A Black President??

[pigrider]

Well I guess neither party has anything to offer this term!

I actually agree with that statement. A lot of people are calling McCain, McSame. But you know something? I'll take more of the same as opposed to the potential abyss that Obama will likely plunge us into.

You got to be kidding??? Right?

[Twilight Flyer]

You got to be kidding??? Right?

Why would I be kidding?

Just because my thoughts don't mirror yours, doesn't make them wrong. It makes them my thoughts. You might try and learn the concept of freedom.

[Rev.Vassago]

You got to be kidding??? Right?

Why would I be kidding?

Just because my thoughts don't mirror yours, doesn't make them wrong.

While that is technically true, when your thoughts mirror mine, as they do in this instance, then it makes everyone else's thoughts wrong. :wink:

[homealone3]

[ironeagle_2006]

Take it from someone that lives in Obama land He will use RACE against anyone yt you call him out on it YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE KKK. His mentor in the IL State senate King Emil Jones as we call him last year got a salary of 150K and said that was not enough when the State of IL is 44 Billion in Debt with his and our Governor new spending. Alsoo King Emil killed a bill that would prevent anyone that gave over 25 grand either as a company or an person to a campaign form EVER being able to bid for a state contract statng this bill does not go far enoug. Excuse me this was right after Obama's friend and fundraiser and Blagos fundersaer Rezko was indicted fr doing that verything.

This Year Emil decided that he wuld not allow the vote that would stop the 10% payraise to come up giving him a 15 thousand dollar rtaise and also stopped a recall amendment that w3ould have allowed people to remove him from office.

[Orangetxguy]

Dang timers

[Orangetxguy]

Double L wrote:
Obama is an extreme Left wing Liberal, non constitutionalist, and will turn our country into a Socialist state or near Socialist....some have compared him to a Marxist.
The country is definitly ready for a Black President or a Women President. Just NOT Obama or Clinton.

How true, I wouldn't vote for Obama or Clinton for one issue. Gun Control. Obama and Clinton have long anti-gun records and quite frankly I'm one of those "bitter" people who clings to guns. aka I practice my constitutional right to bear arms. These two must never see the oval office if America still values it's civil liberties.

Which guns do you need? AK47? Mac-10? M-16?

I only own one, an FNH FNP-45 high capacity pistol. Though I do plan to acquire others in the future.

Iunderstand the 45 caliper & "highcapacity" portion...haven't a clue as to the [ FNH FNP ] part...and really don't care.
Are you one of those folks, who will insist that those are "sportsmen's" guns? If so.....

No, mine is for personal defense and target shooting. And since you have no clue and no business knowing what or why I LEGALLY OWN one I'll leave it at that.

Personal defense requires a "high capacity" magazine? Yeah I know...none of my business.
If you are a hunter...then why would you feel the need to own a gun meant for only one thing...mass murder?

I'm not a hunter, but try not to fall to far off that high horse when you get knocked down.

I wasn't aware that I was on a "high horse"...Exactly how many hands is it?? 8) 8)

I am a hunter...a .270, a 30.06, a .7mm, a .303, or even a 22-250 work great for long shot's. I like a 357 with a 9" barrel, as a pistol...Ruger Blackhawk. Am I concerned that any or all of those guns will be "outlawed"?? No.

Then you haven't been seeing what's been going on in Europe, Australia or Canada.

You right...I am not aware of what is happening in any of those countries. Then again..It's none of my business...I am not a citizen of any one of those countries, I am a citizen of the United States of America.

As for the rest..give em back to the military....which was what their original intent was.

No thanks, I have a right to own firearms. While I respect those who do not choose to exercise that right, do not presume to tell me what I will or will not do with my own property.

Ok..so you miscontrued the meaning of my statement. Give the AK47's, the Mac-10's and the M16's, back to the military.

And if your argument is that you need one of those "Killer" guns for self-protection....I would ask...Why?

First of all guns are "killer" guns, that is their purpose, It is the user who kills with guns. It is you who must load the magazine. It is you how must insert the magazine into the weapon. It is you who must chamber the round. And it is you who must pull the trigger.

Did I imply in some form that I feel any of the caliber of gun which I listed was not capable of killing a human? If so...my bad.
I believe in the individual's right to keep and bear arms.....but I don't believe that any individual needs to keep an arsenal that includes fully automatic weapons that are designed specificly for killing "Human" prey.

As others have stated there are very strict regulation regarding the sale of automatic weapons and the regulations regarding sale of other firearms are still pretty tight as well.

