the law being continued.

2. If it was an "AK-47" (Kerry's words, not mine), then it was by
definition
full-automatic, _not_ an "assault weapon" as defined by the ban, and not
just
illegal, but _very_ illegal. As in, "send the criminal to federal
pound-me-
in-the-ass-prison" illegal.

3. If, as logic would indicate, this was an AK-47 _looking_ semi-automatic
rifle,
then (A) He's lying when he said it was an AK-47, (B) He's lying when he
implied
that a machine-gun has _anything_ to do with the bayonet lug etc. "ban",
and
(C) once again, he's not being straight with anyone. All it means is that
this Democratic nominee was able to find a Sheriff somewhere in the
country to
tell him a story.

I think as an aside he mentioned the report that possible terrorists have
crossed the border into the U.S. from Mexico recently and if so will be
purchasing weapons here. The ban on assault weapons made it more
difficult
for them to find the kind of artillery they would like.

No, it didn't. The "ban on assault weapons" banned strictly superficial,
cosmetic features on guns that look like their military counterparts.
Nothing
more. Bayonet lugs and so on do not make a gun any more attractive to a
terrorist than that same gun without a bayonet lug. This is the
fundamental
lie that Kerry is exploiting to make his point. This is central to his
lie.
The rifles that the "ban" involved are functionally identical to hunting
rifles made for
the last century or so, they just "look scary" and public confusion vs.
machine guns is easier when they look like what you see on the evening
news.

I think you know this, you just have no integrity..no respect for truth
and
reason..and are prepared to mislead and deceive when you perceive it as
helping your candidate.

Tell me specifically (there I go again, trying to pin down Jeff...) what
detail, nuance, or fact in what I have stated in this message is
inaccurate.
You can't, because it's not.

Go ahead Jeff, tell me where I am stating something not true.
Dave Hinz

No, it didn't. The "ban on assault weapons" banned strictly superficial,
cosmetic features on guns that look like their military counterparts.
Nothing
more. Bayonet lugs and so on do not make a gun any more attractive to a
terrorist than that same gun without a bayonet lug. This is the
fundamental
lie that Kerry is exploiting to make his point. This is central to his
lie.
The rifles that the "ban" involved are functionally identical to hunting
rifles made for
the last century or so, they just "look scary" and public confusion vs.
machine guns is easier when they look like what you see on the evening
news.

Good, accurate stuff, Dave. It's a pleasure to see someone who knows what
they are talking about.

Couple of other minor points:

1. Full autos of any kind have been totally illegal since something like
1934, and will stay that way. Not affected by the ban.
2. Something like 2% of all gun-related crimes involve "long guns" of any
type. Something like .02% involve so-called "assault rifles" Crime, not
affected by the ban.
3. While the new mags being limited to ten rounds was part of the ban, there
was a grandfather clause for all mags already manufactured -- literally
millions of them, so again, not affected by the ban.
4. The entire law was simply bad, ineffective feel-good legislation. That
is why it was allowed to sunset. (not by Bush, either - it wasn't even
brought up for him to sign one way or another)

Now, you can argue all you want about the NRA pressure, the details of the
ban, etc., but most people just have no clue, so they buy into whatever
people tell them. Most people I know don't own a gun, and in fact, are
scared of guns. So to them, anything with the word "gun" and "ban" together
has to be a good thing in their eyes, regardless of whether it does anything
at all, or means anything at all.

"mark" wrote in message
...
No, it didn't. The "ban on assault weapons" banned strictly
superficial,
cosmetic features on guns that look like their military counterparts.
Nothing
more. Bayonet lugs and so on do not make a gun any more attractive to a
terrorist than that same gun without a bayonet lug. This is the
fundamental
lie that Kerry is exploiting to make his point. This is central to his
lie.
The rifles that the "ban" involved are functionally identical to hunting
rifles made for
the last century or so, they just "look scary" and public confusion vs.
machine guns is easier when they look like what you see on the evening
news.

Good, accurate stuff, Dave. It's a pleasure to see someone who knows what
they are talking about.

Couple of other minor points:

1. Full autos of any kind have been totally illegal since something like
1934, and will stay that way. Not affected by the ban.

actually, it is legal to own fully automatic weapons in certain states.

http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/FederalGunLaws.aspx?ID=60

" A special class of "licensed collectors" provides for the purchase and
sale of firearms designated by the BATFE as "curios and relics." Class III
dealers may sell fully-automatic firearms manufactured prior to May 19,
1986, and other federally registered firearms and devices restricted under
Title II of the Gun Control Act, to individuals who obtain approval from the
U.S. Secretary of the Treasury after payment of a tax and clearance
following a criminal background check."

