Biden to Supporters....

[Mazarin]

Chip, you've officially blown my mind. You're astounding.

[chiplee]

Chip, you've officially blown my mind. You're astounding.

 

 

yeah, in what respect charlie?

[JTSTARQUEST]

First off, if anybody votes for a candidate based on their stated opposition to abortion, that person is a fool. Abortion shouldn't be handled on a federal level anyway, it should be handled at the state level. On top of that, the focus should be to find ways to lower the number of unwanted/unplanned pregnancies. Prevent the problem before it even starts. Even if you vote for the schmuck that says he or she is against abortion, it's still going to be legal when that person is long gone from office. In that little Jerry Molen story, he quote Charles Barkley as saying "Poor people have been voting for Democrats for the last fifty years....and they are still poor." Well, anti-abortion people have been voting for Republicans for the last 35 years, and abortion is still legal. The thing about anti-abortion people is that they talk about how life is sacred, yet they are the first ones in line to support bombing of people in other countries. That's call being a HYPOCRITE.

 

The parts I find really amusing tsi89's first post are some of the points he lists as a flaw in Obama's voting record, specifically the following:

 

8. He is willing to meet with Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jung Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. - Oh no! Not actually talking to people instead of bombing them just because we can!

 

9. Has said that one of his first goals after being elected would be to have a conference with all Muslim nations. Why? - Why the hell not? Maybe if we actually try WORKING with people instead of threatening or bombing them we might actually accomplish something productive. Oh no, not those evil Muslims! I'm so scared of those evil Muslims!

 

10. Opposed the Patriot Act. - Holy $hit, are you seriously saying that's bad? - God, Allah, Yahweh, Jehovah, Jesus, and Joe Pesci, please save us from this idiocy.

 

14. Voted yes on providing habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees. - See #10 above. Yeah, how dare we allow somebody who may very well be innocent to have a fair trial.

 

21. Is a big believer in the separation of church and state. - No $hit, huh? Yeah, because the free exercise of religion is such a horrible idea. I'm sure the Constitution agrees with you on that one...

 

I'm not saying I agree with everything Obama does. Hell, I think Obama sucks wenis right along with John McCain. This is just another case of ending up with one of two douchebags because the American people aren't smart enough to see through the two party b.s., so the choice between poop with corn or poop without corn just keeps manifesting itself every election cycle. Either way, you get poop.

Edited October 23, 2008 by JTSTARQUEST

[chiplee]

First off, if anybody votes for a candidate based on their stated opposition to abortion, that person is a fool. Abortion shouldn't be handled on a federal level anyway, it should be handled at the state level. On top of that, the focus should be to find ways to lower the number of unwanted/unplanned pregnancies. Prevent the problem before it even starts. Even if you vote for the schmuck that says he or she is against abortion, it's still going to be legal when that person is long gone from office. In that little Jerry Molen story, he quote Charles Barkley as saying "Poor people have been voting for Democrats for the last fifty years....and they are still poor." Well, anti-abortion people have been voting for Republicans for the last 35 years, and abortion is still legal. The thing about anti-abortion people is that they talk about how life is sacred, yet they are the first ones in line to support bombing of people in other countries. That's call being a HYPOCRITE.

 

The parts I find really amusing tsi89's first post are some of the points he lists as a flaw in Obama's voting record, specifically the following:

 

8. He is willing to meet with Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jung Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. - Oh no! Not actually talking to people instead of bombing them just because we can!

 

9. Has said that one of his first goals after being elected would be to have a conference with all Muslim nations. Why? - Why the hell not? Maybe if we actually try WORKING with people instead of threatening or bombing them we might actually accomplish something productive. Oh no, not those evil Muslims! I'm so scared of those evil Muslims!

 

10. Opposed the Patriot Act. - Holy $hit, are you seriously saying that's bad? - God, Allah, Yahweh, Jehovah, Jesus, John Harris, and Joe Pesci, please save us from this idiocy.

 

14. Voted yes on providing habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees. - See #10 above. Yeah, how dare we allow somebody who may very well be innocent to have a fair trial.

 

21. Is a big believer in the separation of church and state. - No $hit, huh? Yeah, because the free exercise of religion is such a horrible idea. I'm sure the Constitution agrees with you on that one...

 

I'm not saying I agree with everything Obama does. Hell, I think Obama sucks wenis right along with John McCain. This is just another case of ending up with one of two douchebags because the American people aren't smart enough to see through the two party b.s., so the choice between poop with corn or poop without corn just keeps manifesting itself every election cycle. Either way, you get poop.