What is not so clearly stated, is that the "single shot version" of the AK47, the Mac-10 and the m16, are easily converted to "Full Automatic", by a child no less. Of course...why would any gun enthusiast mention something like that?

If you want to proclaim yourself a "collector"...then...collect guns worth collecting...say...a Sharps .50 caliber...1872 model...or a Colt .45 caliber..1860 model. I have a best friend...whom has the rifles and pistols that his great-great-great grandparents carried, when they migrated from New England to Montana....in 1823. Shotting an original "black powder" gun is an incredible experience. Far better than a "reproduction" model...and by the way....the "original" black powder weapons, are what the Constitution allows you to "keep & bear".
I seriously doubt that the fine men, whom wrote that important document, ever dreamed that one day there would be guns that a man could hold in his hand...and use to kill 100 people in seconds, instead of in days. I'm just not buying that argument.

If they could dream of what would be capable now is irrelevant. They made that amendment for the benefit of personal defense. Just look at history as others have demonstrated to see what happens when a populace is disarmed and when they are allowed to keep arms.

Ok...on that argument then, I do not want to own an AK47, a Mac-10, nor a M16, fully automatic or not. I want an M1-Abrahams and an Apache attack helicopter. If I'm seeking personal protection, why settle for less than the best. I am fully capable of learning to operate both safely and skillfully, thank you very much.
As pertains to "fully automatic" weapons however, one well aimed shot, from a "single shot" weapon, will put down the "mad man with a gun". I am an excellent shot. I received my training not from the military, but from my oldest brother, whom was an above excellent marksman while in the military, (he was a sniper during Vietnam and after as well), and from the "Gun Safety" instructor at the high school I attended in Montana. Both taught not only myself, but my 3 other brothers and all of our friends, the proper use of weapons.

As for having weapons on hand, to beat down a rebellion by our military....give me a break...not gonna happen.

Probably not, but just remember that if someone tries to usurp the 2nd amendment, the Military will not help them enforce it. They swore an oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.

No argument there..I for one do not believe, nor have I ever believed, that the military would follow corrupt orders, to bring arms to bear, against citizens of the United States, on American soil.

On the orginal posted question....Obama would be a better choice (in my opinion) than McClain..and Hillary would be a better choice than Obama (again..in my opinion).

Is the country, as a whole prepared to elect and support a "black" president? If it isn't now......then it won't ever be.

Is Obama ready to run this country? I seriously do not know. Given the comments I hear from so many "African-Americans" and what they expect him to do for them...I would say no.

On that statement...I have had "African-Americans" in Philadelphia PA, Columbus OH, Atlanta GA and Houston TX, (just to list a few cities), tell me several times, that ""Once Obama is President, THEY will get some of their own back"". What is owed to them. I have not ever, heard statemnets like that from black americans (and I have several "black americans" as neighbors right now), just from "African-Americans". One term is "racist & separatist" while the other is not. Black americans are usually very adamnt about the difference.

[Orangetxguy]

[quote="JeffTheTerrible"]

Which guns do you need? AK47? Mac-10? M-16?

Oh, hell.. another one of these, "[MY guns are benign, but YOURS are horrible" types
Did I imply that single shot guns won't kill a human in my statement?

30.06

The 7.62x63 (.30-06) cartridge was designed for the military after the Spanish-American war proved the 7x57 Mauser cartridge to be far superior to the .30 Krag cartridge in US service service that the time. Therefore, your "harmless" .30-06 was designed for the exact same purpose as all these 'evil' cartridges you speak of.

Yes,,,but again...as a single shot carbine, with a bolt action, it is less dangerous than the AK47, Mac-10 or M16, which even a child can convert to "fully automatic"..which nobody seems to want to acknowledge.

.303

Another military cartridge, and one which can be commonly found in use as a military caliber in much of the world, particularly in Commonwealth nations and former British colonies. And, as far as I can recall, no commercial rifles were ever manufactured for this cartridge, so I'm guessing you fire it with either a SMLE or P14 Enfield rifle (unless you're a Class III collector, in which case you might have a Vickers-Maxim, BREN, or Vickers-Berthier, although I doubt this, given your "sky is falling" statements earlier in your post). So, not only a military cartridge, but a military rifle, as well, designed for the military. So, if you expect me to return any of my weapons to the military, then you can lead the way by turning your Enfield(s) in to the Ministry of Defence.