2. Something like 2% of all gun-related crimes involve "long guns" of any
type. Something like .02% involve so-called "assault rifles" Crime, not
affected by the ban.
3. While the new mags being limited to ten rounds was part of the ban,
there was a grandfather clause for all mags already manufactured --
literally millions of them, so again, not affected by the ban.
4. The entire law was simply bad, ineffective feel-good legislation. That
is why it was allowed to sunset. (not by Bush, either - it wasn't even
brought up for him to sign one way or another)

Now, you can argue all you want about the NRA pressure, the details of the
ban, etc., but most people just have no clue, so they buy into whatever
people tell them. Most people I know don't own a gun, and in fact, are
scared of guns. So to them, anything with the word "gun" and "ban"
together has to be a good thing in their eyes, regardless of whether it
does anything at all, or means anything at all.

regards,
charlie
cave creek, az (one of those states)

actually, it is legal to own fully automatic weapons in certain states.

http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/FederalGunLaws.aspx?ID=60

" A special class of "licensed collectors" provides for the purchase and
sale of firearms designated by the BATFE as "curios and relics." Class III
dealers may sell fully-automatic firearms manufactured prior to May 19,
1986, and other federally registered firearms and devices restricted under
Title II of the Gun Control Act, to individuals who obtain approval from
the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury after payment of a tax and clearance
following a criminal background check."

Apparently, I don't know what *I'm* talking about! :)

You need that class III to sell full-autos to police, but I didn't know that
about Arizona. Did anything in the ban actually address that particular
exception? I mean, before the ban expired, the same thing held true,
correct?

"Jeff Harper" wrote in message ...
My response, to how well he made his point, was my effort to point out
that
he didn't do a very good job at substantiating his claim. If you want to
talk about a crazy concept it would be that Bush's tax policies are
designed
to allow himself the ability to not pay taxes on an $84 gain in income.
That fact is the best Kerry could come up with in order to justify rolling
back the tax cuts and placing that burden back on the small business
owner.


Only a moron or a person deliberately misinterpreting Kerry on this point
would think that.

Keep in mind the substantial overlap between those two groups. Add to
that those who would support the invasion of any Arab country just
because it is Arab and you now have Bush's base of support.

There's no point in arguing with either.

You can use them as a bad example.

--

FF

"mark" wrote in message
...
actually, it is legal to own fully automatic weapons in certain states.

http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/FederalGunLaws.aspx?ID=60

" A special class of "licensed collectors" provides for the purchase and
sale of firearms designated by the BATFE as "curios and relics." Class III
dealers may sell fully-automatic firearms manufactured prior to May 19,
1986, and other federally registered firearms and devices restricted under
Title II of the Gun Control Act, to individuals who obtain approval from
the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury after payment of a tax and clearance
following a criminal background check."

Apparently, I don't know what *I'm* talking about! :)

You need that class III to sell full-autos to police, but I didn't know
that about Arizona. Did anything in the ban actually address that
particular exception? I mean, before the ban expired, the same thing held
true, correct?

i believe the ban only banned a certain number of existing items, and didn't
apply to this clause. it has always been legal to own automatic weapons in
arizona; i don't know about elsewhere. there are a few firing ranges where
one can go to rent one (at a hideous cost) for use in their facility and
places that have been set up in the desert where the firing ranges will
bring the weapons to for rent by the public.

i believe it's hard to get the federal approval, but i seem to recall it's
only a $500 yearly fee for the license.

i believe the ban only banned a certain number of existing items, and
didn't apply to this clause. it has always been legal to own automatic
weapons in arizona; i don't know about elsewhere. there are a few firing
ranges where one can go to rent one (at a hideous cost) for use in their
facility and places that have been set up in the desert where the firing
ranges will bring the weapons to for rent by the public.

i believe it's hard to get the federal approval, but i seem to recall it's
only a $500 yearly fee for the license.

Right...I guess my point was that because of what they see on TV, and
because of what organizations like moveon.org and people like Michael Moore,
people seem to think that they can go out to any gun shop and buy a machine
gun now that the ban on assault weapons expired.