 

lol, post of the month

[slydogg]

for the first time in my life, i'm proud to be an independent, wesley clark is an as-, to appoint him as secretary of defense would be the same as appointing katie couric secretary of state. he reminds me of another general that wears his uniform to bed and sucks his thumb at night. HUNT, for secretary of defense.

[tsi1989]

What is it about what your company makes that would make it illegal?

 

Our .50 calibers are already illegal in the state of California. Hawaii is also wanting to ban our rifles.

 

They said the same stuff about Bill Clinton too.

 

He signed into law the 1994 Assault Weapons ban. Thank goodness it had an experation date and thank goodness that President Bush did not renew it.

 

Obama wants to bring back that ban and make it perminent and the new ban will include many other firearms that were not included in the original. If Obama has his way, you want even be able to buy a Ruger 10/22.

 

If that gun is banned, don't you think the guns we make will be too.

 

In my opinion, and many others as well, there is nothing wrong with the great firearms we make. They have been proudly used by our military since the first gulf war. They are currently in all our national defense departments and many foreign allies arsonals. Our company cannot stay in business on military sales alone. If our rifles become banned to civilians, our doors will have no choice but to close. On a side note, there has NEVER been a crime comitted with one our rifles.

 

People keep saying that it will never happen in this country. Tell that to the people in Australia. They had to turn in every gun they owned and the guns were distroyed. It can happen here.

 

This will be the first time in our nations history that the Democrats will control the Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary branches. They will not have any trouble passing what ever bills that they want to. There has to be balance in our goverment and it is fixing to end.

[chiplee]

If that gun is banned, don't you think the guns we make will be too.

 

That's called putting your own interests before the good of the nation, and it's the selfishness republicans have been feeding off of for decades. Not this year bub.

 

In my opinion, and many others as well, there is nothing wrong with the great firearms we make. They have been proudly used by our military since the first gulf war.

 

And they still will be. No one wants to ban fire arms in the Military.

 

On a side note, there has NEVER been a crime comitted with one our rifles.

 

I find it hard to believe you have reliable data on this.

 

People keep saying that it will never happen in this country. Tell that to the people in Australia. They had to turn in every gun they owned and the guns were distroyed. It can happen here

 

Not without a re-write of our constitution that would be the very first of its kind. Not likely.

 

This will be the first time in our nations history that the Democrats will control the Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary branches. They will not have any trouble passing what ever bills that they want to. There has to be balance in our goverment and it is fixing to end.

 

Oh man. I just don't have time.

[PDX87Starion]

Our .50 calibers are already illegal in the state of California. Hawaii is also wanting to ban our rifles.

 

 

 

He signed into law the 1994 Assault Weapons ban. Thank goodness it had an experation date and thank goodness that President Bush did not renew it.

 

Obama wants to bring back that ban and make it perminent and the new ban will include many other firearms that were not included in the original. If Obama has his way, you want even be able to buy a Ruger 10/22.

 

If that gun is banned, don't you think the guns we make will be too.

 

In my opinion, and many others as well, there is nothing wrong with the great firearms we make. They have been proudly used by our military since the first gulf war. They are currently in all our national defense departments and many foreign allies arsonals. Our company cannot stay in business on military sales alone. If our rifles become banned to civilians, our doors will have no choice but to close. On a side note, there has NEVER been a crime comitted with one our rifles.

 

People keep saying that it will never happen in this country. Tell that to the people in Australia. They had to turn in every gun they owned and the guns were distroyed. It can happen here.

 

This will be the first time in our nations history that the Democrats will control the Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary branches. They will not have any trouble passing what ever bills that they want to. There has to be balance in our goverment and it is fixing to end.

 

So where do you draw the line? Semi-automatic, full automatic, grenade launchers, shoulder fired rockets, tanks? They are all considered "arms". I dont think that buying military grade weapons should be easier than buying sudafed. So there has to be a middle ground right? Not according to the NRA, its supporters and their republican panderers, any legislation to them is considered "gun control" and is an imaginary step closer to a full ban.

 

Bottom line is riffles, shot guns, and hand guns are not ever going to be taken away. So perhaps your employer should focus on those if the military weapons arent selling.

[Lusion972]

I'm sorry...what company do you work for and which type of weapon has never been used before where? Every single type of weapon that has ever been designed can probably be found in the streets. I have see people being murdered from .22 to .50 caliber weapons and this was in a city that had banned weapons. So if you think your weapons arent in the hands of random people that commit crimes then you must live in la la land.

[tsi1989]

...what company do you work for

 

Barrett Firearms

 

 

People are not going to use a rifle that is 5 foot long, 30 pounds, and cost $9000 to commit crimes. Our rifles are purchased primarily for long range target shooting.

