I'm Headin' To Missouri and buying me a Truck!!

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by ReefForBrains
http:///forum/post/3088860
Bionic- For training and practice to stay sharp it is nothing to go through 500 rounds per week. Some go through 1000 without issue. Buying in huge case lots is only relative to your interest and level of practice.
Like when at a gunshop if you were to mention a 200 gallon tank at home. They think it is the size of a bedroom. Beyond comprehension that it is really only to be considered moderate in the saltwater hobby.
Same thing with firearms. What some may consider a stockpile is just supplies for the next few outings to someone else. Very scray to have limits placed on buying ammo in bulk.
I've shot guns since I was 8 (which was 45 years ago). I hadn't been dove hunting for almost 10 years until I went last season. My first day out, I got my limit in an hour and a half. The only time I take my 9mm out is to make sure it is properly oiled and the mechanism works correctly. I can still hit a target anywhere I like (head, torso) on a standard indoor shooting range. I can do that with one box of shells. So if you need 500 - 1000 rounds a week to accomplish the same feat, you have no business owning a gun.
Why do they want to put limits on buying bulk ammo? Probably because they want to try and avert anymore mass shootings. Harder for some maniac who walks into a building with four semi-auto, 15 round clip handguns and an AK-47 to shoot all those guns, if he can only have a couple of boxes of ammo per month. Give him time to stock up, and maybe the guy will cool his jets and change his mind.

 

[reefforbrains]

Bionic-
I would imaging you are just being contrary, but I must ask just to be sure...You really have conviction that the only reason you can possibly believe that someone would own larger ammounts of amunition is-
A- They are so inept at shooting and incapable of operating them correctly that they are just too dangerous to be allowed to own any firearms.
-or-
B- They have plans on a mass shooting and should be stopped beforehand by limiting the amount of rounds they can purchase at one time.
Just curious..

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by ReefForBrains
http:///forum/post/3089029
Bionic-
I would imaging you are just being contrary, but I must ask just to be sure...You really have conviction that the only reason you can possibly believe that someone would own larger ammounts of amunition is-
A- They are so inept at shooting and incapable of operating them correctly that they are just too dangerous to be allowed to own any firearms.
-or-
B- They have plans on a mass shooting and should be stopped beforehand by limiting the amount of rounds they can purchase at one time.
Just curious..
Pretty much. I know a lot of people shoot guns like it's a hobby, and that's fine. I don't see the logic in spending $300/week shooting at a flat target, or plinking beer cans myself. Especially when you're doing it with a semi-auto, and 500 shells are gone in less than an hour. I have A LOT better things to do with my money. But don't rationalize wasting money like that by stating you're doing it to get practice. Like I said, if you're not proficient enough to hit a target where you're aiming at 25 feet after one box of ammo, you need to put the weapon down and slowly back away....

 

[reefforbrains]

I agree that it is partly rationalizing when trying to justify extreme amounts of ammunitions, BUT when you begin to try and nail down what "excessive" is comes the problems...
To say that there are better uses or time or money doesnt hold water with me. I personally like collecting coins. I spend hours pouring over old colonial coins to properly ID them and best preserve and etc etc. Far beyond the simple ID and labeling. I enjoy it. I better my knowledge doing so. Better then the next guy? This is unknown.
So by your defenition that the average person would find this as a waste of time or money should justify itself as legal argument against the practice?
Proficiency standards should not be confused with enjoyment or personal choice when it comes to how or what they spend thier time and money. Can we agree on this at least?
The importance of proficiency with any given participation might come in to focus, but only the basics. Beyond basics, everything after is honeing and practicing. Limiting what is to be considered excessive or wasteful in any way at least in my book goes too deep into infringing on someones freedoms to do as they choose when not interfering with others o breaking any laws.
I do agree that some system in place for larger purchases might be a good idea. I am completley against new laws limiting amounts just based on fear of attack or beacuase I might personally think of it as wasteful. If a way of tracking larger purchases is found, I would support it. Even if it was a new tax, or expense associated with the practice to cover the costs.
Just blanketing it under fear and labels such as a dreaded "EBR" or "Assault Rifle" don't do it for me.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3089016
I've shot guns since I was 8 (which was 45 years ago). I hadn't been dove hunting for almost 10 years until I went last season. My first day out, I got my limit in an hour and a half. The only time I take my 9mm out is to make sure it is properly oiled and the mechanism works correctly. I can still hit a target anywhere I like (head, torso) on a standard indoor shooting range. I can do that with one box of shells. So if you need 500 - 1000 rounds a week to accomplish the same feat, you have no business owning a gun.
Why do they want to put limits on buying bulk ammo? Probably because they want to try and avert anymore mass shootings. Harder for some maniac who walks into a building with four semi-auto, 15 round clip handguns and an AK-47 to shoot all those guns, if he can only have a couple of boxes of ammo per month. Give him time to stock up, and maybe the guy will cool his jets and change his mind.