SEE ABOVE

357

Another cartridge designed for use against people, developed when police officers complained that the .38 Special was ineffective.

As for the rest..give em back to the military....which was what their original intent was.

Aside from some old C&R rifles (the type you find so benign), none of the guns I own ever belonged to any military force in the first place. And you may be aware that military rifles and civilian semi-automatics do not have the same method of operation - one firing mode, as opposed to two or three found on a military rifle.

And if your argument is that you need one of those "Killer" guns for self-protection....I would ask...Why?[/quote]

Are you questioning the need for self-protection in general? If so, perhaps you should live in the project neighbourhood in Durham where I had the 'pleasure' of residing from 02 - 03.
If you're referring to weapons types, then come off of your high horse, because nothing you own is any less capable of killing a person than anything anyone else owns.

but I don't believe that any individual needs to keep an arsenal that includes fully automatic weapons that are designed specificly for killing "Human" prey.

First off, the sale of selective fire weapons to the general public was banned in 1934.. to own a full auto weapon now, you need a Class III license. Second off, as for the 'killing human prey' bit, read above. Most firearms were originally developed as, or were further developed from, weapons designed for the military. Any bolt action rifle you possess uses a bolt action derived from a military design. So stop this bull**** about how your guns were designed for hunters and ours were designed for massacres at the local orphanage

Again....see above.

the "original" black powder weapons, are what the Constitution allows you to "keep & bear".

Really? Because I read "arms". I don't recall any clause saying only a rifle manufactured before June of 1794 is benign, whereas any rifle manufactured after that date is prohibited, unless it has a certain number of US made parts, or anything of that sort.

I seriously doubt that the fine men, whom wrote that important document, ever dreamed that one day there would be guns that a man could hold in his hand...and use to kill 100 people in seconds, instead of in days. I'm just not buying that argument.

Hundreds of people in seconds? A bit overzealous, wouldn't you say?
Considering the nature of the people who wrote the Bill of Rights (the actual document which the Second Amendment is featured on, not the Constitution), the people who wrote it were well-educated individuals, who certainly could have been expected to have the foresight to realise that technological advancements were going to be made in future years. If you want to answer the question of how far they expected those advances to come, you'll have to hold a seance and raise their spirits from the grave.

Hmmmm...Yes...perhaps I was overzealous, with "hundreds of people in seconds" statement. But then.....for personal protection...isn't an AK47 just as "overzealous"?? I say again...one single shot, well aimed, will put down the "mad man with a gun". I aim very very well...thank you. As for what the writers of the Consitution had in mind....seance or not...I seriously doubt that any of them, including Ben Franklin, ever dreamed that we would one day have nuclear weapons, which would kill every living thing and destroy every building within miles of it's explosion. Or submarines that would have no need to surface from beneath the sea, for month's at a time, with the capacity to kill entire nations, or aircraft that would fly faster than the speed of sound, or ships that could not only carry dozens of those aircraft, but have the ability to allow those same aircraft to take flight, from the surface of the sea's, while housing thousands of "foot soldiers" as well.

That being said, as for the candidates, I really don't know. I can't vote in this election, so it really makes no difference for me. The plummeting economy, devaluation of the Dollar, rise in oil costs, and the questionable and controversial nature of the usage of companies such as Blackwater International - not only in combat zones, but in New Orleans, as well - most certainly does not shed a good light on the Republicans. But then, what do the Democrats really have going for them?All of their 'solutions' seem to amount to mere scapegoating and finger pointing, to find an easy out, rather than to undergo the arduous task of finding real solutions which deliver real results to real problems. What next? Will they ban hood ornaments on cars, and expect it to solve problems with traffic congestion?

Why can't you vote? Or is it that you simply choose NOT to vote?

As for Obama playing the race card, I would have to question that. The black population seemed to be more behind Clinton than Obama, and some organizations even seemed to denounce Obama, such as the statement from NAACP leaders that "Bill Clinton is every bit as black as Barak Obama", and so forth.

If that is true, then Hillary would not have been beaten by Obama. Yes, the older black americans...over 40... supported Hillary. Obama receives the majority of his support from people 18 to 35. Woud Hillary have lasted as long in the primary as she did, without the "Rush Factor"? I don't know...but it would have been nice to find out.

