Anything And Everything - A Black President??

Is the United State mature enough to either elect or not elect a black man on issues alone and not race!!

I am sure there will be alot of blacks that will vote for Barack because he is black and on the flip side there will be alot of whites that will not vote for him because he is black!

Or is John McCain just a better choice?

I don't care if someone is purple with pink pokadots, as long as they do something to get this country turned around. Anyone who will vote for someone based on race is a fool!!!

Bush has done a fine job running this country into the ground and whomever takes over has one heck of a challenge and headache ahead of them. Why on earth someone would want the job is beyond me.

Honestly I don't know, I'd much rather have Obama as President cause McCain is talking about staying in Iraq for like 5-10 more years and I'm against that 100%! Don't get me wrong would McCain make a good President? Sure he may but I think Obama will do more to make America what it use to be and once was. In my opinion Obama reminds of alot like JFK and Lincoln but race shouldn't have a damn thing to do with people's decision on voting but that is the way things are so just got to get use to it! But I'm sure he'll win the White House cause I think America is ready for change even if they have to vote for Obama!

My ex was gonna vote for hillary just cuz she is a woman.

Bush has done a fine job running this country into the ground and whomever takes over has one heck of a challenge and headache ahead of them.

That's why we "voted change" two years ago. Look at what it's gotten us. Why on earth Obama decided on using "Change" as a slogan is beyond me. I guess he is counting on the American voting public to have a 15 second attention span.

Personally, I'm still waiting for the Democrats to fulfill their 2006 promise to fix the fuel prices. I guess when they said they would "fix the fuel prices", they meant they would let them double in two years and sit idly by and do nothing.

Double L wrote:
I'd much rather have Obama as President cause McCain is talking about staying in Iraq for like 5-10 more years and I'm against that 100%!
Double L do not get McCain wrong in his intention. When the war in Iraq is won it is his intention to remain in Iraq as a presense, much like our presence in Japan/Germany etc. The time frames that he was mentioning was not in war or conflict.

Sure he may but I think Obama will do more to make America what it use to be and once was. In my opinion Obama reminds of alot like JFK and Lincoln
Obama reminds me nothing of JFK or Lincoln. JFK by todays standards would be a moderate Democrat or he would have changed parties as a Moderate Republican. Lincoln was a Republican. But...Obama reminds me much more like Carter. Argueably the worst President in United States history. 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.
McCain is not necessarily the best choice as President either, but what do we have.
Both the Republican and Democrat Parties have strayed so far from their core principles they resemble nothing of what they once were.

But I'm sure he'll win the White House cause I think America is ready for change even if they have to vote for Obama!
What is Obama expecting to change the country into? (possible reitorical question)

I agree that this country needs change, however how can someone with NO experience pull that off?

Obama has been campaigning for President since he was elected to the Senate. His voting record is almost non-existent. And this is his 1st term as a senator. I don't know who is backing him as the poster child for change, but it has nothing to do with his experience. He has no experience and no real platform.

First of all the war in Iraq cannot be won no matter how long or short we stay there. They HATE AMERICA and as long as we are ther they will fight. My son just recently got out of the Marines (2 tours over there) and just based on comunicating with him for 14 months while he was there my opinion is we see enough good propaganda on american tv that to keep us happy. But here in the states the media is handcuffed and cant show the bad. Talk to those that have been there. Dont get me wrong the war has improved things for some Iraqi people(schools , buisnesses and the like) but politically they will never live with a full democratic government That said McCain may very well make a good president in my opinion, but he a Republican and look what they have done to this country. Democrats want to make money just like the republicans but they want everyone to make money, republicans are all about the rich getting richer. The sad thing is McCain will win because this is the United States and theres no way a black man or a woman or both on the same ticket will be elected and thats sad because it will be soley based on the color of his skin. I will vote for Obama because i think we need the changes he talks about. Just a thought , Be safe BJS

My issue is not black or white, man or woman, nor young or old!

But can my house hold or my country continue to substain in the direction that we are headed!

Obama might be a young senator but McCain has admitted that the economy is not his strong point! He is a military man that has old ideals!

A grumpy old man that wants to fight the world on our dime and hard work!!!

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.

I think Obmam uses the race card, just like others have done in the past. He uses it to his advantage, when necessary. And him saying that attacks on his wife are off limits. Oh,please!!! Then get out of politics. :roll:

“For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country,” she told a Milwaukee crowd today, “because it feels like hope is making a comeback.”