Because he could just walk in and buy an full auto AK...
That is the thing those people don't realize, those AK's there getting is nothing more than a scary looking gas powered semi-auto. With a full metal jacket round. If you really want to do damage, you've basically got to be a gunsmith to convert it to full auto. It is way more dangerous to be on the receiving end of a hollow point 1911. Then a semi auto AK.
A piece of paper is a lot different than an actual situation, besides, I shoot guns because it is a lot of fun. It is nothing for 3 or 4 of us to go through 500 rounds in an afternoon shooting skeet.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3089107
Because he could just walk in and buy an full auto AK...
That is the thing those people don't realize, those AK's there getting is nothing more than a scary looking gas powered semi-auto. With a full metal jacket round. If you really want to do damage, you've basically got to be a gunsmith to convert it to full auto. It is way more dangerous to be on the receiving end of a hollow point 1911. Then a semi auto AK.
A piece of paper is a lot different than an actual situation, besides, I shoot guns because it is a lot of fun. It is nothing for 3 or 4 of us to go through 500 rounds in an afternoon shooting skeet.
With the detailed information that's available on the internet these days, a person with little knowledge of the inner-workings of an AK or AR-15 could make that weapon a full auto in 30 minutes or less. Granted when they pulled the trigger, it would keep firing until the magazine was empty, but it's fully auto all the same.
You are absolutely correct. A piece of paper is completely different from shooting at a living being. So what's the benefit of shooting at it 1000 times in one hour? Shooting skeet with a shotgun is not the same as unloading a 15-round 9mm at a paper target. By the time you emptied your shotgun 5 times, a person doing the same with a 9mm will go through at least 2 boxes of 25 shells. A cheap box of 50 round 9mm is around $20 - $25. A 1000 round box is around $275 - $400. A box of 12 ga. 8-shot skeet load is around $6 - $8. By a case, and it's cheaper than that. Cheap clay ammo is around $3.95 per box of 25. Remington 1 oz loads can be bought at Wal-Mart for this price. That comes out to around $40.00 per case plus tax. Sitting out in a field with your buddies slinging skeet would probably take you a good afternoon to go through that case, unless you don't care much for your shoulder.

So which is cheaper, shooting skeet at $40 per afternoon, or a couple hours 'rush' of shooting a 9mm for $275?