 

So where do you draw the line? Semi-automatic, full automatic, grenade launchers, shoulder fired rockets, tanks? They are all considered "arms". I dont think that buying military grade weapons should be easier than buying sudafed. So there has to be a middle ground right? Not according to the NRA, its supporters and their republican panderers, any legislation to them is considered "gun control" and is an imaginary step closer to a full ban.

 

Bottom line is riffles, shot guns, and hand guns are not ever going to be taken away. So perhaps your employer should focus on those if the military weapons arent selling.

 

So where exactly should the line be drawn? What real difference does it make? It if is a .22 or .50 or even a baseball bat? If your intentions are to kill someone then you will use what ever it takes. Any regulations on the sale or manufacture of firearms IS a step to a total ban. Where will the regulations end. Certainly criminals should not have access to firearms but law abiding citizens should be able to own what they want and the quanity they want. Citizens can actually purchase full auto weapons and even sound suppressors. The only catch is you have to give our government a $200 tax to do so.

 

Obama also wants to elliminate the right to carry laws nationwide. I personally carry a Glock 27 .40 everyday even while I am at work. Should our Federal government over turn the state of Tennessee's Right to Carry? I think not.

 

Oh by the way "tanks" are not illegal. If you have the money, you can actually own one of those. Ronnie Barrett, founder of Barrett Firearms, actually owns two German built tanks.

 

What if our government started talks about making cars that will exceed the speed limit illegal. Wouldn't everone on this forum be mad. I would be. But if you think about, why do cars we buy need to travel above the speed limit? I seen in a magazine the other day that the new Challenger SRT8 will travel around 173. Why? There is not a road in this country that you can travel that fast legally and actually is more dangerous than the guns locked in my cabinets

[PDX87Starion]

Barrett Firearms

 

Obama also wants to elliminate the right to carry laws nationwide.

Not true. Regardless of what the NRA is putting out there.

 

What if our government started talks about making cars that will exceed the speed limit illegal. Wouldn't everone on this forum be mad. I would be. But if you think about, why do cars we buy need to travel above the speed limit? I seen in a magazine the other day that the new Challenger SRT8 will travel around 173. Why? There is not a road in this country that you can travel that fast legally and actually is more dangerous than the guns locked in my cabinets

 

Having a licence to drive is a privilege, and cars are licenced, titled, and registered with strict laws about transferring ownership. I'm not saying that all military weapons or should not be available to civilians, but perhaps stricter licencing and registering would be in order. But you guys are against that because your worried that having those weapons registered makes it easier for the government to come take them away, so what ever, there isnt a simple answer, and apparently no middle ground.

[JustPaus_88TSi]

Why does there need to be any more hoops to jump through in order to purchase a firearm? Either you're clean or you're not, it's that simple.

 

I have a DoD security clearance(that took 4-5 months to get), and an impeccable record. Why should I be punished for doing the right thing my entire life? I practice shooting my firearms more than the vast majority of police officers do, and i've out shot many of them while using their own weapons. I know more about the laws than many many people, because I am a responsible gun owning American. I know when and where I can carry, and when I am justified in using deadly force. This goes for everyone I shoot with aswell. Our requirements for a concealed permit here in AZ is an 8 hour class that is absolutely packed with info, and a shooting test.

 

How easy is it to get a drivers license again? Any mandatory class requirement? When I got mine, it was a 15-20 question test, a drive around the block and parallel parking between two cones. My drivers license doesn't need to be renewed until 2048(it was issued in 1999). My concealed carry permit on the other hand has to be renewed every 5 years.

 

 

 

Do you know how rare it is for people to own military grade weapons, or the cost they require to obtain?

 

Semi-Auto AK47= $450-1100 or so depending on model/maker.

Full-auto AK47= $16,000.

 

 

Throw in the $200 tax stamp for the BATF, $100 in dealer transfer fee's. 4-6 weeks(this is a "good" time, it can be much longer) for a Form 3 just to get the weapon transfered to your state. Then you wait on a Form 4 to get it from the in-state dealer. This is all assuming your state allows NFA weaponry AND your CLEO(Chief Law Enforcement Officer) signs off on it.

 

As of Oct. 4th, the BATF had a turn around time on a Form 3 of 9 weeks. It varies greatly.

 

 

Yes PDX, having a license to drive is a priviledge. Owning firearms is a right, period.

Comparing the two goes beyond what you've outlined. Yes, cars are registered/titled/insured. However, you use it all the time. The two would only be the same if you walked around with your gun constantly pointed at something(instead of concealed in a holster), then you'd register/insure your actions with it.