That's a great thing for a "future first lady" to say. And if she becomes the first lady, all of a sudden she'll start saying how great this country is. Our country's leaders are suppose to set examples for us and for those around the world. What are these two saying about our country?

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?

Are you one of those folks, who will insist that those are "sportsmen's" guns? If so..... :roll: :roll: :roll:

If you are a hunter...then why would you feel the need to own a gun meant for only one thing...mass murder?

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 "otlawed"?? No.

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

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


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.

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.

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

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.

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?

Are you one of those folks, who will insist that those are "sportsmen's" guns? If so..... :roll: :roll: :roll:

If you are a hunter...then why would you feel the need to own a gun meant for only one thing...mass murder?

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 "otlawed"?? No.

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

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


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.

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.

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

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.

With a statement like that "Given the comments I hear from so many "African Americans" and what they expect him to do for them" I doubt that you really even know and black americans!

All the blacks that I know, want the same thing most other Americans want (As a Nation for us to go in a different direction)!

Let's try something new and refreshing! We have had eight years of old grumpy men running the country, I sure hope we do have four more!

Let's give some new refreshing/young ideals a try!!

Let's try something new and refreshing! We have had eight years of old grumpy men running the country, I sure hope we do have four more!

Let's give some new refreshing/young ideals a try!!
New and Refreshing...Like what???

The United States doesnt need "new and refreshing". It needs a good slap in the face for steering away from its core values. Oh...what are those core values...that would be the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, which our Government has so successfully steered us away from, We need a Government (or less of) that will steer the United States back in that direction. That is the only change we need.

Obama's proposed "changes" have been tried and proven ineffective and dangerous to this nation in the past. I won't vote for him simply because I think he is wrong on the issues and a danger to the security of this nations. There are several black men/women whom I respect and if they ran I would vote for them. Obama is not one of them.

Oh and as for being in Iraq for 5-10 more years. We probably will be but then it will be settled and done. If we leave now we will be back in 5-10 years starting all over again. We HAVE to stay and finish the job correctly. we are so close. So very close. To pull out now would undo it all.

If Michael Steele or JC Watts were running for President, they would get my vote. Hussein Obama is by far the most left wing, radical, ambition minded, dangerous candidate we have ever had run for President. You think fuel prices are high now? Just wait and see what happens when he taxes the "windfall profits" of the oil companies.

McCain is spineless, not conservative at all and buys into the global warming hoax.

I wouldn't call McCain spineless but I don't think he is as right wing conservative as some would like. More middle of the road than most politicians. Like most people in this Nation are. I think we need someone who is less left or right and more middle.

Global warming is a bunch of crap though. Heck when I was in school they warned us about the coming ice age. :roll: ( No age jokes thank you very much :wink: )

I wouldn't call McCain spineless but I don't think he is as right wing conservative as some would like. More middle of the road than most politicians. Like most people in this Nation are. I think we need someone who is less left or right and more middle.

Global warming is a bunch of crap though. Heck when I was in school they warned us about the coming ice age. :roll: ( No age jokes thank you very much :wink: )


Middle = spineless. This global warming farce that is being propagandized by the media and the marxist environmental lobby is the greatest single threat to our economy. McCain drank the kool-aid.

And I especially don't like the way McCain is more willing to buddy up with his leftist pals than his conservative base.

I don't trust BIPOLAR people and I especially don't trust BIPARTISAN people!

My issue is not black or white, man or woman, nor young or old!

But can my house hold or my country continue to substain in the direction that we are headed!

NO!!!

Obama might be a young senator but McCain has admitted that the economy is not his strong point! He is a military man that has old ideals!

A grumpy old man that wants to fight the world on our dime and hard work!!!

And, since when is economy Bush's strong point? Who's kidding who? There are locations in Indianapolis that I used to deliver to five and six years ago. At the time, they were going GANGBUSTERS and expanding in order to handle the volume of business they had. Now, in the same areas, I'm seeing "REAL-ESTATE AUCTION" signs, and guess what's going up to the highest bidder? Those same locations that are now empty. They've gone out of business.

I've also seen something else I've only seen in pictures before. Look at some of the old pictures of the GREAT DEPRESSION, with cars, pickups, and pulling trailers with all their belongings loaded up. That's what I've seen on occasion over the last few months, only the vehicles were much newer. No, I have not seen the volume of it that I read about during the GREAT DEPRESSION, but is that previews of coming attractions? Is it going to get worse before it gets better?

