Anyone who is in the business of buying and selling guns must, by law, be a registered gun dealer. Registered gun dealers are required, by law, to conduct a background check on those they sell guns to (even if they make that sale at a gun show). This information is in the link which you presented above. On the other hand, private sellers (that would be people who have decided that they have more guns than they need and want to sell a few of them, or people who inherited a gun collection from their parents and want to sell them) are not required to conduct a background check. As a matter of fact, private sellers are not able to conduct a background check (you must be a licensed firearms dealer to have access to the background check database) and none of the "universal background check" laws propose giving private sellers access to that database. Those proposed laws propose forcing all gun sales to go through a licensed dealer. A likely result of "universal" background checks will be that it won't be worth their while to sell the guns for someone who inherits them. Rather they will just give them away (or "throw them away" if the law does not allow them to be given away). If that were to happen, it would be a bonanza for criminals.
Primarily because the leading politicians were pocketing large amounts of cash from Saddam Hussein's government (or did you miss the revelations about how much money various European politicians were discovered to have received from that government after its fall?).
If someone is willing to sell their gun to the guy they've known since childhood, there are two options. Either the seller knows the guy can be safely trusted to have a gun, or, the seller doesn't care and will sell it to him without the background check anyway. The overwhelming majority of people effected by background checks for private sales are the law abiding citizens. Like most gun control laws, background checks for private sales would inconvenience and make life difficult for law abiding citizens while having a negligible impact on criminals (much like DRM).
The majority of accidents are caused by people well over the insipid.08 B.A.C in the first place.
And that ratio becomes even more significant when we consider those accidents that result in death or serious injury. The only reason that the number of "alcohol-related" accidents is anywhere near as high as it is is because if you have been drinking and someone rear ends you while you are stopped at a stop sign or a red light, it is an "alcohol-related" accident. Even though the fact that the driver who had consumed alcohol did everything exactly as they were supposed to. I am not saying that it is OK to drink and drive, but the statistics for "alcohol-related" accidents are inflated.
Well, maybe because you obviously don't pay attention, since there are background checks at gun shows. The laws you think are about background checks at gun shows are laws which would require someone to go through a dealer so that the dealer could run a background check when he wanted to sell his hunting rifle to the buddy he has known since childhood.
So they object to the bailouts under Obama, but where were they when the bailouts were coming under Bush?
They were objecting then as well. Sorry, your argument is incorrect as I was reading comments on conservative forums and the overwhelming sentiment was that the banks that "needed" a bailout should be allowed to fail. Conservatives expressed the belief that the problem had occurred in part because the bankers had become complacent and knew that the government would not allow them to go bankrupt. These complaints started during the Bear Stearns bailout.
U.S. conservatives did not support TARP, nor do they support the Dodd-Frank law designed to guarantee government support of "too big to fail" institutions. This is not to say that all Republican politicians are conservatives, nor is it to say that all politicians who claim to be conservative are indeed conservative. However, I am unaware of any person or organization which is otherwise conservative (that is, which I considered conservative before they took such a statement) which supports government payouts to protect the "rich" from their poor choices.
Typically, the "conservative" position (by U.S. definition of the term) is that individuals should be responsible for managing their own economic decisions. Progressives (fascists among them) believe that people cannot be trusted to make such decisions and that "the people" will be better off if centralized experts make such decisions such as how much corn is grown each year.
What you're describing is fascism, not progressivism.
Fascists, like all other progressives, believe that the government should manage the economy in order to promote the best interests of "the people". Of course, since like all other progressives, fascists believe that most people will not make the proper decisions for themselves, certain people will have to be selected to make those decisions for them. The difference between fascists and other flavors of progressives is that fascists select people who have demonstrated an ability to make economic decision in their own interests as the people to make those decisions for others, whereas most other flavors of progressive prefer to select people who have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of economics to make economic decisions for everyone else.
Taking a simple deduction on one's 1040 is tax avoidance. It is the same as some of the more complicated things that people do to avoid taxes. The laws were written to encourage people to do those things, just as the tax laws were written to encourage you to do the things which lead you to be able to take the deductions that you take. Now we can discuss whether the law should be written to encourage people to do certain things, but someone taking advantage of provisions in the law to avoid paying taxes is not the same as someone breaking the law to avoid paying taxes.
