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.....

 

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

 

Oh, hell.. another one of these, "[MY guns are benign, but YOURS are horrible" types :roll:

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 bullshit about how your guns were designed for hunters and ours were designed for massacres at the local orphanage :roll:

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.

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.

 

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.