How do you want your taxes to be raised?

[ttoney83]

The military shotgun in question has a 13 inch barrel.

You said:Since one of the primary reasons for the adoption of the Second Amendment is for Defence of the Republic against foreign and domestic enemies, it stands to reason that a shotgun with a barrell of at least 16" is more appropriate.

One is left to conclude one of several things when confronted by such a failure to comprehend the meaning of a sentence.
1) Either the person failing in comprehension is actually so stupid that the don't understand the meaning.
2) English isn't their first language.
2) The person who fails in comprehension is a Troll.

Since I don't believe that BG42 is ACtually stupid, at least not in the academic sense, and he appears to understand what he WANTS to understand, I am left to conclude, finally, that BG42 is a Troll.



If BG does have any difficulties with the English language and comprehension thereof, I will be willing to help him out.

[timcsaw]

One is left to conclude one of several things when confronted by such a failure to comprehend the meaning of a sentence.
1) Either the person failing in comprehension is actually so stupid that the don't understand the meaning.
2) English isn't their first language.
2) The person who fails in comprehension is a Troll.

Since I don't believe that BG42 is ACtually stupid, at least not in the academic sense, and he appears to understand what he WANTS to understand, I am left to conclude, finally, that BG42 is a Troll.



If BG does have any difficulties with the English language and comprehension thereof, I will be willing to help him out.

I refuse to feed the troll any longer if he can't behave. It's an idea worth considering IMO.

[ttoney83]

I refuse to feed the troll any longer if he can't behave. It's an idea worth considering IMO.

I have tried to be optimistic and held out hope that trolls can change their ways. Alas, it seems I am wrong in holding on to this hope. I think I'm finally done thinking these sad creatures are capable of change.

[parbajtor]

If an artist of notoriety paints ten, oil on canvas pictures which sell for a total of 2 million dollars, did he make his millions only because of employees who made the oil paint and canvas? Does he owe the guy he bought his paint brushes from, MORE than he paid originally?

Your allegory is false. A better comparison would be an artist who get his apprentices to paint 10 pictures which he then signs, netting him 2 million dollars.
He no more owes the guys making paint, canvas and brushes than he owes the guy who filled up his van with gas to get him to the meeting to sell the pictures.
That's a reductio ad absurdum fallacy.

[Triton]

Your allegory is false. A better comparison would be an artist who get his apprentices to paint 10 pictures which he then signs, netting him 2 million dollars.
He no more owes the guys making paint, canvas and brushes than he owes the guy who filled up his van with gas to get him to the meeting to sell the pictures.
That's a reductio ad absurdum fallacy.

Are you saying that he does owe the apprentices something other than what he paid them? Why?

[timcsaw]

Your allegory is false. A better comparison would be an artist who get his apprentices to paint 10 pictures which he then signs, netting him 2 million dollars.
He no more owes the guys making paint, canvas and brushes than he owes the guy who filled up his van with gas to get him to the meeting to sell the pictures.
That's a reductio ad absurdum fallacy.

It wasn't an allegory.... It was a question. If a single guy (the artist) uses his own talent and creativity to paint and sell his own work, does he have to go back and pay the brush manufacturer MORE than he originally paid for the brushes, just because he sold his own work for millions? (he IS a "self made millionaire")

No, he does not.

HE and HIS OWN creativity and talent led to his success and he owes NO ONE an additional penny for what HE did. He did NOT take advantage of the brush maker, he did not dupe the people who purchased his "product", because they CHOSE to "barter" a certain amount of one thing (money) that he was willing to take in trade for his art, so the buyers knew exactly what they were getting for their "trade" and should/must be satisfied with it.

Now the allegory would be that the inventor of a product, who wants to mass produce it, hires WILLING employees who gladly "trade" their "product" (labor) for a particular amount, known to them at the beginning of the deal, and "barter" their product (work) for wages.

If the inventor and owner who employees them WANTS to give them more money in "trade" he can do so. If the employees don't think they are being given a reasonable trade for their labor, they are free to leave.

The inventor and owner had the original idea for the product, took great risk to start the business and hired the employees who worked no harder on day one (when the inventor/owner was neck deep in debt from business loans, overhead etc.) than they do when the owner becomes a millionaire on day 365 of their employment.

Some employees will see additional benefits and increased wages on MERIT IF they excel, accept additional responsibility and are willing to CHOOSE the additional "barter" for said labor when it is offered... THEIR choice.