We're seeing trucking companies shutting down. In the past, companies were being sold out. Now, no one is buying them. They are simply going out of business. And, look at the used truck lots. I've gone by new housing developements that have BILLBOARDS saying: "60% OFF ON OVER-STOCK HOUSING. The developers are trying to "dump" them just to get out from under the property tax because they aren't selling. What should have been a GOLD-MINE has become an expensive liability. A few months ago, a customer I delivered to, gave me a clue to look for. If a home is going up for forclosure, the grass should be cut and has not been. As you go around the country, look at the front yards you pass and see how many haven't been mowed in a while, and in what areas you see them.

And, when Clinton and Obama were both campaigning, they BOTH were talking about RAISING TAXES on an already OVER-BURDENED society. McCaan was the only one I heard that did not say he was going to raise taxes. Although I have often wondered how he planned to take care of the deficit Bush is going to leave behind. The fact that Obama is new and has virtually no record suggests that he's a "DARK HORSE". We really don't know what he will do.

While Ron Paul does have some support, I really don't think he has enough to get the Republican Nomination that he wants. But, something to keep in mind... "NO NEWS IS GOOD NEWS". There are a lot of people that are elligable to vote, and do not. That is "NO NEWS". Things have gone far enough and have gotten bad enough that we NEED to send them a "NO CONFIDENCE VOTE". We need many more people to go to the polls and vote for a "complete unknown". Then, when the news media catches up with that person, he/she gets a national voice to talk about issues that NONE of the current candidates are addressing. A voice to talk about ambiguous numbers that make it convenient for anyone in government to say we're doing well when we are not. That person does NOT have to win the election in order to succeed.

A letter writing campaign can be ignored. Letters, and U S MAIL are private. Unless the official chooses to make them public, no one knows how many people wrote letters, and which side they were on. But votes are a public matter, and can not be swept under any rug. At this point, that is the only way I see any kind of real change coming.

I think it was last year I found out that Bush is a "RECOVERING ALCOHOLIC". Well, Winston Churchill drank a fifth of scotch every night. So, I don't really know if that's a strike against Bush or if it has anything to do with which way the country is going, but it does make me wonder. A bit odd that during one president's administration, we first open up the Mexican Boarder, then decide to build a wall to keep them out.

Has anyone seen the list of benefits that foreign nationals get when they come here? Our government needs to make a commitment to AMERICANS first. Our tax dollars need to go toward helping AMERICANS BEFORE they go to foreign nationals. In America, AMERICANS need to get a PRIORITY. How about setting up AMERICANS with gas stations and motels? And, why can't I understand the person on the other end of the line when I call about my credit card?????

And then, it really gets laughable. There was a bill before congress, last week I think, that had support from both sides of the floor. It did not pass... Because the Democrats and Republicans began arguing about just who was more sympathetic to the public about gasoline prices.

"Oh, gee whiz, we're so very sorry about the price of oil, now would you turn around, bend over, and spread 'em?"

I wouldn't call McCain spineless but I don't think he is as right wing conservative as some would like. More middle of the road than most politicians. Like most people in this Nation are. I think we need someone who is less left or right and more middle.

Global warming is a bunch of crap though. Heck when I was in school they warned us about the coming ice age. :roll: ( No age jokes thank you very much :wink: )


I agree. McCain has a long time constituency that includes both sides. This is something that becomes very important to the President, since he can't accomplish anything if he has no support in the legislature.

Obama hasn't had time to build any kind of support group in the Senate because he hasn't spent any time there. He can talk all he wants about making changes, but his hands will be tied if the legislature isn't behind him.

I think too many people mistakenly believe that one person in one office can change everything. NOT TRUE!

I still want to know who is behind Obama's candidacy. I've lived in Chicago all my life and NO ONE ever heard of him until he ran for the Senate 2 years ago. He wasn't involved in politics at all. He was/is an attorney with some questionable clients. And the people he has been associated with, like Rev. Wright, are even more questionable. Add to that the fact that he now wants to distance himself from the hate spewing Rev. and claims to not have known the Rev.s views, is a bald faced lie. A political ass-covering. You don't attend the mans church for 20 years and NOT know what he stands for.

Sorry I don't trust him and believe he will be a puppet for whatever machine is behind this.

Just my 2cents, but I still like Ron Paul. Maybe he would be a good third party candidate. I feel like it would do a world of good to get a third party candidate elected. Just to break the monopoly.

