Effective Gun Control

[acmanko]

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/080907dnmetammo.37f6a54.html

the best way to do away with guns is to make them irrelevant

[coolwhip]

Aint nuttin there dudeski.

[acmanko]

if your talking about the link, it seems to work, I'm refering to the price of ammo as a form of gun control

[mrs reb77]

So, the price of gas is the government instituting controls on the public?
Uh, how is this going to assist the liberals in their gun control efforts when the law enforcement agencies are the ones being affected? Do you actually think that criminals (lots with illegally procured guns) BUY their ammo?

Oh, maybe you were pointing out an irony? Being sarcastic?
If so, guess I didn't get it.

My family has been into reloading my entire life--it's the only way to insure quality control and have the ammo on hand that you want. Be it target practice or hunting.

[acmanko]

when I was in panama right after the invasion, you could have any gun you wanted, but no ammo. the police had all they wanted, it effectively made a gun a useless piece of metal. If the price of ammo goes to high some will be affected , others , like you , will not.

[mrs reb77]

This article indicated that law enforcement agencies were one of the largest groups affected. I really don't see them doing any hand-loading so they will buy mass produced and why would any free enterprise give them a break. So, the only major group of people that may be affected are law enforcement. That sure gives a warm and fuzzy feeling. Not any kind of firearms control that I can see (or would support for that matter) except, yet again, allowing criminals to have "one up" on law enforcement. Higher priced ammo won't stop em from stealing it!

[acmanko]

This article indicated that law enforcement agencies were one of the largest groups affected. I really don't see them doing any hand-loading so they will buy mass produced and why would any free enterprise give them a break. So, the only major group of people that may be affected are law enforcement. That sure gives a warm and fuzzy feeling. Not any kind of firearms control that I can see (or would support for that matter) except, yet again, allowing criminals to have "one up" on law enforcement. Higher priced ammo won't stop em from stealing it!
well if you want to get political, none of this would be happening if the Present Administration would not have sold us down the river to China, and started some crap that increased demand.

[RoBoTeq]

Who sold the U.S. down the tubes with China?????


The China Connection
Why Clinton-Gore Cannot Be Trusted with National Security

By Congressman Curt Weldon

The Chinese espionage scandal and wholesale auctioning of sensitive technologies to China should erase any doubt in the minds of Americans that President Bill Clinton and Vice-President Al Gore are not to be trusted with our country's national security.

The dark legacy left by the Clinton-Gore Administration will place the lives of Americans at greater risk for generations to come. Under the Clinton-Gore watch China stole classified thermonuclear weapons information, stole electromagnetic weapons technology that it can use to attack U.S. satellites and missiles, and stole classified research that can be used to detect and threaten our previously invulnerable nuclear submarines. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

But China did more than just steal information form the United States. Through a complex system of influence peddling and campaign contributions, China was also able to obtain relaxations on exports on a wide variety of sensitive technologies. In other words, the Clinton-Gore Administration gave away sensitive technologies to China in order to please big donors to the Democrat Party.

The relaxation of export controls, removal of national security agencies from the export approval process, and the dissolution of an international forum for controlling the transfer of military technologies under the Clinton-Gore Administration created an environment ripe for mistakes and abuse. It was the equivalent of setting out the welcome mat for the Chinese to gain access -- completely legally -- to our most sensitive technologies.

And the Chinese certainly took advantage of the situation. China -- which until 1996 had no high-performance computers to help design nuclear weapons -- had over 600 high performance computers in 1998, all originating from the United States. The Chinese have also obtained access to precision machine tools that it diverted to build military aircraft, cruise missiles, and nuclear weapons.

The seriousness of this matter is compounded by the fact that China is one of the world's worst proliferators of military technologies. It is likely that this technology will soon find its way into the hands of countries like North Korea, Iran, and Iraq.

Given the serious ramifications of the findings and recommendations of the bipartisan Cox Report, one would think that the American people could expect a serious, thoughtful response from the Clinton-Gore Administration. Instead, all we have seen are Administration attempts to "spin" the report and attempts to convince the American public that the President and Vice-President bear no responsibility for what has happened.

But they do. It was the Clinton-Gore Administration that eliminated FBI background checks at some of our most sensitive weapons laboratories. It was the Clinton-Gore Administration that eliminated color-coded employee ID badges -- denoting clearance levels -- at classified Department of Energy laboratories. It was the Clinton-Gore Administration that reinstated the security clearance of an employee being investigated for giving out sensitive and classified information. And it was the Clinton-Gore Administration that allowed the exports of these sensitive technologies.

But President Clinton and Vice President Gore have spent more energy trying to cover their butts than closing the barn door. The Administration has cracked down on the brave employees within the Departments of Defense and Energy who blew the whistle on the ineptitude of Clinton's political appointees and flawed policy toward China. Meanwhile, the people who bear the blame for the damage to our national security are walking away scott-free.

It is important to note, however, that the recent scandal does not mean that we should completely cut off relations with China or end trade. The United States can continue to engage in meaningful trade relations and the export of materials to China. But we have to be smart about it. We can't be giving China access to technologies that endanger our national security. The Clinton-Gore Administration left the flood gates wide open. There is a middle ground and we need to find it. On the issue of our political relations with China, we need to return to Ronald Reagan's principled approach to foreign policy: trust but verify.

If the Clinton-Gore Chinese espionage has taught us anything, we must learn that our military secrets and technology require constant vigilance and safeguarding. And President Clinton and Vice President Gore are not to be trusted with that oversight.

[RoBoTeq]

As for ammo, I'm digging out my reloader. Been saving brass for years just for this occasion.

[whec720]

Gun control is a loser, ac. Just ask any Democrat in the south.:cool:

[zzonko]

Who sold the U.S. down the tubes with China?????

While I agree 100% on the treasonous pandering to the Chinese by the Splooger, This guy (not a crook) opened the door to it.

http://img3.glowfoto.com/images/2007/08/14-0248097018T.jpg (http://www.glowfoto.com/user_imageredirect.php?iid=1649377)

[geerair]

Who sold the U.S. down the tubes with China?????Article by Crazy Curt Weldon.

The same Curt Weldon who was laughed out of office for his particularly insane conspiracy theories.

Great source.

[James 3528]

I thought he was voted out of office. Like Jimmy Carter

[geerair]

I thought he was voted out of office. Like Jimmy CarterNah, laughed out.

[James 3528]

Not as big of a laugh as Jimmy Carter and McKinney

[geerair]

Not as big of a laugh as Jimmy Carter and McKinneyOh, much bigger. In fact some regretted voting him out because he could be relied upon to come up with extraordinary comedy entertainment with his continual lineup of goofy conspiracy theories and hilarious rants.

[jmac00]

this whole thread is a waste of time.

any serious shooter loads there own. It is simple economics, purchase 50 rounds of 40 cal, 160gr cartridges for $10 to $12 bucks or load my own for 5¢ a cartridge ( about $2.50/50 rounds )

I shoot anywhere from 6000-9000 rounds of 40cal per year, I also shoot around 200 rounds of 30-30cal.

Criminals don't purchase ammo, so the only ones affected by high ammo prices are Law abiding citizens and law enforcement.

[jmac00]

Here is an excellent read on why I am a supporter of the Second Amendment:

http://hobbes.ncsa.uiuc.edu/onsheepwolvesandsheepdogs.html

[chillbilly]

if your talking about the link, it seems to work, I'm refering to the price of ammo as a form of gun control
BAH! Preposterous.

[hvacker]

????????????? What makes you think that liberals don't kike guns?

I, while not a card carrying type know lots of political "liberals" that own guns, some lots of guns and if screwed with would make a soprano out of you.
I think you confuse liberal politics with Hanoi Jane. Your wrong.
Any working man voting neo-con just doesn't understand their voting for their own demise.
The neo-cons just don't have their best interests at heart.
I also know that there some very good republicans that do see the value in a strong middle class. Keep the good guys but understand the neo-con philosophy. If interested do the research.

[chillbilly]

What's a neo-con? I can't find it in the dictionary. Please define.

[acmanko]

this whole thread is a waste of time.

any serious shooter loads there own. It is simple economics, purchase 50 rounds of 40 cal, 160gr cartridges for $10 to $12 bucks or load my own for 5¢ a cartridge ( about $2.50/50 rounds )

I shoot anywhere from 6000-9000 rounds of 40cal per year, I also shoot around 200 rounds of 30-30cal.