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by ReefForBrains
http:///forum/post/3089091
I agree that it is partly rationalizing when trying to justify extreme amounts of ammunitions, BUT when you begin to try and nail down what "excessive" is comes the problems...
To say that there are better uses or time or money doesnt hold water with me. I personally like collecting coins. I spend hours pouring over old colonial coins to properly ID them and best preserve and etc etc. Far beyond the simple ID and labeling. I enjoy it. I better my knowledge doing so. Better then the next guy? This is unknown.
So by your defenition that the average person would find this as a waste of time or money should justify itself as legal argument against the practice?
Proficiency standards should not be confused with enjoyment or personal choice when it comes to how or what they spend thier time and money. Can we agree on this at least?
The importance of proficiency with any given participation might come in to focus, but only the basics. Beyond basics, everything after is honeing and practicing. Limiting what is to be considered excessive or wasteful in any way at least in my book goes too deep into infringing on someones freedoms to do as they choose when not interfering with others o breaking any laws.
I do agree that some system in place for larger purchases might be a good idea. I am completley against new laws limiting amounts just based on fear of attack or beacuase I might personally think of it as wasteful. If a way of tracking larger purchases is found, I would support it. Even if it was a new tax, or expense associated with the practice to cover the costs.
Just blanketing it under fear and labels such as a dreaded "EBR" or "Assault Rifle" don't do it for me.
I used to do coin collecting with my father. Some of my best memories of my childhood. But you can't compare a hobby that you can make as much as you spend, to one that you are simply throwing money out the door. Everyone gets into a hobby at least once in their lifetime. Some are more expensive than others (can we say saltwater tanks?). But don't try to say that these gun 'enthusiats' that spend $1,500/month shooting at paper target are doing it for a hobby. People like that usually do it for the rush, and to show off their 'man card' to their buddies. Don't get me wrong. There are plenty of what I term as 'professional sportsman/sportwomen' who do shoot for the sport and competition. But that's not your Average Joe who bought a handgun with the excuse of needing it for home protection, when he really just wanted it to know he had that 'raw power' in his hand, and spends hundreds of dollars per month proving it.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3089347
I used to do coin collecting with my father. Some of my best memories of my childhood. But you can't compare a hobby that you can make as much as you spend, to one that you are simply throwing money out the door. Everyone gets into a hobby at least once in their lifetime. Some are more expensive than others (can we say saltwater tanks?). But don't try to say that these gun 'enthusiats' that spend $1,500/month shooting at paper target are doing it for a hobby. People like that usually do it for the rush, and to show off their 'man card' to their buddies. Don't get me wrong. There are plenty of what I term as 'professional sportsman/sportwomen' who do shoot for the sport and competition. But that's not your Average Joe who bought a handgun with the excuse of needing it for home protection, when he really just wanted it to know he had that 'raw power' in his hand, and spends hundreds of dollars per month proving it.

The argument isn't whether I or joe blow needs a 20 guns and a closet of ammo. Most likely they'll never go through their ammo in a life and death situation. The question is what business is it of yours or the federal government to be telling people what they can and can't do with their own money.
Raw power is why I want a 427 corvette does that mean you're against people buying fast cars. They're dangerous and and cars have kill a lot more people in the last 10 years than gun enthusiasts.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3089481
The argument isn't whether I or joe blow needs a 20 guns and a closet of ammo. Most likely they'll never go through their ammo in a life and death situation. The question is what business is it of yours or the federal government to be telling people what they can and can't do with their own money.
Raw power is why I want a 427 corvette does that mean you're against people buying fast cars. They're dangerous and and cars have kill a lot more people in the last 10 years than gun enthusiasts.
What is it with gun advocates that everytime someone brings up anything remote about opposing certain guns or gun control, they use the fast cars as an analogy? The two are completely different for one thing. Cars were not designed with the intent of being a deadly weapon. Guns are. I could kill you with a small stick off a tree. Should we cut down every tree in the world because of it? See how ridiculous that sounds?
I honestly could care less how many guns you or anyone else owns. My only argument here is unloading thousands of rounds of ammo and using the reasoning of "I'm keeping up my skills" is ludicrous. You do it because it gives you some sense of power. You want to blow $1500/month shooting lead at a useless target? Knock yourself out. But don't come crying here when you read stories of people going into foreclosure, only to find out they would rather spend the money they'd use to pay the

[hr]
, on buying shells to play Rambo at some shooting range...

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3090033
What is it with gun advocates that everytime someone brings up anything remote about opposing certain guns or gun control, they use the fast cars as an analogy? The two are completely different for one thing. Cars were not designed with the intent of being a deadly weapon. Guns are. I could kill you with a small stick off a tree. Should we cut down every tree in the world because of it? See how ridiculous that sounds?
I honestly could care less how many guns you or anyone else owns. My only argument here is unloading thousands of rounds of ammo and using the reasoning of "I'm keeping up my skills" is ludicrous. You do it because it gives you some sense of power. You want to blow $1500/month shooting lead at a useless target? Knock yourself out. But don't come crying here when you read stories of people going into foreclosure, only to find out they would rather spend the money they'd use to pay the

[hr]
, on buying shells to play Rambo at some shooting range...
Do you see me crying? Have you ever seen me crying. I'm the one that believes in personal responsibility, remember.
Intent isn't nearly as important as results. A dead person is dead, it doesn't matter what the item that killed him was made for...
Plus there is a direct corrolation, you've used the arguments of
-people buy guns for power
-People don't need them
-(and this one is the kicker) people are getting forclosed on because they waste too much money on ammo. lol
Well guess what, people buy rediculous cars for the same reason.
-people buy fast cars for power.
-people don't need fast cars.
So there is a direct corrolation. Based on your arguments.