As long as its all reported in accordance with the tax regulations of each jurisdiction no laws are broken.
And that is true. However, just because you have reported it according to the laws in the offshore jurisdiction where those entities are located does not mean that U.S. laws(or those of other nations in which you may reside) for reporting are satisfied (I do not know the intricacies of tax law, but I do know that the U.S. has laws specifying that income gained in other countries, under certain circumstances, must be reported with one's U.S. tax return. I believe that some European countries have similar laws).
I am not in any way suggesting that you are not following the applicable laws, merely pointing out that fulfilling the above sentence is not as much of a "pass" to avoid U.S. tax laws as some may believe.
The reason that only one of them gets punished is that only one of them is a violation of the law. I have a question, do you claim any deductions when you file your taxes?
If you do, you practice tax avoidance.
I have a question, what does any of what you just posted have to do with the IRS requesting a list of donors to the organization, the names of spouses and family members of those filling out the application and whether any of their family members might be thinking about running for political office (and multiple other intrusive, irrelevant questions) from organizations which applied for 501(c)(4) tax exempt status? In particular since it only did so of organizations which contained the words "Tea Party" and "Patriot" in their name. Oh yeah, and it did this after Obama "joked" about sicking the IRS on political opponents.
Watch the pseudo loyal conservative tax cheats moan and cry then.
You mean like Timothy Geithner? And Kathleen Sebelius? And Tom Daschle?
I have never heard conservative voices say that terrorism investigations should apply the law differently to different people. Conservatives have said that if 9 out of 10 of the people who have committed a particular crime fall into a certain profile, than perhaps government officials looking for people who are preparing to commit that crime should pay closer attention to other people who fit that profile rather than spending time harassing people whose profile does not match that of anyone who has ever committed the crime. So, if the IRS was claiming that they had caught large numbers of organizations using the words "Tea Party" or "Patriot" in their name falsely claiming to be tax exempt, than a closer examination of such groups would be warranted. However, since the IRS makes no such claim, your point does not apply.
You might want to look into 527 organizations. They are explicitly political, non-profit organizations. The claim is made that the organizations targeted were 501(c)4 organizations, which the article says may participate in political activities as long as it is not their primary activity. One such organization is Moveon.org (you know the organization that was formed to attack those who called for Bill Clinton's impeachment for lying under oath). I hardly see how "Tea Party" and "Patriot" in the name necessarily makes an organization more political than Moveon.org. In addition, the things which the IRS asked for were above and beyond that which would have told them whether the organization was primarily involved in political activity or if other social welfare activities took up more of its time and resources.
Really, you mean that all of those PACs that support candidates are taxable? That people can't legitimately take a tax deduction for contributing to a political campaign? Or to a Political Action Committee?
No that is not strict conservative thinking. Strict conservative thinking expects a government department like the IRS to follow the law and apply it equally to all individuals and groups, not matter what their political leaning.
How do you convince your clients to install PGP certificates on their end? I need a solution that does not require those who we send email to to do anything other than act in response to the email they get from us.
Netflix paid Akamai to do this for them, although I believe they changed from Akamai last year (I am not sure if they went with another vendor, or if they started doing it themselves).
Because god forbid that the government do something nice for us.
It has nothing to do with God forbidding it. It is just the nature of government, The government does nice things for those with power. If you are not one of the elites, the more power the government has, the less you will have.
is the failure of parents and the education system to inculcate sufficient knowledge and understanding
It was a failure of parents, but a success of the education system. The progressives in the late 19th century/early 20th century who worked to establish our public school system were working toward this end (read their writings).