Criminals don't purchase ammo, so the only ones affected by high ammo prices are Law abiding citizens and law enforcement.
this is true ,but you are leaving the price of your equipment out of the equation, give use an estimate of the cash outlay for loading equipment:)

[acmanko]

What's a neo-con? I can't find it in the dictionary. Please define.look in the mirror:D

[chillbilly]

Originally Posted by jmac00 http://hvac-talk.com/vbb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://hvac-talk.com/vbb/showthread.php?p=1588112#post1588112)

this whole thread is a waste of time.

any serious shooter loads there own. It is simple economics, purchase 50 rounds of 40 cal, 160gr cartridges for $10 to $12 bucks or load my own for 5¢ a cartridge ( about $2.50/50 rounds )

I shoot anywhere from 6000-9000 rounds of 40cal per year, I also shoot around 200 rounds of 30-30cal.

I agree.
I load my own too. Very inexpensive.
And I have enough ammo to last for a very long time.;)

[k-fridge]

Did making alcohol illegal put a stop to it?

Making ammo illegal will only drive it to the black market. When that happens the criminals will have plenty and the law abiding citizens will not.

Why are some people so stupid on these matters???

[jmac00]

this is true ,but you are leaving the price of your equipment out of the equation, give use an estimate of the cash outlay for loading equipment:)

this is the machine I use: http://www.dillonprecision.com/#/content/p/9/catid/1/pid/23594/?viewImg=0

I purchased mine MANY, MANY, years ago, so I paid considerably less than the price you see. My machine has paid for itself, many times over

And the machine has a No B.S. Lifetime warranty. They mean what they say. A friend of mine sent his back for a main bushing replacement ( he ran about a ¼ million rounds thru it) and they rebuilt the entire machine for free...........to bad some furnace manufactures don't stand behind there product the same way:D ;)

[acmanko]

so 500-600 intial plus a nice room to keep it set up. not bad.:)

[jmac00]

it can get a little crazy, i got a couple of friends that have 4 machines set up on a custom bench, each machine handles a different caliber and one handles 12ga shotgun.

Talk about expensive, a decent shotgun (for trap or skeet) will run you anywhere from $400 to $4000, the reloader is a grand plus a boat load of powder (think about how much powder a shot holds?) sheesh :rolleyes:

[RoBoTeq]

While I agree 100% on the treasonous pandering to the Chinese by the Splooger, This guy (not a crook) opened the door to it.

http://img3.glowfoto.com/images/2007/08/14-0248097018T.jpg (http://www.glowfoto.com/user_imageredirect.php?iid=1649377)

Sure, President Nixon kept the enemy close at hand. He also sent a couple of Americans to get their butts kicked in ping pong. Nixon knew that by letting the Chinese beat a couple of Americans in a game that Americans could care less about that the Chinese would never notice we were keeping an eye on them.

Then Clinton and Gore come along and let the Chinese know that we can be bought:confused:

[oloenneker]

If no one has guns, gun control is irrelevant....

[RoBoTeq]

If no one has guns, gun control is irrelevant....

And just how do you propose to keep guns out of a country like the U.S of A.? It's not like countries that ban guns don't have violent crimes using other deadly weaponry.

GAD; today's liberals are just stupid. Didn't always be that way. If we have lost the ability to be both liberal and conservative at the same time on issues that are best served by the best attitude, then liberals need to stay out of politics and in the art galleries.

[whec720]

If no one has guns, gun control is irrelevant....

We're Americans. We own guns, lots of them. Some own more than others, but just about everybody has them. Its taboo disclose all of your firearms. Guns are here and here to stay. Deal with it.:cool:

[MadeinUSA]

If no one has guns, gun control is irrelevant....And what is next that you will take while attempting to control crime, every knife, then what, every baseball bat?

Hey, when people kill with their bare hands being you have taken everything available to kill with, will you take people’s hands too?

Back in the old days, people like you must have been real fun to set straight one way or the other behind the barn.

What a fricking ignorant statement you made.

[oloenneker]

but just about everybody has them.

Not everybody. What made you think that everyone has a gun? Paranoia?

[bootlen]

Libs just don't get it.

Cain did not shoot Abel.

[The Doctor]

If no one has guns, gun control is irrelevant....

I suspect that you might have some thoughts on the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Maybe you would care to expound on why that amendment made it into a bill of rights, and was not left unenumerated. Not left somewhere out in the cold.

[bootlen]

The intent of the Constitution is something else that eludes libs.

[jmac00]

If no one has guns, gun control is irrelevant....


okay genius lets do this? Take 10 people, line them up in front of you. Nine of those people represent the legal, law abiding, gun toting public, ONE (#10) represents the criminal element.

Now, take away the guns from the nine law abiding people?

How have you effected number ten?????

And you can't remove EVERY GUN from ANY COUNTRY, gangs and the criminal element WILL find a way to get firearms.

The ONLY thing the criminal element fears..............is ME. The legal, Law abiding owner of firearms.

[bootlen]

okay genius lets do this? Take 10 people, line them up in front of you. Nine of those people represent the legal, law abiding, gun toting public, ONE (#10) represents the criminal element.

Now, take away the guns from the nine law abiding people?

How have you effected number ten?????

And you can't remove EVERY GUN from ANY COUNTRY, gangs and the criminal element WILL find a way to get firearms.

The ONLY thing the criminal element fears..............is ME. The legal, Law abiding owner of firearms.


Okay, now you're really stretching things. After all, libs cannot even define "common sense", never mind truthfully claim to have any.:cool:

[James 3528]

Gun Control isn't about guns


....it's about control.

[RoBoTeq]

If no one has guns, gun control is irrelevant....

As long as this includes our government I will support it and just hope and pray that no criminals or foreign concerns will prey on us.

[James 3528]

Liberals should be allowed to talk and express themselves as much as possible, the more they do the more of the core element of fascism that lurks within it is exposed.

[chillbilly]

Liberals should be allowed to talk and express themselves as much as possible, the more they do the more of the core element of fascism that lurks within it is exposed.
LOL
I agree. Not withstanding the fact that any attempt to eliminate guns from American soil would be impossible, it would also be irresponsible.

[coordinatesales]

Here is an excellent read on why I am a supporter of the Second Amendment:

http://hobbes.ncsa.uiuc.edu/onsheepwolvesandsheepdogs.html

Nice article. A long time ago I worked as an armed guard and was faced with a situation in which I drew my weapon and was prepared to take a life to protect someone I didn't know. I am capable of violence. I'm not licensed for concealed carry in my current state although that's on the 'to-do' list. I always thought I must be weird to have wanted to be on one of those flights on 9/11 thinking I might have been able to make difference. Now I know that's just the sheepdog in me and I thank God that there are other sheepdogs out there too.

[hvacker]

The intent of the Constitution is something else that eludes libs.

If you knew history you would know liberals wrote the constitution.

Check it out...

[hvacker]

Liberals should be allowed to talk and express themselves as much as possible, the more they do the more of the core element of fascism that lurks within it is exposed.

This post doesn't make sense. The Nazi movement was funded by conservative business people as they knew nazis would never be commys.
Fascism is a conservative movement. Just ask any white supremacist.

Oh, I get it now. Your just throwing out b$ as you think nobody is thinking.

[bootlen]

If you knew history you would know liberals wrote the constitution.

Check it out...

And if YOU knew history, you'd know that libs today are nothing like the libs of 1770's. Matter of fact, JFK would be considered a Reaganite.

[James 3528]

This post doesn't make sense. The Nazi movement was funded by conservative business people as they knew nazis would never be commys.
Fascism is a conservative movement. Just ask any white supremacist.

Oh, I get it now. Your just throwing out b$ as you think nobody is thinking.

I don't write replies for shallow thinkers. Fascism does not specifically apply to Nazis or a racial supremacy group. It is a authoritarian concept that is based on the good of the state. Like "It takes a village" and "“We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good...Hillary Clinton" Your education is showing. Crack open a history book .

You're just a hop skip and a jump Skippy from being one of the missile hit the pentagon types. You have proven that liberals don't even know their illness.

[James 3528]

And if YOU knew history, you'd know that libs today are nothing like the libs of 1770's. Matter of fact, JFK would be considered a Reaganite.
Don't you love history given to you from the Jiffy Lube technician perspective?