But I really hate discussing politics here, because it's been my experience that people expect to win debates simply by crying out "socialist", "fascist", "nazi", or some other crap (whom here is crying like that??), rather than to actually take the time to learn something about the political process, and form an opinion based on actual fact (actual fact has become a bit of a misnomer don't you think??), rather than false assumptions about political systems they lack even a basic understanding of. You express a desire for cleaner air and water, and you're suddenly a socialist. You say you want illegals deported, and you're suddenly a fascist. I can't remember who it was on this forum, but he doesn't post here anymore.. he used to always bitch and complain that everything was somehow socialist. If you drove a fuel efficient car, it was a "socialist mobile", and a bunch of other crap. Oh, yeah, and he had this bizarre idea that he understood politics simply because he had served in the military - another bizarre phenomenon I've never seen elsewhere. "Well, I've never studied politics in my life, and I still incorrectly refer to America as a Democracy, but I did four years in the military, so I'm well qualified to comment on the political situation of countries I've never even heard of"

[JeffTheTerrible]

Did I imply that single shot guns won't kill a human in my statement?

No, but you seemed to imply that they were designed for so something so benevolent, whereas they were actually defined for the exact same role.

Yes,,,but again...as a single shot carbine, with a bolt action, it is less dangerous than the AK47, Mac-10 or M16, which even a child can convert to "fully automatic"..which nobody seems to want to acknowledge.

A bolt action rifle in the hands of someone with malice as their intent is infinitely more dangerous than even a belt fed machine gun in the hands of someone whose intent is not malicious.
As for conversion to full auto, and a child being able to do it, please show me one who can. I've built up several rifles from parts kits, and that requires knowledge of machine tool operation well beyond what a child would have to disassemble the weapon (beyond what you'd disassemble it for simple cleaning), installation of an auto sear, and the strengthening of components to withstand the additional pressures of fully automatic fire.
Also, you greatly overrate the capabilities of automatic weapons, which were designed for a suppressive role in support of riflemen. You get into a confrontation on your own with an automatic weapon, all you're going to accomplish is to burn through your ammo supply, deprive yourself of the capability to produce accurate aimed fire, and simply make people more hell bent on getting you. At this point, you'll probably refer to North Hollywood, even though it was actually their body armour, and not their weapons, which prolonged the fight.. the police hit both of those men several times within the first few seconds of the confrontation, and that would've been the end of it, if their armour had not deflected the pistol cartridges and shotshells fired at them.

Hmmmm...Yes...perhaps I was overzealous, with "hundreds of people in seconds" statement. But then.....for personal protection...isn't an AK47 just as "overzealous"??

No more so than any other firearm you'd use. So it looks a bit more intimidating. Probably a good thing on behalf of the person using it to defend themselves with. Would it be my first choice? No. But, it works the same way as anything else in my cabinet.. I pull the trigger, one round is fired.

I say again...one single shot, well aimed, will put down the "mad man with a gun". I aim very very well...thank you.

You aim very well at the range. Have you ever fired as a response to a direct threat on your life and well being, though? The two scenarios are much, much different. You're not under any real stress at the range, and it's much easier to remain calm. And, even if you haven't been in a life or death scenario, I'm sure you've been in a fight, or at least have been in a situation where the "fight or flight" response kicks in, adrenaline starts to flow, and your motor skills, stability of your hands, and such are affected as a result of it. So, yes, you could very well miss your first shot.

As for what the writers of the Consitution had in mind....seance or not...I seriously doubt that any of them, including Ben Franklin, ever dreamed that we would one day have nuclear weapons, which would kill every living thing and destroy every building within miles of it's explosion. Or submarines that would have no need to surface from beneath the sea, for month's at a time, with the capacity to kill entire nations, or aircraft that would fly faster than the speed of sound, or ships that could not only carry dozens of those aircraft, but have the ability to allow those same aircraft to take flight, from the surface of the sea's, while housing thousands of "foot soldiers" as well.

Nuclear weapons are quite different from firearms, but your point is made. However, they probably realized that technology would advance, and they could probably even predict it to some degree. After all, attempts to make a successful repeating rifle were pursued in the 1600s, so I'm sure they figured that these attempts would one day be successful.
Nuclear weapons, aircraft carriers, ballistic missile submarines... yes, those probably were well beyond the limits of their imagination (although one of the first rudimentary submarines did see service - although unsuccessful - during the American Revolution, so the concept of undersea warfare wasn't entirely beyond imagination).

Why can't you vote? Or is it that you simply choose NOT to vote?

I'm not an American citizen. Therefore, I cannot vote. Even if I applied for citizenship today, it's highly unlikely that this would be done before the election came to pass.