It ends when the American people stop electing politicians who express contempt for the Constitution and then re-electing them after they have proven that they are willing to act on that contempt despite taking an oath to defend the Constitution.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone who is in the business of buying and selling guns must, by law, be a registered gun dealer. Registered gun dealers are required, by law, to conduct a background check on those they sell guns to (even if they make that sale at a gun show). This information is in the link which you presented above. On the other hand, private sellers (that would be people who have decided that they have more guns than they need and want to sell a few of them, or people who inherited a gun collection from their parents and want to sell them) are not required to conduct a background check. As a matter of fact, private sellers are not able to conduct a background check (you must be a licensed firearms dealer to have access to the background check database) and none of the "universal background check" laws propose giving private sellers access to that database. Those proposed laws propose forcing all gun sales to go through a licensed dealer. A likely result of "universal" background checks will be that it won't be worth their while to sell the guns for someone who inherits them. Rather they will just give them away (or "throw them away" if the law does not allow them to be given away). If that were to happen, it would be a bonanza for criminals.
why do you think Europe were so anti invasion?
Primarily because the leading politicians were pocketing large amounts of cash from Saddam Hussein's government (or did you miss the revelations about how much money various European politicians were discovered to have received from that government after its fall?).
If someone is willing to sell their gun to the guy they've known since childhood, there are two options. Either the seller knows the guy can be safely trusted to have a gun, or, the seller doesn't care and will sell it to him without the background check anyway. The overwhelming majority of people effected by background checks for private sales are the law abiding citizens. Like most gun control laws, background checks for private sales would inconvenience and make life difficult for law abiding citizens while having a negligible impact on criminals (much like DRM).
The majority of accidents are caused by people well over the insipid .08 B.A.C in the first place.
And that ratio becomes even more significant when we consider those accidents that result in death or serious injury. The only reason that the number of "alcohol-related" accidents is anywhere near as high as it is is because if you have been drinking and someone rear ends you while you are stopped at a stop sign or a red light, it is an "alcohol-related" accident. Even though the fact that the driver who had consumed alcohol did everything exactly as they were supposed to. I am not saying that it is OK to drink and drive, but the statistics for "alcohol-related" accidents are inflated.
Well, maybe because you obviously don't pay attention, since there are background checks at gun shows. The laws you think are about background checks at gun shows are laws which would require someone to go through a dealer so that the dealer could run a background check when he wanted to sell his hunting rifle to the buddy he has known since childhood.
It's not, which is self-evident from the fact that Massachusetts has a law that is pretty much like it.
So they object to the bailouts under Obama, but where were they when the bailouts were coming under Bush?
They were objecting then as well. Sorry, your argument is incorrect as I was reading comments on conservative forums and the overwhelming sentiment was that the banks that "needed" a bailout should be allowed to fail. Conservatives expressed the belief that the problem had occurred in part because the bankers had become complacent and knew that the government would not allow them to go bankrupt. These complaints started during the Bear Stearns bailout.
U.S. conservatives did not support TARP, nor do they support the Dodd-Frank law designed to guarantee government support of "too big to fail" institutions. This is not to say that all Republican politicians are conservatives, nor is it to say that all politicians who claim to be conservative are indeed conservative. However, I am unaware of any person or organization which is otherwise conservative (that is, which I considered conservative before they took such a statement) which supports government payouts to protect the "rich" from their poor choices.
Typically, the "conservative" position (by U.S. definition of the term) is that individuals should be responsible for managing their own economic decisions. Progressives (fascists among them) believe that people cannot be trusted to make such decisions and that "the people" will be better off if centralized experts make such decisions such as how much corn is grown each year.
What you're describing is fascism, not progressivism.
Fascists, like all other progressives, believe that the government should manage the economy in order to promote the best interests of "the people". Of course, since like all other progressives, fascists believe that most people will not make the proper decisions for themselves, certain people will have to be selected to make those decisions for them. The difference between fascists and other flavors of progressives is that fascists select people who have demonstrated an ability to make economic decision in their own interests as the people to make those decisions for others, whereas most other flavors of progressive prefer to select people who have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of economics to make economic decisions for everyone else.
Taking a simple deduction on one's 1040 is tax avoidance. It is the same as some of the more complicated things that people do to avoid taxes. The laws were written to encourage people to do those things, just as the tax laws were written to encourage you to do the things which lead you to be able to take the deductions that you take. Now we can discuss whether the law should be written to encourage people to do certain things, but someone taking advantage of provisions in the law to avoid paying taxes is not the same as someone breaking the law to avoid paying taxes.