 

[reefforbrains]

(Generic popcorn Smiley)

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3090071
Do you see me crying? Have you ever seen me crying. I'm the one that believes in personal responsibility, remember.
Intent isn't nearly as important as results. A dead person is dead, it doesn't matter what the item that killed him was made for...
Plus there is a direct corrolation, you've used the arguments of
-people buy guns for power
-People don't need them
-(and this one is the kicker) people are getting forclosed on because they waste too much money on ammo. lol
Well guess what, people buy rediculous cars for the same reason.
-people buy fast cars for power.
-people don't need fast cars.
So there is a direct corrolation. Based on your arguments.

You'r crying now.

You still don't get it. Yes, people do buy fast and expensive cars for no reason, and they probably don't need them. So I can say there's a direct correlation there. However, when they're done with their 40-year ich, they can sell that car for some kind of return. What do you get in return when you shoot a firearm. A hole in the wall?
Go tell Bubba in Alabama why he's living in a trailer park instead of a nice neighborhood. He's rather spend his disposable cash on beer and hangun ammo, than save up and actually live in a decent place. Everyone has their priorities in life I suppose.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3090318
You'r crying now.

You still don't get it. Yes, people do buy fast and expensive cars for no reason, and they probably don't need them. So I can say there's a direct correlation there. However, when they're done with their 40-year ich, they can sell that car for some kind of return. What do you get in return when you shoot a firearm. A hole in the wall?
Go tell Bubba in Alabama why he's living in a trailer park instead of a nice neighborhood. He's rather spend his disposable cash on beer and hangun ammo, than save up and actually live in a decent place. Everyone has their priorities in life I suppose.
Isn't that kind of the point, people get to do what they want to do with what they earn? If they get their jollies off of shooting, what is your problem that? Instead of Obama getting to do what he wants with someone elses money?

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3090357
Isn't that kind of the point, people get to do what they want to do with what they earn? If they get their jollies off of shooting, what is your problem that? Instead of Obama getting to do what he wants with someone elses money?
Ah, just had to throw the Obama dig in there didn't you. Economy goes to pot, just blame the current man in charge. I'm sure if McCain was in office, gas would be down to a $1.50, the NRA would be giving away free ammo, and GM and Chrysler would be the top selling automotive brands in the world.

I've already told you, I could care less what anyone does with their disposable income. Just don't come looking for a handout when you lose your job, and you don't know where you're going to get the money for your next meal.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3090383
Ah, just had to throw the Obama dig in there didn't you. Economy goes to pot, just blame the current man in charge. I'm sure if McCain was in office, gas would be down to a $1.50, the NRA would be giving away free ammo, and GM and Chrysler would be the top selling automotive brands in the world.

I've already told you, I could care less what anyone does with their disposable income. Just don't come looking for a handout when you lose your job, and you don't know where you're going to get the money for your next meal.

This is the problem with McCain (and a major contention of Rush Limbaugh, and now discussing political "science") It is really hard to differentiate between a democrat and McCain, this is why he lost.
Personally I doubt McCain would be trying to socialize medicine, I also doubt he'd have passed a 1 trillion dollar deficit pork bill, and I doubt McCain would have a cap and trade bill in the senate right now. He isn't that good of a politician, nor does he have every reporter wanting to have his love child. So no, I don't think we'd be anywhere near where we are now...
Lets not forget Bush had a similar storm brewing 8 years ago, plus he had planes literally fly into the financial districts. But a funny thing happened he lowered taxes, a lot, and experienced 7 more years of growth...
Vs Major industries being frozen waiting to see how much Obama is going to take from them... Or tax them because of their "pollution"

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3090383
Ah, just had to throw the Obama dig in there didn't you. Economy goes to pot, just blame the current man in charge. I'm sure if McCain was in office, gas would be down to a $1.50, the NRA would be giving away free ammo, and GM and Chrysler would be the top selling automotive brands in the world.