If that is true, then Hillary would not have been beaten by Obama. Yes, the older black americans...over 40... supported Hillary. Obama receives the majority of his support from people 18 to 35. Woud Hillary have lasted as long in the primary as she did, without the "Rush Factor"? I don't know...but it would have been nice to find out.

It's all speculative, but the impression I got from the black community as a whole was that they were more behind Clinton, while the 18 to 35 range shown to support Obama tends to be a bit more all-encompassing of the general population, though it shouldn't be surprising that people in that specific age range were behind Obama, who comes across as much more 'hip' and charismatic than Clinton. But, it's all a matter of speculation, really, and there are countless scenarios whose outcomes would have been interesting to see.

(whom here is crying like that??),

Do a quick search for the words "socialist", "communist", "socialism", "communism", "fascism", and "fascist" on more or less any forum you post on, and see what the results turn up. The primary 'offender', as it were, which I had in mind seems to have ceased posting on here. However, either way, I'd still refrain from listing names, simply for the sake of not wanting to see the whole degenerate into a mud slinging match (unless it amounts to two females wrestling in a mud pit, in which case, I could drop my inhibitions).

(actual fact has become a bit of a misnomer don't you think??)

Yes and no. Facts tend to be a bit distorted at times, but that doesn't make them nonexistent. It just means more [bull manure] to sift through before you get to them.
However, I see a lot of misconceptions regarding the affiliations of people which are based on their views on a certain matter that has absolutely nothing to do with the political system they find themselves suddenly being accused of being affiliated with, and that indicates to me someone who wants to get involved in a debate/discussion, but doesn't actually want to contribute anything, instead preferring to resort to baseless assumptions which are often utterly false. For instance, the aforementioned reference to fuel efficient cars as "Socialist mobiles", and so forth.

[Orangetxguy]

[quote="JeffTheTerrible"]

Also, you greatly overrate the capabilities of automatic weapons, which were designed for a suppressive role in support of riflemen. You get into a confrontation on your own with an automatic weapon, all you're going to accomplish is to burn through your ammo supply, deprive yourself of the capability to produce accurate aimed fire, and simply make people more hell bent on getting you. At this point, you'll probably refer to North Hollywood, even though it was actually their body armour, and not their weapons, which prolonged the fight.. the police hit both of those men several times within the first few seconds of the confrontation, and that would've been the end of it, if their armour had not deflected the pistol cartridges and shotshells fired at them.

That portion of your statement? That right there negates any argument for allowing the sale of weapons such as the AK47, Mac-10 or M16. The simple statement, that the weapons themselves waste ammuntion more than they help a situation, speaks volumes.
As for the all to infamous "North Hollywood" fire fight...yes...the thugs made themselves famous, by wearing the body armor in the manor in which they did. As to the LAPD...well..I thought they were pretty damn silly in the manner in which they themselves responded to the "thugs". I sure as heck would not have waited as long as LAPD did, to take head shots, and negate the body armor. But..that is me.

Hmmmm...Yes...perhaps I was overzealous, with "hundreds of people in seconds" statement. But then.....for personal protection...isn't an AK47 just as "overzealous"??

No more so than any other firearm you'd use. So it looks a bit more intimidating. Probably a good thing on behalf of the person using it to defend themselves with. Would it be my first choice? No. But, it works the same way as anything else in my cabinet.. I pull the trigger, one round is fired.

If the entire purpose for possession of a firearm, is "self protection", what is the purpose of "intimidation"?? If "I" am going to protect myself...I am not interested in intimidating anyone. If I need to fire a weapon in self defense, I am not going to be firing a warning shot into the ground, the air, or a wall...I am firing that first shot, at whomever I am defending myself against. I do not need a weapon such as an AK47 to "intimidate".

I say again...one single shot, well aimed, will put down the "mad man with a gun". I aim very very well...thank you.

You aim very well at the range. Have you ever fired as a response to a direct threat on your life and well being, though? The two scenarios are much, much different. You're not under any real stress at the range, and it's much easier to remain calm. And, even if you haven't been in a life or death scenario, I'm sure you've been in a fight, or at least have been in a situation where the "fight or flight" response kicks in, adrenaline starts to flow, and your motor skills, stability of your hands, and such are affected as a result of it. So, yes, you could very well miss your first shot.