Middle means that you can take a stand on each issue and not goosestep to some party line. That to me takes guts. I know that for myself there are issues I'm quite conservative on some I am quite liberal on and some and very middle of the road on. That is how the US works. No one falls into one side or the other unless they are an extremist and in my opinion extreme on any topic is dangerous.

RD: I wonder where he came from too. The fact that the muslim extremist of the world are so support of him says volumes though.....

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?

Are you one of those folks, who will insist that those are "sportsmen's" guns? If so..... :roll: :roll: :roll:

If you are a hunter...then why would you feel the need to own a gun meant for only one thing...mass murder?

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 "otlawed"?? No.

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

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


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.

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.

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

Do you know which two countries in Europe have not been invaded in Centuries and their governments have been the most stable.....
Sweden and Switzerland and guess what they have in common.

I will never forget watching a group of Swiss boy scouts going to rifle practice with their assault rifles ( yes you heard me right) almost every household has one.

Read your English history and you will understand why the founding fathers put in the second amendment and what it really means. The english monarchy was very selective in whom they allowed weapons.

An unarmed populace is easier to control than an armed one.

Those Korean shop owners in LA demonstrated why an assault rifle or semi automatic rifle an excellent weapon is for self defence, when the government failed to protect their property and lives. Single shot bolt actions arent very good at keeping a crowd at bay that wants to kill you,your family,and destroy everything youve worked for.

Katrina also comes to mind, civilization can break down at any time for various reasons. Firearms are tools, its all about how and to what purpose they are put to use.

The first thing that Stalin and Hitler did under the pretense of making things safer was to disarm the populace, sure made rounding up the trouble makers easier and ensuring easy passage of new laws. Or CHANGE as certain politicians are so loudly touting nowadays.

The Yugoslavs demonstrated what an armed populace could do by tying up 10 German divisions which had to occupy the country and never really did control it. Tito also had quite a bit of autonomy from the Russians.

I will not trust a politician or government that does not trust me.

And the voting records of Clinton and Obama are all I need to know....

The Second Amendment guarantees all the others!!!!!

..the right of the people to keep and bear arms(does not say which ones)(knives,bows and arrows,muskets) shall not be infringed.


Personally I wish Hermain Cain had been nominated better than all the candidates who were in the running.

Ahh the lessons of history...

Good Post CT77.

He won't be any worse than what we have now, and a whole lot better than Billary would have been.

But Obama isn't a real Black--- he's Cafe' Laute

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 :roll:

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.

.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.

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?

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 :roll:

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.


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?

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.

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, rather than to actually take the time to learn something about the political process, and form an opinion based on actual fact, 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" :roll:

`I don't have the link anymore, but I recently read that Obama may not be qualified to be President. He may not have fulfilled the 10 year residency requirement, with 5 years in the US after the age of 16. He has not released his birth records to show that he is qualified.

McCain, on the other hand, has released his records, and has met the requirements, even though, he was born in Panama.

`I don't have the link anymore, but I recently read that Obama may not be qualified to be President. He may not have fulfilled the 10 year residency requirement, with 5 years in the US after the age of 16. He has not released his birth records to show that he is qualified.

McCain, on the other hand, has released his records, and has met the requirements, even though, he was born in Panama.
That's just an internet rumor...
Who knows where some of these rumors get started? :?

One thing I'd worry more about is...

When Obama gets elected President...
he intends to enslave the White race. :P

I think we just care about his changing proposal.

`I don't have the link anymore, but I recently read that Obama may not be qualified to be President. He may not have fulfilled the 10 year residency requirement, with 5 years in the US after the age of 16. He has not released his birth records to show that he is qualified.

McCain, on the other hand, has released his records, and has met the requirements, even though, he was born in Panama.
That's just an internet rumor...
Who knows where some of these rumors get started? :?

One thing I'd worry more about is...

When Obama gets elected President...
he intends to enslave the White race. :P

We're already enslaved to the out of control welfare system!

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.

Are you one of those folks, who will insist that those are "sportsmen's" guns? If so..... :roll: :roll: :roll:

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.

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 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 "otlawed"?? No.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

`I don't have the link anymore, but I recently read that Obama may not be qualified to be President. He may not have fulfilled the 10 year residency requirement, with 5 years in the US after the age of 16. He has not released his birth records to show that he is qualified.

McCain, on the other hand, has released his records, and has met the requirements, even though, he was born in Panama.
That's just an internet rumor...
Who knows where some of these rumors get started? :?

One thing I'd worry more about is...

When Obama gets elected President...
he intends to enslave the White race. :P

Laughing!!! Enslave the White Race?? Where do you all find this foolishness??