 

There is no requirement for me to register my firearms here in AZ. However, if I were to sell one FTF(face-to-face), I would most definitely create a bill of sale and a paper trail with the purchaser. This is only after i've seen/verified their CCW(concealed carry permit) so I know that they are likely to be able to buy a gun in the first place.

 

As with everything else, personal responsibility is paramount.

[Dcrasta]

Oh you make those assassin weapons I see on 'The Jackel' ? Can it be remotely operated from the back of a mini-van? Whats the point of owning one, or owning a Tank? Sounds like someone is compensating for something

 

I doubt the 'founding fathers' envisioned 50 caliber guns that can fire 5rounds per second over a mile away, or 'TANKS' ...

 

A bit excessive I think.. but then again Arizona is kinda dangerous with all the wildlife and cacti. Have fun with your weapons.

Edited October 24, 2008 by Dcrasta

[JustPaus_88TSi]

A bit excessive I think.. but then again Arizona is kinda dangerous with all the wildlife and cacti. Have fun with your weapons.

 

 

I guess I would be justified in having automatic weapons if say, a team of 8 individuals dressed up entirely in Phoenix SWAT gear fired a couple hundred rounds(from fully auto M4's) into a house in an upscale neighborhood, killing the homeowner. Say, a couple in that group were former Mexican military.

 

 

Oh wait, that DID happen a couple months ago. Hmmn. You think home invasions don't happen here? LOL

[JustPaus_88TSi]

The founding fathers held the populace in a higher regard than everything else besides liberty itself. Do you think they invisioned a professional army? They despised the very idea.

 

We can use whatever implement that those who intend to harm us or our way of life can use. Period.

[PDX87Starion]

Owning firearms is a right, period.

Comparing the two goes beyond what you've outlined.

 

As with everything else, personal responsibility is paramount.

 

Right to bear "arms". I dont think the supreme court has defined "arms". Things that explode are considered "arms" but pipe bombs and bomb making materials are illegal so defining what exactly is a "right" according to the constitution is not so black and white once we get into military weapons and such, which is what the 1994 bill was addressing.

 

I just think there is a middle ground, and no candidate is coming for your hand guns, shot guns, and riffles like the NRA is always talking about.

[chiplee]

The primary purpose for the founding fathers adding the right to bear arms was so citizens could always protect themselves not from each other, but from a tyrannical government. The case is somewhat obvious from there that if we can't "match" the government's firepower, then we don't have the ability to protect ourselves that the constitution intended. You're not going to get that though, no matter how you look at it, you won't have the fire power, so self protection and protection from fellow citizens is the only reasonable goal at this point. In that sense I have to agree that the constitution has already been violated by allowing our military to grow so powerful. I consider it an element of modernization the founding fathers simply couldn't have anticipated though.

 

As far as ownership goes I'm just not very interested in guns. I own a few. I was the high shooter in my platoon at boot camp and as a prior infantryman I've shot just about everything in the USMC arsenal. I've won a couple other silly marksmanship awards along the way, skeet shooting in the boy scouts and such. Truth is actually that every time I've ever participated in a marksmanship event I've won 1st place, but that's not saying much since it wasn't competitive marksman I was up against, just amateurs like myself. Shooting well enough for self protection is just very easy in my opinion and I don't get much of a kick out of it. I don't like having a thing around that is so unforgiving of mistakes. I'm a 4th award rifle and pistol expert in the Marines and I don't really care if I ever qualify again. My badges are pretty as is.

 

I keep a loaded Remington model 870 next to the bed at night with 5 3in mags waiting for anyone who violates my personal space in my home without an invite. It makes me sleep better, and it's insurance against one day having to wish I would have had it there in hindsight. I don't know what more I would ever want or think reasonable to keep around.

Edited October 24, 2008 by chiplee

[JustPaus_88TSi]

Right to bear "arms". I dont think the supreme court has defined "arms". Things that explode are considered "arms" but pipe bombs and bomb making materials are illegal so defining what exactly is a "right" according to the constitution is not so black and white once we get into military weapons and such, which is what the 1994 bill was addressing.

 

I just think there is a middle ground, and no candidate is coming for your hand guns, shot guns, and riffles like the NRA is always talking about.

 

The 1994 bill limited magazine capacity for all semi-auto weapons(among other things like pistol grips and folding stocks), including rifles and hand guns. The 1986 bill made it so that only full auto weapons made and imported prior to that year were able to be legally owned. That's when $2000 rifles turned into $20,000 rifles.

 

 

I may have missed the part about explosive ordinances in this thread. I don't care one way or the other about having explosives, although I do have fun with "Tannerite"(which is legal) on occasion.