Actually...I have very limited experience at a "firing range". Our target practice took place behind the barn, on the place back home. When I have fired a gun, I was shooting at an animal. Usually a Blacktail deer or an Elk for table meat, or "plinking" gophers in the hay fields.
I have never fired at a human being. Would I get nervous, when it comes to needing to shoot a firearm at another person? No..not if the other person is firing or attempting to fire, a weapon at me. I am not a guy whom gets overly excited. I have seen men get their hands and forearms ripped off by pto's on farm equipment, and did not gag..run and hide, or faint. I stepped right in and began attempting to stop the loose of blood. The same was true when I worked in the oilfields. I'm not the nervous type. Maybe that is why I handle HazMat so well.
I have defended myself, several times. Again..my brother taught me a bit of the self defense manuevers that he was taught in the Marines. My father, being a merchant seaman, taught all of us that there was only one way to fight..."To win". There was no.."give em a chance". So...by the time I was 14..I knew how to break a mans nose...with an open palm. I also know that the fastest way to end a "Mano-A-Mano" conflict is to strike tender areas..that have nothing to do with the groin.

As for what the writers of the Consitution had in mind....seance or not...I seriously doubt that any of them, including Ben Franklin, ever dreamed that we would one day have nuclear weapons, which would kill every living thing and destroy every building within miles of it's explosion. Or submarines that would have no need to surface from beneath the sea, for month's at a time, with the capacity to kill entire nations, or aircraft that would fly faster than the speed of sound, or ships that could not only carry dozens of those aircraft, but have the ability to allow those same aircraft to take flight, from the surface of the sea's, while housing thousands of "foot soldiers" as well.

Nuclear weapons are quite different from firearms, but your point is made. However, they probably realized that technology would advance, and they could probably even predict it to some degree. After all, attempts to make a successful repeating rifle were pursued in the 1600s, so I'm sure they figured that these attempts would one day be successful.
Nuclear weapons, aircraft carriers, ballistic missile submarines... yes, those probably were well beyond the limits of their imagination (although one of the first rudimentary submarines did see service - although unsuccessful - during the American Revolution, so the concept of undersea warfare wasn't entirely beyond imagination).

Why can't you vote? Or is it that you simply choose NOT to vote?

I'm not an American citizen. Therefore, I cannot vote. Even if I applied for citizenship today, it's highly unlikely that this would be done before the election came to pass.

Now...Jeff..you come across as a very intelligent guy. You make great arguments, without being snide. However...that statement right there, took you out of this particular fight. Yes..you have every right to express your opinion..and you do that quite well. But..you really don't have a dog in the fight. Go take the test...swear the Oath...then go get yourself elected. You can go as high up as US Senator, as a "naturalized" citizen, if you so choose.

Now...if you Jeff...have served a full term of duty, as a serviceman, in any one of the United States Armed Forces, and have the paperwork to show proof...speak up...you have earned the right to full citizenship...and more than a few people should be willing to help get you there! I know I am willing to...for any man or woman whom is a foreign national, that has served in our services. It is my belief that anyone whom serves, has earned the right of Citizenship.

If that is true, then Hillary would not have been beaten by Obama. Yes, the older black americans...over 40... supported Hillary. Obama receives the majority of his support from people 18 to 35. Woud Hillary have lasted as long in the primary as she did, without the "Rush Factor"? I don't know...but it would have been nice to find out.

It's all speculative, but the impression I got from the black community as a whole was that they were more behind Clinton, while the 18 to 35 range shown to support Obama tends to be a bit more all-encompassing of the general population, though it shouldn't be surprising that people in that specific age range were behind Obama, who comes across as much more 'hip' and charismatic than Clinton. But, it's all a matter of speculation, really, and there are countless scenarios whose outcomes would have been interesting to see.

(whom here is crying like that??),

Do a quick search for the words "socialist", "communist", "socialism", "communism", "fascism", and "fascist" on more or less any forum you post on, and see what the results turn up. The primary 'offender', as it were, which I had in mind seems to have ceased posting on here. However, either way, I'd still refrain from listing names, simply for the sake of not wanting to see the whole degenerate into a mud slinging match (unless it amounts to two females wrestling in a mud pit, in which case, I could drop my inhibitions).

(actual fact has become a bit of a misnomer don't you think??)

Yes and no. Facts tend to be a bit distorted at times, but that doesn't make them nonexistent. It just means more [bull manure] to sift through before you get to them.
However, I see a lot of misconceptions regarding the affiliations of people which are based on their views on a certain matter that has absolutely nothing to do with the political system they find themselves suddenly being accused of being affiliated with, and that indicates to me someone who wants to get involved in a debate/discussion, but doesn't actually want to contribute anything, instead preferring to resort to baseless assumptions which are often utterly false. For instance, the aforementioned reference to fuel efficient cars as "Socialist mobiles", and so forth.