I've already told you, I could care less what anyone does with their disposable income. Just don't come looking for a handout when you lose your job, and you don't know where you're going to get the money for your next meal.
This is what I don't get, you don't want stupid people begging for government handouts, yet you protect obama, who is the government handout king. And in the process of creating the biggest government entitlement program EVER>

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3090548
This is what I don't get, you don't want stupid people begging for government handouts, yet you protect obama, who is the government handout king. And in the process of creating the biggest government entitlement program EVER>
Where do you get I'm protecting Obama? The guy has only been in office for 6 months, and the Republican yahoos want results on day one. You spend more energy whining and complaining about what he's trying to do to get the economoy turned around, instead of providing solutions. You have this Socialist mentality etched in your brain anytime a Democrat takes the office. We tried the Tax Cut Game with Bush and it didn't work. Bush hands out tax credits and rebates left and right, and where did it get us? Instead of investing the money, or paying off sky high credit cards, the public went out and bought cars, homes, vacations, and whatever else they could find that was WAY over their budgets. Hey, it was free money right? WRONG. Looks like 'infusing the economy' didn't work too well did it?
So what exactly do you do about the healthcare in this country? Just say "too bad, so sad" to all these people who can't afford outrageous insurance premiums? "Hope you don't get sick there buddy. Your health isn't my problem". Emergency room patients have increase almost 32% in some areas of the country. Why? Because people without insurance know if they walk in saying they have a medical emergency, a doctor has to see them. If they can't afford the bill, they walk out without paying a dime. I don't have that luxury because of my income. Regardless if I had insurance or not, if I'm capable of paying, they give me a bill. I'm losing good employees because I can't offer them affordable healthcare options. So my business and customers suffer.
Cap and trade? I don't agree with it, but again, what's the alternative to reduce greenhouse gases in thsi country? Just say it's a myth, and don't worry about it?
Trillion dollar deficit? You think that's all Obama? What's the percentage of bills coming out of Congress that are created by Republicans? How much pork do they include in all these proposed bills? Wake up and smell the roses. The Democrats didn't put this economy into a tailspin by themselves. The problem with you people is you keep listening to these extremist like Limbaugh and Hannity, who couldn't run a clock much less the country. Instead of spewing their "The Sky Is Falling" rhetoric, they need to come up with viable solutions.

 

[bionicarm]

Here, listen to Obama speak about and defend his healthcare program on the Today show:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540...4741&#32024741
Listen at the end about some Republican senator who thinks the best way to solve the healthcare costs is to TAX existing healthcare premiums!