[Pagan]

And if YOU knew history, you'd know that libs today are nothing like the libs of 1770's. Matter of fact, JFK would be considered a Reaganite.


And Bill Clinton made FDR look like Barry Goldwater!:D ;)

[acmanko]

I think we gonna have to go back to Nero to compare Bush.

[chillbilly]

I think we gonna have to go back to Nero to compare Bush.
And we'll go back to Cro-Magnon to compare you.;)

[whec720]

Not everybody. What made you think that everyone has a gun? Paranoia?

Read the post, Einstein. "just about everbody"...as in just about. Not everbody as a whole. Next time cut and paste my comments more carefully. Get some lessons from geer.;)
You are the one with the pipe dream. I just stated the reality.

[bootlen]

And we'll go back to Cro-Magnon to compare you.;)

I was thinking more along the lines of "amoeba".

[The Doctor]

Modern liberalism is the mental disorder, not necessarily classical liberalism. The liberals who preceded the World Wars were for open trade, and were not protectionist in their approach to finance. Currently liberals seem to favor the unearned redistribution of wealth.
The neo-con protects the national interest as they perceive it to be, as it relates to the use of globalism, if need be, to make the money.
Where does open trade fit into these two groups today? Which is more protectionist?
I would say that neither the neo-con nor the modern liberal would decisively take the prize for being protectionist.
Now before I totally hijack, let's resume the gun control ideas with some of that in mind, if you please.
Guns are mentioned in the U.S. "bill of rights"--rather important wouldn't you say? And I would concur that classical liberals, and not modern liberals, were part of crafting that document.
But how is it that "conservatives" now take guns around the world and tell other people how to live?
I mean, if they want to live in the 7th century, so be it.
If they %$@# with us, wipe them off the face of the earth. What's with the police-action, and nation-building, and democracy-planting--AT THE POINT OF A GUN, which distorts the purpose of the 2nd amendment.
I mean, I don't want these bomb-throwers claiming the 2nd amendment, do you????

[RoBoTeq]

If you knew history you would know liberals wrote the constitution.

Check it out...

I think you are the one who should be checking it out. The split between being liberal or conservative has only widened in the past century. Leaders of centuries gone by were both liberal and conservative, using whichever attitude suited the situation best. The term "renaisance man" used to be a badge of honor and a person of well rounded abilities. Today it seems the extremes are all we care about.

Would you say that President Bush is either a liberal or a conservative?

[oloenneker]

I suspect that you might have some thoughts on the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Maybe you would care to expound on why that amendment made it into a bill of rights, and was not left unenumerated. Not left somewhere out in the cold.

I certainly do have some thoughts about the second amendment, and especially how it's taken out of context, to suit the needs of the pro gun agenda of special interest groups like the NRA.

If you look carefully at how the pro gun agenda people spout around the second amendment, you can clearly see that they willfully delete half of the actual amendment to serve their purpose, thereby skirting the actual intent of the amendment.

The second amendment, in it's written context gives no "rights" to own arms for the purpose of "personal self defense".. It extends the right of the "people" to have access to arms in the intent to form a "well regulated militia" which somehow has been construed into the idea that "all men" shall have access to arms. We have "well regulated militias" already, in the form of each states "national guard units" and the amendment is antiquated and out of step with modern times.

[oloenneker]

Read the post, Einstein. "just about everbody"...as in just about. Not everbody as a whole. Next time cut and paste my comments more carefully. Get some lessons from geer.;)
You are the one with the pipe dream. I just stated the reality.

Oh I read your comment, and I cut and pasted it with concise understanding of what you where saying. And the goal of the reply was met by you rebuttal post on the issue. But you failed to address the "meat" of the post. Paranoia. what are you scared of? The boogeyman? What caliber is best suited for taking down the boogeyman? .45ACP? or maybe something smaller? How about .40S&W?

[oloenneker]

What a fricking ignorant statement you made.

Nothing ignorant about my statement by any means. the statement served a purpose, and that purpose was fulfilled simply by the reply you made.

If you could not read between the lines, my post is what some call a "troll"... Or a VBB Bomb. It's ment to antagonize all you gun nuts into a "fever", and it worked judging by the amount of responses it got.

[Pagan]

Nothing ignorant about my statement by any means. the statement served a purpose, and that purpose was fulfilled simply by the reply you made.

If you could not read between the lines, my post is what some call a "troll"... Or a VBB Bomb. It's ment to antagonize all you gun nuts into a "fever", and it worked judging by the amount of responses it got.


I take it your Anti-Gun or of the belief that you would give up your guns if it meant the rest of the world would too!:rolleyes:

[oloenneker]

I take it your Anti-Gun or of the belief that you would give up your guns if it meant the rest of the world would too!:rolleyes:

Thats right. If we have no guns, then we in lies the problem? Sure, you can beat people to death and stab them, but IMO that more unlikely that how easy one can just pull a trigger from a distance. When you kill someone with a knife, you have to look them in the eye when you do it.

[Pagan]

Thats right. If we have no guns, then we in lies the problem? Sure, you can beat people to death and stab them, but IMO that more unlikely that how easy one can just pull a trigger from a distance. When you kill someone with a knife, you have to look them in the eye when you do it.

ok from that stand point I agree with you.
I agree to be stabbed in most cases they have to be looking you in the eye, and personally I would rather fight to the death with knives and swords like the warriors of yesteryear than with guns. I belive there's a bit more honor in conflict of a hand to hand combat nature than simply shooting them.

but realistically speaking, the day we see this planet disarmed of firearms
is the day you will see A-coils install themselves
and Refrigerant pipe braze& Leak test itself!:D ;)

so until that day comes, I will continue to arm myself as I see necessary
and collect weapons of many cultures and historical periods!:cool:

[oloenneker]

but realistically speaking, the day we see this planet disarmed of firearms
is the day you will see A-coils install themselves
and Refrigerant pipe braze& Leak test itself!:D ;)



There is no doubt that this is true, but the point I am trying to make is that certain firearms have no place among the civilian population. I am all for hunting arms, and have no problem if you own them, but I see no reason why someone needs a AR-15 with a 100 round magazine, and a bayonet lug.



so until that day comes, I will continue to arm myself as I see necessary
and collect weapons of many cultures and historical periods!:cool:

The problem with an armed civilian population is that while most gun owners are responsible, they keep these guns in their homes, and places of business. Where do you suppose the criminal element get their guns from? From these "responsible" gun owners. They are one of the #1 stolen items in burglaries. In turn the burglar sells this gun to the thugs, and on and on. So until we legislate so sort of control of how you store your said "responsible" guns to keep them off the street, I say get rid of them.

[Pagan]

There is no doubt that this is true, but the point I am trying to make is that certain firearms have no place among the civilian population. I am all for hunting arms, and have no problem if you own them, but I see no reason why someone needs a AR-15 with a 100 round magazine, and a bayonet lug.



The problem with an armed civilian population is that while most gun owners are responsible, they keep these guns in their homes, and places of business. Where do you suppose the criminal element get their guns from? From these "responsible" gun owners. They are one of the #1 stolen items in burglaries. In turn the burglar sells this gun to the thugs, and on and on. So until we legislate so sort of control of how you store your said "responsible" guns to keep them off the street, I say get rid of them.


the smart collecter invests in a safe for such things.
and the Wise Gun Owner consider this practice at least.
but you are correct in that burglary is a significant reason for guns being on the streets. wether or not these gins are stolen from homes or aquired in the "barrio" by other means i have no idea.

as for ar-15 style weapons with bayonet fittings on them.
I agree that there are a number or people that should not have them.
however what your not being told is that in order for a civilian to try to get one of these in his or her state that allows these theres a much stricter process than you realize.
1: aside from proving residency for the last 6 months in your state, you must petition with the ATF (Alcohol,Tobacco & Firearms ) national office
for a permit to obtain and posess a class III weapons permit.
2: the waiting period is minimum 6 months.
there is more to this, but I cant think of it all off the top of my head at the moment.

granted this is the legal process for getting them, and criminals are not doing it the legal way. thats a given.

I have one reason for you, and my intent is not to change your mind or oppinion it is simply a belief of mine that I have had for many years stemming from my time in the Marines/ Infantry.

the single reason I see a need for civilians to have the option for this
type of weapon in addition to what our Police and national guard are assigned: Invasion upon our soil!