 

I don't belong, nor do I subscribe to the NRA viewpoints. I honestly don't pay enough attention to the NRA to even know what they say. lol I do however, look at gun-related voting records and just how "safe" the "gun free" areas like Chicago, NYC, D.C., L.A. and others really are. I mean, guns are "illegal" there right? So there can't be an gun related crimes to report.

 

 

What middle ground does there need to be? And for what purpose?

 

Background checks for regular guns and extensive background checks for NFA weapons.

 

If you get into a car accident and it wasn't your fault, the other person/insurance co. foots the bills.

 

If I kill/incapacitate someone who broke into my house and threatened the lives of me and/or my family, then that incident is found to be justifiable in the eyes of the law, I can still be sued by that person or their family even though i'm legally cleared. Talk about a needed middle-ground. lol

Edited October 24, 2008 by JustPaus_88TSi

[Dcrasta]

I guess I would be justified in having automatic weapons if say, a team of 8 individuals dressed up entirely in Phoenix SWAT gear fired a couple hundred rounds(from fully auto M4's) into a house in an upscale neighborhood, killing the homeowner. Say, a couple in that group were former Mexican military.

 

 

Oh wait, that DID happen a couple months ago. Hmmn. You think home invasions don't happen here? LOL

 

IF that happened and you didnt have a team with you and you were 1 person with as many guns as you want doubt you would have a chance dude unless you're Rambo. That sounds like more of a law enforcement issue. Maybe if less guns were on the streets and less Rambo's were walking around the police could focus on real things like stopping Teams dressed in swat gear invading homes and not cleaning up after some idiot arguing with his wife brandishing a gun gets shot. (oh that happened not far from here a while ago...)

 

IF less money was being blown stopping these saturday night special shootings more money could be spent cracking down on the Mexican drug trade

(Wait, I forgot , we trade guns to them for drugs, since the Reagan/ Oliver North years.. Right.. thats why guns are so important..)

[Shelby]

not sure how many elections most of you have been thru but it's the same thing every time, same storys , same lies , same empty promises , same loss of mem day after elect'd , same bussiness as usuall durring and after the election

 

names may change but thats about all same ol same ol continues

[chiplee]

not sure how many elections most of you have been thru but it's the same thing every time, same storys , same lies , same empty promises , same loss of mem day after elect'd , same bussiness as usuall durring and after the election

 

names may change but thats about all same ol same ol continues

 

when our collective ignorance stops requiring that of our elected officials I'll hold it against them. Until then, they do what they have to to get elected. No 100% honest politician would ever be elected by our mentally handicapped masses.

Edited October 24, 2008 by chiplee

[Edde]

when our collective ignorance stops requiring that of our elected officials I'll hold it against them. Until then, they do what they have to to get elected. No 100% honest politician would ever be elected by our mentally handicapped masses.

 

 

Touché

[Shelby]

then by your own admission why be concern'd with what is said about or by them durring the elections

 

 

it's actualy very funny to watch how upset people get over this crap lol,the world is in a new strange place , it has not figure'd out how to run elections with the internet and world wide info being available instantly to any and every one , info that is by no means true , infact theres more disinformation then true information available with almost no way to tell which is which

[chiplee]

then by your own admission why be concern'd with what is said about or by them durring the elections

 

 

it's actualy very funny to watch how upset people get over this crap lol,the world is in a new strange place , it has not figure'd out how to run elections with the internet and world wide info being available instantly to any and every one , info that is by no means true , infact theres more disinformation then true information available with almost no way to tell which is which

 

Well sure, but you've gotta' make judgments about who's at least endeavoring to be as honest as possible without risking the election. We truly are almost too dumb to be governed, but I think the same internet you cite as part of the problem is also elevating our collective awareness and in that way becoming part of the solution. We should have voter registration testing, not just voter registration. There are people who are too dumb for their opinion to be worthy of being expressed, but they're allowed to express it with their ignorant vote. The election was summed up on CNN last night as Obama vs Ignorance, vice Obama vs McCain. And that is the cold hard truth. Obama is no longer fighting to win over McCain. McCain is practically throwing the election if we have half a clue. The question now is "do we have half a clue?" I agree the net is part of the problem, and of course I agree there's a ton of bad info, but all in all, the internet is giving people access to both the good and the bad info, and if they care, they can tell the difference.

[JTSTARQUEST]

when our collective ignorance stops requiring that of our elected officials I'll hold it against them. Until then, they do what they have to to get elected. No 100% honest politician would ever be elected by our mentally handicapped masses.

 

Unfortunately, I don't think that will ever happen. The masses thoroughly enjoy their handicapped state.