While I see nothing wrong with the "fuel effcient" concept...I have a big problem with the "bio-fuel" concept. I am weel aware of what it takes to manufacture "Bio-fuel" and the largest section of the population, which is jumping up and down over such fuels, are failing to mention what effect producing "Bio-fuel" has on not only the economy...but the ecological system as well. Bio-fuel is just one more farce, that consumes massive amounts of food grade products, petroleum products, and electricity, to produce. But "Johnny Do-good" does want that brought up. Johnny is not willing to admit the economic cost of the production of the fuel. By using farmlands for raising soybeans, corn, sugar beets, sugar can, rice, peanuts, and the various other plants that are used in "Bio" production, acrage for food productuion is lost..there by driving up the shelf price of food...while the farm reaps "Zero" in reward. There are a handful of petroleum based products that go into bio-diesel, as well as into ethanol, to boost them up to "burnable" octane levels...just so they can be used in gasoline or diesel engines....but "Johnny" doesn't want to talk about all that.

Ok..my rant is over.

[JeffTheTerrible]

That portion of your statement? That right there negates any argument for allowing the sale of weapons such as the AK47, Mac-10 or M16. The simple statement, that the weapons themselves waste ammuntion more than they help a situation, speaks volumes.

But the AK47, M16, and MAC10 were effectively banned before they were ever designed, when, in 1934, the sale of automatic weapons to the general public was outlawed, and the Class III licensing system was implemented. If someone wants to go through the motions of obtaining a Class III license, paying the hefty costs to purchase a weapon which can legally be transferred, and so forth, I really don't see much problem with it. How many instances of legally owned Class III weapons being used in a crime are there? Offhand, I can only recount the one instance, where it was used by the police officer to whom it was issued. In semi automatic form, how are they really different from any other rifle? I had a similar discussion.. maybe two years ago? I brought an AR15 clone to the firing range (I say clone, because it's not manufactured by or under license from Colt, so, it can't be a true AR15). One of the firers there derided me for owning it, yet, he was there with a Mini 14. Now, interestingly, the AR15 was included in the 1994 ban by name, whereas the Mini 14 was exempted by name. What's the difference between the two rifles? They're both gas operated semi automatics which fire the same cartridge and are fed from a magazine. Aside from the Mini 14 having a more robust gas system, the only real difference is cosmetics, and perhaps the AR having tighter tolerances (I use it for IPSC competition).

As for the all to infamous "North Hollywood" fire fight...yes...the thugs made themselves famous, by wearing the body armor in the manor in which they did. As to the LAPD...well..I thought they were pretty damn silly in the manner in which they themselves responded to the "thugs". I sure as heck would not have waited as long as LAPD did, to take head shots, and negate the body armor. But..that is me.

Yeah, there was a lot of foolishness involved in that episode, but bear in mind that typical patrol cars weren't loaded with sniping weapons, rifles, and the like. It took time for SWAT to get there.

If the entire purpose for possession of a firearm, is "self protection", what is the purpose of "intimidation"?? If "I" am going to protect myself...I am not interested in intimidating anyone. If I need to fire a weapon in self defense, I am not going to be firing a warning shot into the ground, the air, or a wall...I am firing that first shot, at whomever I am defending myself against. I do not need a weapon such as an AK47 to "intimidate".

Namely, to avoid the situation from escalating to the point where you have to use it. I would shoot someone if necessary for my defence, but would I really want to? If they think they're overwhelmed from the start, and run out with their tails between their legs, that's just fine with me.

Actually...I have very limited experience at a "firing range". Our target practice took place behind the barn, on the place back home. When I have fired a gun, I was shooting at an animal. Usually a Blacktail deer or an Elk for table meat, or "plinking" gophers in the hay fields.

Your posts are always so colourful. I'm getting quite envious here.
You make me think back to my childhood days, when my grandfather would take me shooting with him. He had an old Mosin Nagant and an AVS36 that he had personally captured during the Winter War, and kept as souvenirs. Dammit, now you're making me get sentimental.