I cannot serve my country again. my time has come and gone, there are younger, leaner and better marines to take my place.
however gurenteed if we were invaded, you would see my ass once again taking up arms and defending this sacred soil. I know this type of weapon like I know how to tie my shoes. and this is just me. there are millions of us retired and honerably discharged military personel that would defend once again. and know these weapons VERY WELL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
in our hands they are the deadliest weapons in the world!
yet also in our hands they are they safest weapons in the world.


as for civillions that have never served and wish to obtain these legally
and have passed the guidelines, I belive they should have to undergo and prove completion of certain training courses and their competency.

again this is my belief, and mine alone.
there are many like it, but this one is mine!:D


kind like my rifle:

This is my rifle. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
My rifle is my best friend. It is my life.
I must master it as I must master my life.
My rifle, without me, is useless. Without my rifle, I am useless.
I must fire my rifle true.
I must shoot straighter than my enemy who is trying to kill me.
I must shoot him before he shoots me. I WILL...

My rifle and myself know that what counts in this war is not the rounds we fire, the noise of our burst, nor the smoke we make.
We know that it is the hits that count. WE WILL HIT...

My rifle is human, even as I, because it is my life.
Thus, I will learn it as a brother. I will learn its weaknesses, its strength, its parts, its accessories, its sights and its barrel.
I will ever guard it against the ravages of weather and damage as I will ever guard my legs, my arms, my eyes and my heart against damage.
I will keep my rifle clean and ready.
We will become part of each other. WE WILL...

Before God, I swear this creed. My rifle and myself are the defenders of my country. We are the masters of our enemy. WE ARE THE SAVIORS OF MY LIFE.

So be it, until victory is America's and there is no enemy, but peace!:cool:

[The Doctor]

I certainly do have some thoughts about the second amendment, and especially how it's taken out of context, to suit the needs of the pro gun agenda of special interest groups like the NRA.
Perhaps we should consider that other distortions in Constitutional law have predicated this.

If you look carefully at how the pro gun agenda people spout around the second amendment, you can clearly see that they willfully delete half of the actual amendment to serve their purpose, thereby skirting the actual intent of the amendment.Not necessarily, although they definitely can be perceived as having left a lot of room for discussion.


The second amendment, in it's written context gives no "rights" to own arms for the purpose of "personal self defense".. It extends the right of the "people" to have access to arms in the intent to form a "well regulated militia" which somehow has been construed into the idea that "all men" shall have access to arms. We have "well regulated militias" already, in the form of each states "national guard units" and the amendment is antiquated and out of step with modern times.
Negative, the reconstructionist in you may be trying to rile up people, but you can do better than that.
Standing armies could be the problem, and NG units as they are currently applied are only an appendage of standing armies.
People responsible for their own protection, and with diligent involvement in the local community would, IMO, make up the difference. There is, as with any local level politics, the balance of control with libertarianism. But gun control is only used now as we have strayed away from "no standing armies".
In that context, people are responsible for their own protection, and then the local level involvement would take care of the "well-regulated" militia--provided that one is properly accountable to the local community.

It seems that as we now use standing armies, "well-regulated militia" can seem like you have tried to define it. With a proper view of self-determination, we can responsibly govern ourselves, and in this case, protect ourselves, if need be....

[jmac00]

Thats right. If we have no guns, then we in lies the problem? Sure, you can beat people to death and stab them, but IMO that more unlikely that how easy one can just pull a trigger from a distance. When you kill someone with a knife, you have to look them in the eye when you do it.

when it comes to personal defense:

"most" gun fights start out as hand-to-hand combat and "most" gun fights happen within 7 yards (21 feet) of the defendant. So, not to worry, if I have to defend myself or my family it's a very good bet, I will be looking my enemy in the eye.

[bootlen]

The second amendment, in it's written context gives no "rights" to own arms for the purpose of "personal self defense".. It extends the right of the "people" to have access to arms in the intent to form a "well regulated militia" which somehow has been construed into the idea that "all men" shall have access to arms.

A "militia" at the time the Constitution was written, is an armed civilian populace. The military does not qualify as a "militia". As a matter of fact, the military is a separately listed entity in the Constitution...as in may not force themselves into one's home. The Constitution calls for a "well regulated militia".

All we have to do is enforce existing laws (which we do not do) rather than adding additional laws which we CAN not.

[James 3528]

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Now you know why Liberal want to change the constitution to fit their ideology.

It doesn't fit their agenda

[jmac00]

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Now you know why Liberal want to change the constitution to fit their ideology.

It doesn't fit their agenda


If I'm not mistaken, both the Attorney General and the Supreme Court have ruled that the second Amendment IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT,

I will ask this AGAIN: IF YOU TAKE AWAY ALL THE GUNS FROM LEGAL, LAW ABIDING CITIZENS? HOW DOES THAT AFFECT THE CRIMINAL............no one in the anti-gun group seems to want to answer that question

[k-fridge]

The problem with passing new gun laws is....only law abiding citizens obey them. The old bumper sticker is right;

"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

[Carnak]

if your talking about the link, it seems to work, I'm refering to the price of ammo as a form of gun control
was it Chris Rock's $5000 bullets?

[chillbilly]

A "militia" at the time the Constitution was written, is an armed civilian populace. The military does not qualify as a "militia". As a matter of fact, the military is a separately listed entity in the Constitution...as in may not force themselves into one's home. The Constitution calls for a "well regulated militia".

All we have to do is enforce existing laws (which we do not do) rather than adding additional laws which we CAN not.


BINGO!
The constitution certainly does specifically state that the PEOPLE have a right to bear arms and that the right shall not be screwed around with.
I can't believe we are still explaining this to the bleeding hearts 200+ years later.

[tonys]

hmmm, 200 years?

as in 1807?

not much has changed.



...bingo indeed, boner-bill.

[chillbilly]

The intellectual paraplegic has arrived with another one....
See the plus sign in front off 200?
200+ as in 200 and some change.:rolleyes:
Don't you have another Chinese Toy design to approve?

[jmac00]

...bingo indeed, boner-bill.

when all else fails, including logic, start name calling. :confused: :confused: :rolleyes:

[tonys]

there's a LOT of gay-rage there - you may want to look-into-that...

...anyhow - here's a very brief list of things that have changed since the beloved draft of the Constitution - and her Amends. were issued:

weapons - calibre, ease-of-use, size/weight reduction, availability, etc.;
population density;
most kids with 0 to 1 parent at home;
mass media;
internet (or 'internets' if you're a G'Dub'Ya burn-out like boot-tsie); and,
the increased pressures of day-to-day life to just 'make a dollar' and survive.

here's a question for an almost-deep-thinker like boner-bill:

if you ENFORCE tough gun laws (covering automatic weapons i.e. non-hunting rifles) and actually follow-up with tough jail time for the mere possession of the human-killing weapons...doesn't that put the 'heat' on the criminals as well as your average trailer-park-gun-nut?

(ref. civil societies around the world)

[chillbilly]

when all else fails, including logic, start name calling. :confused: :confused: :rolleyes:
That's all he's got. Apparently he's likes boners alot.
If you ever see a constructive thought from tony that is a paragraph in length, start looking for a star in the east. :o

[tonys]

a reference that ONLY a jesus-freak would find 'interesting'.

[chillbilly]

there's a LOT of gay-rage there - you may want to look-into-that...

...anyhow - here's a very brief list of things that have changed since the beloved draft of the Constitution - and her Amends. were issued:
weapons - calibre, ease-of-use, size/weight reduction, availability, etc.; Uhh, NO. Large caliber weapons were availaible then and were used regularly.

population density;
So? How does this affect the law or the fundamental right to bear arms?
The constitution has stood up well to any and all changes.
That's why there are few amendments to it.

most kids with 0 to 1 parent at home
Huh? There are laws currently on the books that handle irresponsible handling of weapons and allowed access to them. Please make a point or go back to the Nickolodeon site.

mass media;
LOL And you eat their garbage like it's popcorn.
What does mass media have to do with the constitutional right to bear arms other than selling sound bites to goobs like you?

internet (or 'internets' if you're a G'Dub'Ya burn-out like boot-tsie); and,
the increased pressures of day-to-day life to just 'make a dollar' and survive.
Do you think that the colonists and the framers of the constitution didn't deal with their share of "pressures"?
I mean, what with the British burning their homes, killing their families and communities en' masse and threatening them at every turn?
You are deluded. Life is so much easier now than it was then.


here's a question for an almost-deep-thinker like boner-bill:

if you ENFORCE tough gun laws (covering automatic weapons i.e. non-hunting rifles) and actually follow-up with tough jail time for the mere possession of the human-killing weapons...doesn't that put the 'heat' on the criminals as well as your average trailer-park-gun-nut?
(ref. civil societies around the world)
So now you want to talk about enforcement?
Weren't you advocating the abolition of guns earlier due to the "pressures" poor tony faces to make a living?
You're all over the map.
Is it the benzine?