As long as its all reported in accordance with the tax regulations of each jurisdiction no laws are broken.
And that is true. However, just because you have reported it according to the laws in the offshore jurisdiction where those entities are located does not mean that U.S. laws(or those of other nations in which you may reside) for reporting are satisfied (I do not know the intricacies of tax law, but I do know that the U.S. has laws specifying that income gained in other countries, under certain circumstances, must be reported with one's U.S. tax return. I believe that some European countries have similar laws).
I am not in any way suggesting that you are not following the applicable laws, merely pointing out that fulfilling the above sentence is not as much of a "pass" to avoid U.S. tax laws as some may believe.
The reason that only one of them gets punished is that only one of them is a violation of the law. I have a question, do you claim any deductions when you file your taxes?
If you do, you practice tax avoidance.
I have a question, what does any of what you just posted have to do with the IRS requesting a list of donors to the organization, the names of spouses and family members of those filling out the application and whether any of their family members might be thinking about running for political office (and multiple other intrusive, irrelevant questions) from organizations which applied for 501(c)(4) tax exempt status? In particular since it only did so of organizations which contained the words "Tea Party" and "Patriot" in their name. Oh yeah, and it did this after Obama "joked" about sicking the IRS on political opponents.
Watch the pseudo loyal conservative tax cheats moan and cry then.
You mean like Timothy Geithner? And Kathleen Sebelius? And Tom Daschle?
I have never heard conservative voices say that terrorism investigations should apply the law differently to different people. Conservatives have said that if 9 out of 10 of the people who have committed a particular crime fall into a certain profile, than perhaps government officials looking for people who are preparing to commit that crime should pay closer attention to other people who fit that profile rather than spending time harassing people whose profile does not match that of anyone who has ever committed the crime. So, if the IRS was claiming that they had caught large numbers of organizations using the words "Tea Party" or "Patriot" in their name falsely claiming to be tax exempt, than a closer examination of such groups would be warranted. However, since the IRS makes no such claim, your point does not apply.
You might want to look into 527 organizations. They are explicitly political, non-profit organizations. The claim is made that the organizations targeted were 501(c)4 organizations, which the article says may participate in political activities as long as it is not their primary activity. One such organization is Moveon.org (you know the organization that was formed to attack those who called for Bill Clinton's impeachment for lying under oath). I hardly see how "Tea Party" and "Patriot" in the name necessarily makes an organization more political than Moveon.org. In addition, the things which the IRS asked for were above and beyond that which would have told them whether the organization was primarily involved in political activity or if other social welfare activities took up more of its time and resources.
Really, you mean that all of those PACs that support candidates are taxable? That people can't legitimately take a tax deduction for contributing to a political campaign? Or to a Political Action Committee?
No that is not strict conservative thinking. Strict conservative thinking expects a government department like the IRS to follow the law and apply it equally to all individuals and groups, not matter what their political leaning.
I don't need to encrypt the email to keep it from the government. I need to encrypt the email because the government requires it.
You hit the problem on the head. And your description of the problems dealing with Voltage hit the problem I have with them on the head as well.
How do you convince your clients to install PGP certificates on their end? I need a solution that does not require those who we send email to to do anything other than act in response to the email they get from us.
Netflix paid Akamai to do this for them, although I believe they changed from Akamai last year (I am not sure if they went with another vendor, or if they started doing it themselves).
Because god forbid that the government do something nice for us.
It has nothing to do with God forbidding it. It is just the nature of government, The government does nice things for those with power. If you are not one of the elites, the more power the government has, the less you will have.
is the failure of parents and the education system to inculcate sufficient knowledge and understanding
It was a failure of parents, but a success of the education system. The progressives in the late 19th century/early 20th century who worked to establish our public school system were working toward this end (read their writings).
It ends when the American people stop electing politicians who express contempt for the Constitution and then re-electing them after they have proven that they are willing to act on that contempt despite taking an oath to defend the Constitution.