I have never fired at a human being. Would I get nervous, when it comes to needing to shoot a firearm at another person? No..not if the other person is firing or attempting to fire, a weapon at me. I am not a guy whom gets overly excited. I have seen men get their hands and forearms ripped off by pto's on farm equipment, and did not gag..run and hide, or faint. I stepped right in and began attempting to stop the loose of blood. The same was true when I worked in the oilfields. I'm not the nervous type. Maybe that is why I handle HazMat so well.

Can you really say that with any degree of certainty, though? Seeing someone mangled and having someone actually try to take your life are two very different things. Dealing with blood isn't a problem for me, having both an inner city paramedic and a combat medic. But I still got nervous all the same whenever my unit got involved in firefights. Mind you, I still did my job, but it was a lot more difficult to do under stress.
On the subject of oil fields, did you catch that documentary series on... TruTV (formerly Court TV).. I think it was?.. about the Texas oil field workers?

I have defended myself, several times. Again..my brother taught me a bit of the self defense manuevers that he was taught in the Marines. My father, being a merchant seaman, taught all of us that there was only one way to fight..."To win". There was no.."give em a chance". So...by the time I was 14..I knew how to break a mans nose...with an open palm. I also know that the fastest way to end a "Mano-A-Mano" conflict is to strike tender areas..that have nothing to do with the groin.

Yes, I've never understood these people who consider fights to be a showboating event. If you're going to fight someone, fight them. Don't get yourself caught up in trying to show off. The groin is fair game, as far as I'm concerned. I'd try to hit them in the groin itself, mind you, rather than going for the jewels. But, all that aside, you know what firsthand how it feels when you go into "fight or flight" mode.

Now...Jeff..you come across as a very intelligent guy. You make great arguments, without being snide. However...that statement right there, took you out of this particular fight. Yes..you have every right to express your opinion..and you do that quite well. But..you really don't have a dog in the fight. Go take the test...swear the Oath...then go get yourself elected. You can go as high up as US Senator, as a "naturalized" citizen, if you so choose.

Out of the main event, perhaps, but not necessarily out of the discussion. As for why I haven't done it, you have to understand that I am at a bit of a dilemma here. On one hand, I am here. I have been here for a fairly decent amount of time, have become Americanised in many ways, and have more or less settled into life here. I've shed blood for this country. On the other hand, my family is not here. My relatives here are so distantly related to me, I couldn't even describe to you what the exact relation is to me. And I know it may seem a bit ridiculous, but I'm stuck at a point of indecision in my life at the moment.

Now...if you Jeff...have served a full term of duty, as a serviceman, in any one of the United States Armed Forces, and have the paperwork to show proof...speak up...you have earned the right to full citizenship...and more than a few people should be willing to help get you there! I know I am willing to...for any man or woman whom is a foreign national, that has served in our services. It is my belief that anyone whom serves, has earned the right of Citizenship.

I have almost eight years of service - four on active duty, and almost four in the Reserve (13 months of which were spent being reassigned to the Regular Army as an active member). It would be ten, but I had a two year break in service. I've done a tour in Afghanistan, and a tour in Iraq, leaving the latter with a Purple Heart pinned to me, and a slight bit of weight loss. There's actually a doctor at the VA who seems to have made it his mission to convince me just to go ahead and go for it, but, like I said already, there are other factors which come into play, and I just need more time to weigh everything out.

While I see nothing wrong with the "fuel effcient" concept...I have a big problem with the "bio-fuel" concept. I am weel aware of what it takes to manufacture "Bio-fuel" and the largest section of the population, which is jumping up and down over such fuels, are failing to mention what effect producing "Bio-fuel" has on not only the economy...but the ecological system as well. Bio-fuel is just one more farce, that consumes massive amounts of food grade products, petroleum products, and electricity, to produce. But "Johnny Do-good" does want that brought up. Johnny is not willing to admit the economic cost of the production of the fuel. By using farmlands for raising soybeans, corn, sugar beets, sugar can, rice, peanuts, and the various other plants that are used in "Bio" production, acrage for food productuion is lost..there by driving up the shelf price of food...while the farm reaps "Zero" in reward. There are a handful of petroleum based products that go into bio-diesel, as well as into ethanol, to boost them up to "burnable" octane levels...just so they can be used in gasoline or diesel engines....but "Johnny" doesn't want to talk about all that.

I agree about the bio-fuels being a load of crap. I'm really surprised that the hype has been allowed to continue for as long as it has, considering how people always seem to be looking for faults. I figured they hype would've been smashed a long time ago, considering how apparent the faults of these fuels are. But, some people need so desperately to believe in something, they'll just latch onto anything which conveniently passes by, I suppose.