[tonys]

yuuup.

gay-rage.


your rambling proves a great deal about this fundamental issue: gun proliferation has or has no place in a civil and just society(?)

well - society obviously needs a few more hundred years to evolve, and enlighten.

[jmac00]

there's a LOT of gay-rage there - you may want to look-into-that...

wow, what a great intellect you have:confused: is there anything constructive you would like to contribute, or are you going to continue with asinine name calling:(

[tonys]

are YOU trying to be another web-board hero?

the comment has something to do with some homophobe comments made by boner-bill - from quite some time ago.

not that I need to explain anything to your-kind.

[jmac00]

Everyday in this country, hundreds of people use there firearm to save themselves or others from violent attack. These criminals are afraid of only two things, LEO (Law Enforcement Officer) and the armed citizen:

http://www.nrapublications.org/armed%20citizen/Index.asp

It seems to me that LEO's appreciate the help of an armed citizen and we, as armed citizens are one of the reasons no one has been stupid enough to invade our country.

[tonys]

"armed citizens are one of the reasons no one has been stupid enough to invade our country"

are you MoFo kidding???


inter-continental balistic missles may have had something to do with it over the last 40-years.

and, as the Germans were prep'n their U-boats in 1944, I'm sure they were worried about ol'Billy-Bob in his trailer park in Kansas, sipp'n the moonshine with his trusted '22 by his side.


give it up, man.

[whec720]

Hmmmmm....maybe pizza head should go to o'lBiily Bob's trailer and attempt to confiscate his firearms. Go get them theres weapons, libs! Weaze Jesus freak hillbillies is real cooperative.
Wish ya luck, Air America.;)

[tonys]

"armed citizens are one of the reasons no one has been stupid enough to invade our country"

>>> does your rambling simpleton post imply that the above statement is 'true'?

[tonys]

Hmmmmm....maybe pizza head should go to o'lBiily Bob's trailer and attempt to confiscate his firearms. Go get them theres weapons, libs! Weaze Jesus freak hillbillies is real cooperative.
Wish ya luck, Air America.;)

'pizza head'


>>> where are you going with that?

it smells a little racist/bigot to me - no?

[whec720]

'pizza head'


>>> where are you going with that?

it smells a little racist/bigot to me - no?

Was I talkin to you?

it smells like rotten pizza-no?

[bootlen]

there's a LOT of gay-rage there - you may want to look-into-that...

Really? What exactly has enraged you?

[bootlen]

if you ENFORCE tough gun laws (covering automatic weapons i.e. non-hunting rifles) and actually follow-up with tough jail time for the mere possession of the human-killing weapons...doesn't that put the 'heat' on the criminals as well as your average trailer-park-gun-nut?

(ref. civil societies around the world)


Oh. You mean like in Darfur?

[whec720]

There are more guns out there across the USA than liberals realize. I say, put up or shut. They don't them, then come get them.

[bootlen]

Just ask tony what his job is. Go ahead. It will expalin a lot and you'll get a good laugh.

[tonys]

Darfur?

w.t.f. does that cluster-F&#* have to do with the western/civilized world?

please elaborate on your 'knowledge' of the western province of the Sudan...please do.

for a guy that hasn't heard of sharia law ...this should be good for a laugh.

in particular, I'd like your thoughts on the role the central government had on negotiating with the tribes to the east, and how this impacted their resources on controlling the Darfur region...

[tonys]

There are more guns out there across the USA than liberals realize. I say, put up or shut. They don't them, then come get them.

"They don't them"

???

[bootlen]

Darfur?

w.t.f. does that cluster-F&#* have to do with the western/civilized world?

please elaborate on your 'knowledge' of the western province of the Sudan...please do.

for a guy that hasn't heard of sharia law ...this should be good for a laugh.

in particular, I'd like your thoughts on the role the central government had on negotiating with the tribes to the east, and how this impacted their resources on controlling the Darfur region...

The only guns around belong to the gummint. That's what.

How's your gay rage doing?

[tonys]

Just ask tony what his job is. Go ahead. It will expalin a lot and you'll get a good laugh.


how many times can you post the SAME thing, Gomer?


are you jealous of my:
level of education?
'clean' job?
bank account?
INGROUND swimming pool?
and, general 'good looks':) ?

if so, you're more pathetic than I thought (or discounted you for) all along.

[bootlen]

how many times can you post the SAME thing, Gomer?


are you jealous of my:
level of education?
'clean' job?
bank account?
INGROUND swimming pool?
and, general 'good looks':) ?

if so, you're more pathetic than I thought (or discounted you for) all along.

Your gay rage is showing.

[whec720]

"They don't them"

???

"Them don't they"

???

[jmac00]

"armed citizens are one of the reasons no one has been stupid enough to invade our country"

are you MoFo kidding???


inter-continental balistic missles may have had something to do with it over the last 40-years.

and, as the Germans were prep'n their U-boats in 1944, I'm sure they were worried about ol'Billy-Bob in his trailer park in Kansas, sipp'n the moonshine with his trusted '22 by his side.


give it up, man.

talk about simpleton, conversing with you is like talking to an Amoeba?:rolleyes: NO ONE wins ANY battle without troops on the ground

Jesus, Talking to you is like talking to a Turnip, someone water this vegetable, will ya :( no need for fertilizer, this vegetable has enough of his own:)

[James 3528]

Yeah, Tony's writes like a old hemp head. The conquest of any country depends on holding ground and no one has ever substituted the individual holding the gun. The US nuclear triad has nothing to do with the continental defense of the US. It's sole purpose is for a deterrent for a nuclear first strike. The National Guard and Reserve's mission is to defend the continental US. The Active forces mission is to project and deliver military power away from the continental US.


The Communist cold war planners always knew they could never deal with the private gun owner that resides in the US. That is why they produced the Soviets SKS for every male and female in and outside the Soviet armed forces as a way of countering and mirroring that advantage. They just never trusted their citizens enough due to murdering a large number or them, to distribute them.

[whec720]

Yeah, Tony's writes like a old hemp head. The conquest of any country depends on holding ground and no one has ever substituted the individual holding the gun. The US nuclear triad has nothing to do with the continental defense of the US. It's sole purpose is for a deterrent for a nuclear first strike. The National Guard and Reserve's mission is to defend the continental US. The Active forces mission is to project and deliver military power away from the continental US.


The Communist cold war planners always knew they could never deal with the private gun owner that resides in the US. That is why they produced the Soviets SKS for every male and female in and outside the Soviet armed forces as a way of countering and mirroring that advantage. They just never trusted their citizens enough due to murdering a large number or them, to distribute them.

Interesting. Was this prior to 1947? You would think they would have gone with the AKs.

[James 3528]

the SKS was before the AK

[whec720]

the SKS was before the AK

For some reason I thought it was before the SKS, my mistake. The first SKS came out in 1945. :o

[chillbilly]

yuuup.

gay-rage.
your rambling proves a great deal about this fundamental issue: gun proliferation has or has no place in a civil and just society(?)
well - society obviously needs a few more hundred years to evolve, and enlighten.

Ole' shrek is enamored with the word, "boner" and he's referring to "gay rage".
Hmmmm. Very curious. :o

[oloenneker]

A "militia" at the time the Constitution was written, is an armed civilian populace. The military does not qualify as a "militia". As a matter of fact, the military is a separately listed entity in the Constitution...as in may not force themselves into one's home. The Constitution calls for a "well regulated militia".

All we have to do is enforce existing laws (which we do not do) rather than adding additional laws which we CAN not.


Oh gosh, Mr. Air Air Force Bootlen must not understand that the National Guard is comprised of "citizen soldiers"...

Fail, do not pass go, do not collect $200...

And yes, one look at the existing law would prove that firearms have no place in the civilian population, if we where to follow the second amendment to a tee. It's right there in black and white.
Do you care to point this out to the NRA? They like to delete the "well regulated militia" part in their propaganda.