If I actually felt that way, I would be to embrassed to let anyone know!

And as far as Welfare goes, there are just as many people on the high end of society taking hand out from the government as there are on the lower end. It is Subsidized instead of Welfare.

Do you need an Ak 47 or an AR 15, etc to go hunting? No you don't, then again you do not even really need a gun at all do you. You can hunt with a bow or a spear.

IMHO the real issue of gun control and banning this type or that type of gun is where do you draw the line.

The 2nd amendment was placed into the constitution for two reasons. The first is because a well armed population is less likely to be successfully invaded and secondly is because the government is, theoretically, less likely to take advantage of the citizenship.

I have no issues of race or gender on who the president is, but I do not think Obama is what this country needs. McCain on the other hand is not what we need either. Regardless of who wins this nation is in for even rougher times than what we have now. The only difference is what form those times will take.

tomasz--RebelDarlin--pigrider

I was trying to be funny. (but take it serious if you'd like) :?

I pointed out an internet rumor...and how they get started.
The the humor was starting my own rumor...
about Obama intending to enslave the White race, once he becomes President. :?


That's just an internet rumor...
Who knows where some of these rumors get started?

One thing I'd worry more about is...

When Obama gets elected President...
he intends to enslave the White race.

Obama has a white mother yet he rarely mentions her. He does speak about his racist white grandmother. He does seem to have a hatred for white people in some of his rhetoric.

My main problem with Obama is that I think that he wants to take this country down the wrong path. While he is considered charismatic, so was Hitler. From what I have read he has never held a real job in his life. It is difficult to relate to people who struggle from paycheck to paycheck when you have never been there yourself. I don't care much for McCain, either. I think he is too liberal for the country. We need a strong, moral leader who puts the country first rather than his party or personal agenda. We need a leader who does the right thing regardless of his personal views and isn't afraid of bucking the system. I don't think this is Obama. He talks about change, but doesn't list any of the changes he wants to make. People rally around him because of his charisma, yet have no idea of where he stands on key issues. I have spoken to several people who have voted for him in the primary. They all talk about change, but can't tell me a single thing he wants to change. Change for the sake of change isn't necessarily good. I don't trust him.

Well I don't pick up his hatred of whites is his message. He was raised by his white side of his family!

Yeah, he talks about his father more than he talks about his mother! That is not race base, we all do that! Maybe he has more respect for his father than his mother. Look at Tim Russert, he always talked about Big Russ and his son, you hardly ever here him speak of his mom.

An as far as his ability to give great speeches. What is wrong with being empowered/inspired for a change instead of fear politics!

People keep saying Hilter gave great speeches, so did Ronald Reagan, and he became one of our best Presidents! On the other hand look at our current President he is SLD (specific language disorder) or dyslexia! And by far he will go down in history as one of the worst Presidents in history!

Most successful Fortune 500 companies try to empower/inspire their employees

The the humor was starting my own rumor...

about Obama intending to enslave the White race, once he becomes President.

*GASP* :shock:

You mean that's not true? :wink:

People keep saying Hilter gave great speeches, so did Ronald Reagan, and he became one of our best Presidents! On the other hand look at our current President he is SLD (specific language disorder) or dyslexia! And by far he will go down in history as one of the worst Presidents in history!

Sorry, Jimmy Carter has a lock on that and there is no more room at the inn. He and his entourage booked that hotel solid for eternity.

As far as Obama goes, Pigrider, he might be the bees knees to you, but a lot of people have him figured out and more are doing so every day as the shellac begins to flake off of him. The guy is a snake in the grass and it's my hope that we don't get the chance to find out just how nasty he is.

I agree with G-Man that McCain is too liberal and I originally had no intention of voting for him at all, preferring to do a write-in. But the more of Obama that is exposed, the more I am definitely voting for McCain...anything to keep Obama out of office.

Well I guess neither party has anything to offer this term! I consider myself an independent! But I like Obama alot more than McCain!!

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.

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?

You got to be kidding??? Right?

Why would I be kidding? :roll:

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.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

You got to be kidding??? Right?

Why would I be kidding? :roll:

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:

http://pic70.picturetrail.com/VOL1819/11230976/19905900/321825507.jpg :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

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.

Dang timers

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..... :roll: :roll: :roll:

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. :lol: :lol: :lol:
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.

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 :roll:
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.

[quote]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 :roll:

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" :roll:

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.

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.

[quote]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.

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.