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3091634
Where do you get I'm protecting Obama? The guy has only been in office for 6 months, and the Republican yahoos want results on day one. You spend more energy whining and complaining about what he's trying to do to get the economoy turned around, instead of providing solutions. You have this Socialist mentality etched in your brain anytime a Democrat takes the office. We tried the Tax Cut Game with Bush and it didn't work. Bush hands out tax credits and rebates left and right, and where did it get us? Instead of investing the money, or paying off sky high credit cards, the public went out and bought cars, homes, vacations, and whatever else they could find that was WAY over their budgets. Hey, it was free money right? WRONG. Looks like 'infusing the economy' didn't work too well did it?
So what exactly do you do about the healthcare in this country? Just say "too bad, so sad" to all these people who can't afford outrageous insurance premiums? "Hope you don't get sick there buddy. Your health isn't my problem". Emergency room patients have increase almost 32% in some areas of the country. Why? Because people without insurance know if they walk in saying they have a medical emergency, a doctor has to see them. If they can't afford the bill, they walk out without paying a dime. I don't have that luxury because of my income. Regardless if I had insurance or not, if I'm capable of paying, they give me a bill. I'm losing good employees because I can't offer them affordable healthcare options. So my business and customers suffer.
Cap and trade? I don't agree with it, but again, what's the alternative to reduce greenhouse gases in thsi country? Just say it's a myth, and don't worry about it?
Trillion dollar deficit? You think that's all Obama? What's the percentage of bills coming out of Congress that are created by Republicans? How much pork do they include in all these proposed bills? Wake up and smell the roses. The Democrats didn't put this economy into a tailspin by themselves. The problem with you people is you keep listening to these extremist like Limbaugh and Hannity, who couldn't run a clock much less the country. Instead of spewing their "The Sky Is Falling" rhetoric, they need to come up with viable solutions.
Nothing in the last 2 years. Remember the house generates appropriation bills... And that has been dummycrat controlled for the past few years. (hey I'm not letting bush off the hook for his 300 billion dollar deficit's) But to get to obama you have to multiply by 4, and that doesn't touch what he is trying to get passed now.
This we've tried tax cuts argument is a horrible argument. We've tried high taxes look at the end of Jimmy Carter's term. Double digit inflation, and unemployment... You really think Tax cuts caused the recession?
I don't think all dems are socialists. JFK wasn't. (then again he got shot) Clinton tried to socialize medicine. But then again when a guy says he sought out to befriend the socialists at his school. That is kind of a BIG RED LIGHT going bing bing bing... When a guy says he want's to spread the wealth around... When a guy nationalizes major private corporations.
That is kind of a hint...
you really think by socializing it. (and make no mistake that is what is going to happen as a result of this bill) that they are going to get health care in a timely fashion. Or are they going to be prioritized by important and contribution to society... Like has happened everywhere else they've socialized their healthcare...

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3092070
Nothing in the last 2 years. Remember the house generates appropriation bills... And that has been dummycrat controlled for the past few years. (hey I'm not letting bush off the hook for his 300 billion dollar deficit's) But to get to obama you have to multiply by 4, and that doesn't touch what he is trying to get passed now.
This we've tried tax cuts argument is a horrible argument. We've tried high taxes look at the end of Jimmy Carter's term. Double digit inflation, and unemployment... You really think Tax cuts caused the recession?
I don't think all dems are socialists. JFK wasn't. (then again he got shot) Clinton tried to socialize medicine. But then again when a guy says he sought out to befriend the socialists at his school. That is kind of a BIG RED LIGHT going bing bing bing... When a guy says he want's to spread the wealth around... When a guy nationalizes major private corporations.
That is kind of a hint...
you really think by socializing it. (and make no mistake that is what is going to happen as a result of this bill) that they are going to get health care in a timely fashion. Or are they going to be prioritized by important and contribution to society... Like has happened everywhere else they've socialized their healthcare...
Maybe it would take Socialism to turn this country around. American businesses and people in general have become spoiled, materialistic brats. Most Americans can't even control their finances - buying overpriced cars and homes they can't afford, living off of credit cards, and living way beyond thier means. American businesses build inferior products, and don't know the basics of Economics. Banks and

[hr]
companies hand out inferior loans like they were candy. Someone or somebody has to put this country into a 'timeout' and say, "Finish pitching your little temper tantrum and grow up." Should the Federal Govt. be that parent? I personally don't trust them as far as I could throw them. Here's my proposal:
1) Put every single person in Congress up for re-election next year. Each candidate cannot spend more than $5,000 on their campaign in their district. This allows ANY American citizen the opportunity to run.
2) Term limits on all Federal positions, especially Congress. No more 'lifers' that have their own agenda and benefit no one but themselves.
3) Limit any and all political coontributions to $500. Period. Get rid of lobbyists and PAC's.
4) Mandate all Congressmen and Senators work a FULL YEAR. Why do they get 2 or 3 months off? They don't do anything half the time they're in Washington as it is. Make them spend at least 3 months at home going door-to-door or having Townhall Meetings to speak to as many of their constituents as they can. Make them punch time clocks, and write daily journals so We The People can keep track of what they do on a daily basis.
5) Eliminate all credit cards and credit for purchases under $1000. Make people use cash to buy the things they want. Can't afford that new IPhone, laptop, or plasma TV? It's called a Savings Account. Limit large loans to autos, homes, and home improvement. Force banks to validate income and make no exceptions to the rules. If an individual has more than 20% in loan debt, NO LOAN FOR YOU!