[oloenneker]

when it comes to personal defense:

"most" gun fights start out as hand-to-hand combat and "most" gun fights happen within 7 yards (21 feet) of the defendant. So, not to worry, if I have to defend myself or my family it's a very good bet, I will be looking my enemy in the eye.

I am well aware of this, so why even use the gun? If you're that close, the honorable thing is to fight like a man, not with a gun.

Personally, if you break into my home and pose a threat deserving of deadly violence, you might end up with one of these buried in the back of your head.http://www.grivel.com/Products/img_piccozze/img_dettaglio/varianti/22.jpg

[chillbilly]

I am well aware of this, so why even use the gun? If you're that close, the honorable thing is to fight like a man, not with a gun.
Great. See if you can explain that concept to the criminal that is robbing, raping, pillaging and murdering using a gun in commission of his crime.
I'm sure he'll retreat and leave you your life, wife and possessions if he knows he's not doing the "honorable" thing.:rolleyes:


Personally, if you break into my home and pose a threat deserving of deadly violence, you might end up with one of these buried in the back of your head.http://www.grivel.com/Products/img_piccozze/img_dettaglio/varianti/22.jpg


Your choice. Big mistake.

[Pagan]

Oh gosh, Mr. Air Air Force Bootlen must not understand that the National Guard is comprised of "citizen soldiers"...

Fail, do not pass go, do not collect $200...

And yes, one look at the existing law would prove that firearms have no place in the civilian population, if we where to follow the second amendment to a tee. It's right there in black and white.
Do you care to point this out to the NRA? They like to delete the "well regulated militia" part in their propaganda.


Correction, the national guard are not "Citizen " soldiers.
They ARE SOLDIERS!!!!! they are also the only branch of the government that can be used in times of declared martial law or as directed by the president and congress to be used against the American People!

it was for this last reason that I could have never joined the national guard!
reading about the incidents involving university protests and soldiers clashing
in the 60's, convinced me that I didnt need to put myself in a position to be fighting my family or friends potentially!

[Pagan]

Great. See if you can explain that concept to the criminal that is robbing, raping, pillaging and murdering using a gun in commission of his crime.
I'm sure he'll retreat and leave you your life, wife and possessions if he knows he's not doing the "honorable" thing.:rolleyes:




Your choice. Big mistake.

Criminals dont tend to stop and think about honor before enterng a home with a weapon. they will shoot, stab, maim and repeat on your ass
as they see fit! and I say they because out here
it's rare that a burglary is done solo, they do it in teams now, and usually one of the guys is a electrical whiz and can bypass alarm systems while the others carry out the plan!
I dont care if your Paul Freakin Bunyon, swing that axe all you want, but fighting off more than a solo armed man is not goingto be easy let alone 2 or more , more than likely packing heat! BIG HEAT!!!!!

[oloenneker]

Great. See if you can explain that concept to the criminal that is robbing, raping, pillaging and murdering using a gun in commission of his crime.
I'm sure he'll retreat and leave you your life, wife and possessions if he knows he's not doing the "honorable" thing.:rolleyes:



Do you have some stats on how many crimes are committed like you described?

Have you ever considered where the criminals get their guns from?

Don't we pay professionals to take care of this for us? It is after all the job of law enforcement to take care of these people, we pay for it, demand that they do their "jobs"...

[oloenneker]

it's rare that a burglary is done solo, they do it in teams now, and usually one of the guys is a electrical whiz and can bypass alarm systems while the others carry out the plan!
I dont care if your Paul Freakin Bunyon, swing that axe all you want, but fighting off more than a solo armed man is not goingto be easy let alone 2 or more , more than likely packing heat! BIG HEAT!!!!!


Since when does a property crime warrant a capital punishment? Cops can't shoot un-armed people, why should you be able to? because you are scared?

[Pagan]

Do you have some stats on how many crimes are committed like you described?

Have you ever considered where the criminals get their guns from?

Don't we pay professionals to take care of this for us? It is after all the job of law enforcement to take care of these people, we pay for it, demand that they do their "jobs"...


yes we pay them "to serve and protect the community" NOT THE INDIVIDUAL!!!! this is where your grossly misinformed.

are you aware that in CA you as the man of your home can go to jail for failing to defend and protect those of disadvatage within your home and on your property?

I just learned of this sometime ago. My brother is a Sherrif Deputy
and we were discussing a similar topic!

check you local laws, CA is not the only state to have this adopted!

[Pagan]

Since when does a property crime warrant a capital punishment? Cops can't shoot un-armed people, why should you be able to? because you are scared?
now your putting words in my mouth.

I never stated I shoot un -armed people.
but I did state earlier, I would much rather fight you like a real man toe to toe than use a gun! but I wont not use other objects including guns if the need arises!

[James 3528]

Oh gosh, Mr. Air Air Force Bootlen must not understand that the National Guard is comprised of "citizen soldiers"...

Fail, do not pass go, do not collect $200...

And yes, one look at the existing law would prove that firearms have no place in the civilian population, if we where to follow the second amendment to a tee. It's right there in black and white.
Do you care to point this out to the NRA? They like to delete the "well regulated militia" part in their propaganda.


I put the second amendment up on the other page. You're wrong. Period. In spite of how goofy the liberal democrats are, they can't change the wording so I guess that means you're not going to either

[oloenneker]

yes we pay them "to serve and protect the community" NOT THE INDIVIDUAL!!!! this is where your grossly misinformed.

are you aware that in CA you as the man of your home can go to jail for failing to defend and protect those of disadvatage within your home and on your property?

I just learned of this sometime ago. My brother is a Sherrif Deputy
and we were discussing a similar topic!

check you local laws, CA is not the only state to have this adopted!



Yep! I am well aware of that. I was a reserve Police Officer in CA. for nearly 9 years. the last thing I like to think about was some overzealous citizen shooting me because they thought I was a prowler, looking for the prowler the called in about.

[oloenneker]

I put the second amendment up on the other page. You're wrong. Period. In spite of how goofy the liberal democrats are, they can't change the wording so I guess that means you're not going to either

You just have a problem with reading comprehension. You only want to read and understand that last part of the amendment rather than the first.

I never said I wanted to change the wording, thats not for me to do. What is needed is for an accurate interpetation of the ammendment, rather than this "frothing at the mouth" stance the gun nuts have, claiming that it is their right to "defend them selves" which is no where written in the amenment.

[jmac00]

I am well aware of this, so why even use the gun? If you're that close, the honorable thing is to fight like a man, not with a gun.


GREAT, do have a brother named Toni:confused: :confused: :confused: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Thats has to be the STUPIDEST THING you have said yet, of course I'm probably wrong on THAT point

The Honorable thing to do is to LIVE. so you can go to work the next day and support your family,

The Honorable thing to do, is to use whatever means you have available to you to protect you and your family.


I find it very interesting that you have no problem KILLING SOMEONE WITH A AX, yet killing that same person with a bullet is somehow, a despicable act to you .

You enjoy a very peculiar double standard :confused: :confused: :confused:

[oloenneker]

You enjoy a very peculiar double standard :confused: :confused: :confused:

I am entitled to my views, as are you. I don't ask you to agree.

When I use an Ice Axe, I know that the intended target is going to get hit. There are no stray or missed bullets flying through the walls of my house and killing some innocent bystander. I would wonder how many of you feverent gun nuts have gone through complete "shoot don't shoot" training?

[bootlen]

Oh gosh, Mr. Air Air Force Bootlen must not understand that the National Guard is comprised of "citizen soldiers"...

Fail, do not pass go, do not collect $200...

And yes, one look at the existing law would prove that firearms have no place in the civilian population, if we where to follow the second amendment to a tee. It's right there in black and white.
Do you care to point this out to the NRA? They like to delete the "well regulated militia" part in their propaganda.

I know you're trying to make a point but for the life of you, you are not succeeding.

The militia is armed CIVILIAN populace. What about "CIVILIAN" do you not understand? The Constitution was not referring to the National Guard. There was no NG till last century. And the NG calls its members "citizen soldiers"...from an ad campaign ...not from the Constitution.

[James 3528]

You just have a problem with reading comprehension. You only want to read and understand that last part of the amendment rather than the first.

I never said I wanted to change the wording, thats not for me to do. What is needed is for an accurate interpetation of the ammendment, rather than this "frothing at the mouth" stance the gun nuts have, claiming that it is their right to "defend them selves" which is no where written in the amenment.


Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.




What more interpretation do you need? I bet you have a problem opening child proof caps:rolleyes: .

Who are you being this dense to be calling someone a 'nut"?

[oloenneker]

I know you're trying to make a point but for the life of you, you are not succeeding.

The militia is armed CIVILIAN populace. What about "CIVILIAN" do you not understand? The Constitution was not referring to the National Guard. There was no NG till last century. And the NG calls its members "citizen soldiers"...from an ad campaign ...not from the Constitution.

So, boots, considering that the arms you have are for the "well regulated militia" what militia do you belong to?

[oloenneker]

What more interpretation do you need? I bet you have a problem opening child proof caps:rolleyes: .

Who are you being this dense to be calling someone a 'nut"?

Same question lies to you James, which militia do you belong to? How often do you train, etc.?

[jmac00]

I am entitled to my views, as are you. I don't ask you to agree.

When I use an Ice Axe, I know that the intended target is going to get hit. There are no stray or missed bullets flying through the walls of my house and killing some innocent bystander. I would wonder how many of you feverent gun nuts have gone through complete "shoot don't shoot" training?


7000-8000 rounds per year, I hit what I aim at, bring on you ax Sally, and Kiss your butt goodby:p :eek:

[James 3528]

Same question lies to you James, which militia do you belong to? How often do you train, etc.?


the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Do you try to look this stupid or have you achieved this level of stupidity naturally?

[chillbilly]

Do you have some stats on how many crimes are committed like you described?
Prisons are full of them.


Have you ever considered where the criminals get their guns from?
There's the rub. Criminals have more access to illegal gun purchases than law abiding citizens have to buy a shotgun from the local department store.



Don't we pay professionals to take care of this for us? It is after all the job of law enforcement to take care of these people, we pay for it, demand that they do their "jobs"...
I'm realistic about the prospect that these people you feel I can rely on to protect me, are not up to doing the job as well as I can.

[RoBoTeq]

There is no doubt that this is true, but the point I am trying to make is that certain firearms have no place among the civilian population. I am all for hunting arms, and have no problem if you own them, but I see no reason why someone needs a AR-15 with a 100 round magazine, and a bayonet lug.



The problem with an armed civilian population is that while most gun owners are responsible, they keep these guns in their homes, and places of business. Where do you suppose the criminal element get their guns from? From these "responsible" gun owners. They are one of the #1 stolen items in burglaries. In turn the burglar sells this gun to the thugs, and on and on. So until we legislate so sort of control of how you store your said "responsible" guns to keep them off the street, I say get rid of them.

Just what mentallity deficiency makes you feel you have the right to dictate what or how much others should be allowed to have of anything. I for one could care less who has what. If someone uses a gun, cannon, knife or noodle against me in violence then there are laws that can be used by our legal system to take care of that person for their actions.

The problem is that so many judges are not using the current legal means at their disposal so they can propogate the need to control other Americans.

[bootlen]

Since when does a property crime warrant a capital punishment? Cops can't shoot un-armed people, why should you be able to? because you are scared?

You better be scared if you kill 'im. If you're not, you can be charged with a capital crime.

You're barking up the wrong tree if you think most people wouldn't kill an intruder (armed or unarmed) in their home.

[whec720]

So, boots, considering that the arms you have are for the "well regulated militia" what militia do you belong to?

Not to interrupt, but you don't have to be in a militia to bear arms, so says the DC Circuit Appeals Court. Read Parker vs. District of Columbia. Courts rules in favor of Second Amendment. In other words, the court agreed that an individual has the right to possess firearms in his home.

[bootlen]

Yep! I am well aware of that. I was a reserve Police Officer in CA. for nearly 9 years. the last thing I like to think about was some overzealous citizen shooting me because they thought I was a prowler, looking for the prowler the called in about.

Try this little trick: Identify yourself before you go snooping around.

[chillbilly]

Just what mentallity deficiency makes you feel you have the right to dictate what or how much others should be allowed to have of anything.
That's an excellent point Robo.
How is it that the liberals who are incessantly whining about their rights being infringed upon by the repressive conservatives, can fix their mouths to decide how many guns citizens can own and what types of guns are suitable??
Bit of a double standard there, isn't it?



I for one could care less who has what. If someone uses a gun, cannon, knife or noodle against me in violence then there are laws that can be used by our legal system to take care of that person for their actions.
Exactly. Liberals are the first people to complain about wiretapping surveillance, yet they condone big brother disarming it's citizens.

[bootlen]

So, boots, considering that the arms you have are for the "well regulated militia" what militia do you belong to?

I am a civilian citizen of the United States. THAT militia.

[oloenneker]

Not to interrupt, but you don't have to be in a militia to bear arms, so says the DC Circuit Appeals Court. Read Parker vs. District of Columbia. Courts rules in favor of Second Amendment. In other words, the court agreed that an individual has the right to possess firearms in his home.


Why don't you go ahead and educate us all... Can you cite the case law?


As far as I see it, that is un constitutional as it's intent is written plain as day.

"well regulated militia" unless you consider your family a "well regulated militia" the case law you cite is wrong, and could be overturned.

[oloenneker]

I am a civilian citizen of the United States. THAT militia.

Can you please give me the POA&M of such a militia and it's rank structure?


Exactly, not so well "regulated" now is it.

Amendment II was written before there was any type of structured armed forces to protect the infant country, so the founders relied on "militia" to serve as security forces against the British and others....


Like I have said before in this thread, the amendment is antiquated.

[oloenneker]

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Do you try to look this stupid or have you achieved this level of stupidity naturally?

No, you are the dense one here. You still have a reading comprehension issues with understanding the EXACT wording of the amendment. In this case, you conviently delete the "well regulated militia" segment. You seem to not want to address that aspect. And on top of that, you cannot see the initial intent of the amendment, you only see the portions that serve your agenda. Typical.:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[oloenneker]

7000-8000 rounds per year, I hit what I aim at, bring on you ax Sally, and Kiss your butt goodby:p :eek:

Unless I sneak up on you from behind...


And even then , It might not even be the Ice tool, sheet, I'll stick you with a dagger, or punch you in the eye and steal your stupid gun... You never know. I am Viking after all, never underestimate a Viking!!:D :D :D

[hvactech13]

No, you are the dense one here. You still have a reading comprehension issues with understanding the EXACT wording of the amendment. In this case, you conviently delete the "well regulated militia" segment. You seem to not want to address that aspect. And on top of that, you cannot see the initial intent of the amendment, you only see the portions that serve your agenda. Typical.:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

The original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia, membership in any militia, let alone a well-regulated one, was not intended to serve as a prerequisite for exercising the right to keep arms.

The Second Amendment preserves and guarantees an individual right for a collective purpose. That does not transform the right into a "collective right." The militia clause was a declaration of purpose, and preserving the people's right to keep and bear arms was the method the framers chose to, in-part, ensure the continuation of a well-regulated militia.

There is no evidence indicating that the Second Amendment was intended to apply solely to active militia members.

The Militia Act of 1903 created the United States National Guard by federalizing a portion of the state militias which were converted into regular troops kept in reserve for the United States Army. In 1933, Congress reorganized the National Guard under its power to "raise and support armies" in order to "create the National Guard of the United States as a component of the Army". This was done to avoid the constitutional limits on deployment of the militia which can be called forth only "to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions."

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. Unarmed citizens become the hapless bystanders to tyranical rule. Stalin knew this as did Hitler. I for one do not wish to become a statistical number in a repeat of history.

[oloenneker]

Try this little trick: Identify yourself before you go snooping around.

Oh I tried!!! But those 90 year old ladies pointing their little .380 out the window at anything that moves, cannot hear the announcement "POLICE, we are coming into your back yard".... Hell, they cannot even discern the uniform, or the fact that I am shining a flash light around and a two way radio chatter going off...Not to mention that they refuse to answer the phone calls from the dispatcher telling them that we are in their back yard....

That stuff used to scare me more than any thing else in that job....

[jmac00]

Oh I tried!!! But those 90 year old ladies pointing their little .380 out the window at anything that moves, cannot hear the announcement "POLICE, we are coming into your back yard".... Hell, they cannot even discern the uniform, or the fact that I am shining a flash light around and a two way radio chatter going off...Not to mention that they refuse to answer the phone calls from the dispatcher telling them that we are in their back yard....

That stuff used to scare me more than any thing else in that job....

then, by your own admission, you should not have had to go in there yard.

If them little old ladies are going to shoot at you, the bad guy is all ready dead, shot by some poor old little old lady.

All you needed to do was call the ME

[The Doctor]

Unless I sneak up on you from behind...

Was this the man to man part you were talking about??? :rolleyes:

And even then , It might not even be the Ice tool, sheet, I'll stick you with a dagger, or punch you in the eye and steal your stupid gun... You never know. I am Viking after all, never underestimate a Viking!!:D :D :D
So, many have asserted that the NG was an afterthought to the military, and that the term 'militia' is used differently when describing our rights.
We can conclude then that you would have this right changed, or removed outright? Is that correct?
I would caution you to review the histories of countries which are disarmed. There is a problem with criminals. THey don't get the "peace and love" memo which you keep talking about.

I may say you're a dreamer, but you're not the only one.... :rolleyes:


Which is why I'm going with "armed and ready".

[zzonko]

Unless I sneak up on you from behind...


And even then , It might not even be the Ice tool, sheet, I'll stick you with a dagger, or punch you in the eye and steal your stupid gun... You never know. I am Viking after all, never underestimate a Viking!!:D :D :D

No sneaking up here, he hates vikings.:D He loves gunfire though.

http://img3.glowfoto.com/images/2007/08/17-0335386074M.jpg (http://www.glowfoto.com/viewimage.php?img=17-033538L&y=2007&m=08&t=jpg&rand=6074&srv=img3)

[bootlen]

Can you please give me the POA&M of such a militia and it's rank structure?


Exactly, not so well "regulated" now is it.

Amendment II was written before there was any type of structured armed forces to protect the infant country, so the founders relied on "militia" to serve as security forces against the British and others....


Like I have said before in this thread, the amendment is antiquated.

None of your above listed structure is required of civilians in the US. Maybe in Denmark, but not here.

It is apparent you are ignorant as to the meanings of "civilian" and "militia".

[bootlen]

Oh I tried!!! But those 90 year old ladies pointing their little .380 out the window at anything that moves, cannot hear the announcement "POLICE, we are coming into your back yard".... Hell, they cannot even discern the uniform, or the fact that I am shining a flash light around and a two way radio chatter going off...Not to mention that they refuse to answer the phone calls from the dispatcher telling them that we are in their back yard....

That stuff used to scare me more than any thing else in that job....

So...how many 90 year ol deaf ladies have gotten the best of you?:p

[chillbilly]

Oh I tried!!! But those 90 year old ladies pointing their little .380 out the window at anything that moves, cannot hear the announcement "POLICE, we are coming into your back yard".... Hell, they cannot even discern the uniform, or the fact that I am shining a flash light around and a two way radio chatter going off...Not to mention that they refuse to answer the phone calls from the dispatcher telling them that we are in their back yard.
Talk about antiquated.
Ole, your example is anything but the norm.
You speak in terms of hapless 90 year olds that can't see and hear, yet they somehow would be able to use a gun to defend themselves?
The framers of the constitution understood the importance of allowing citizens to 'keep and bear arms' and it had nothing to do with a well regulated militia, which at that time was a necessity because of the broad expanse of the continent, the agrressors commonly entering it, and the obvious conclusion by the leaders that more than a well regulated militia was needed for protection against indiscriminate and organized attacks.

I really don't see how protection concepts have changed at all.
We still witness real "murder movies" every single day in this country, we still have a serious problem with invasion from the south and north, and we still have a general responsibility to protect our families and ourselves.
Anyone who subscribes to the idea that local, state and federal governments are going to protect them from disaster and the criminal element had really better think again.

[chillbilly]

No sneaking up here, he hates vikings.:D He loves gunfire though.

http://img3.glowfoto.com/images/2007/08/17-0335386074M.jpg (http://www.glowfoto.com/viewimage.php?img=17-033538L&y=2007&m=08&t=jpg&rand=6074&srv=img3)
LOL That's a damned fine looking Shepherd. ;)

[whec720]

Why don't you go ahead and educate us all... Can you cite the case law?


As far as I see it, that is un constitutional as it's intent is written plain as day.

"well regulated militia" unless you consider your family a "well regulated militia" the case law you cite is wrong, and could be overturned.

The DC Circuit agreed that an individual can possess firearms in his home. What do you not understand? Seems like you need the education. Look it up, Parker vs. District of Columbia. Sheech...you libs have to have everything done for you. Utilize some effort.

[tonys]

"you libs have to have everything done for you"

analogous to the large construction and engineering firms that received no-bid contracts from that I-crack mis-adventure ???

were they Libs running the show over there?
...just having those billion dollar contracts 'done for them' buy their buddy Cheney Co.?


no, different situation - don't ask, don't tell


...riiiiiight.

[Pagan]

"you libs have to have everything done for you"

analogous to the large construction and engineering firms that received no-bid contracts from that I-crack mis-adventure ???

were they Libs running the show over there?
...just having those billion dollar contracts 'done for them' buy their buddy Cheney Co.?


no, different situation - don't ask, don't tell


...riiiiiight.


name another company that was of US origin that could handle the tasks at hand during a war zone?

A company that has their own security details, heavy equipment & operators,
Electricians, mud and tapers, plumbers, Iron workers,painters, HVAC techs,
pipe fitters & welders, Cranes, barge's ETC ETC ETC??

because EVERY construction company in the US has that kind of capability and should be able to bid on jobs like that!:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[geerair]

name another company that was of US origin that could handle the tasks at hand during a war zone?

A company that has their own security details, heavy equipment & operators,
Electricians, mud and tapers, plumbers, Iron workers,painters, HVAC techs,
pipe fitters & welders, Cranes, barge's ETC ETC ETC??

because EVERY construction company in the US has that kind of capability and should be able to bid on jobs like that!:rolleyes: :rolleyes:Ummmmmmm...........the U.S. military.

[chillbilly]

Ummmmmmm...........the U.S. military.

Geer you need to remember that there are a large number of private companies that support the military and any efforts, military or otherwise.

Maybe you think we should outsource the work to India or something? :rolleyes:

[geerair]

Geer you need to remember that there are a large number of private companies that support the military and any efforts, military or otherwise.

Maybe you think we should outsource the work to India or something? :rolleyes:And there is a large number of military personnel trained and qualified in the areas Pagan mentioned. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[chillbilly]

And there is a large number of military personnel trained and qualified in the areas Pagan mentioned. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
True, but he was referring to companies prepared to handle tasks in support of our military.

You guys want to beych and moan about Halliburton and other supporting industries when the only alternative is outsourcing away from it.
You liberals would be perfectly content selling the Ponderosa to anyone with a DNC campaign contribution.:rolleyes:

[bootlen]

Another little issue geer ignores is the fact Cheney left Halliburton under less than friendly conditions.

[geerair]

True, but he was referring to companies prepared to handle tasks in support of our military. So, we shovel out billions to Bush's cronies when the military has well trained and qualified personnel to handle these tasks?

And you conservlicans call yourselves fiscal conservatives?

[whec720]

Hmmmmm...a discussion about gun control turns into an argument over Halliburton. No wonder libs rule the media.:rolleyes:

[mrs reb77]

they are master bait n switchers

(say it fast... :D )

[chillbilly]

So, we shovel out billions to Bush's cronies when the military has well trained and qualified personnel to handle these tasks?
And you conservlicans call yourselves fiscal conservatives?
I never call myself a conservative and surely not a fiscal conservative.
The term "fiscal conservative" does have a nice ring to it though..............
and it's a heck of a lot better than a "tax and spend liberal". ;)
The government endorses private agencies in a supporting role for the military.
Ask liberal politicians. They vote for the support too.
Happened before Bush (and his cronies) and will happen after.
It's good for the economy and Americans, unless you've got a problem with Americans dropping money back into America.

[whec720]

they are master bait n switchers

(say it fast... :D )

When your reasoning is that obtuse as a liberal, you have to have something go for ya.lol:D

[jmac00]

they are master bait n switchers

(say it fast... :D )


you say that like it's a bad thing :rolleyes: :p :D

[geerair]

I never call myself a conservative and surely not a fiscal conservative.Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck..........

Yes, I can see why people would be hesitant to call themselves conservatives what with the continual failure of conservative policies.



The term "fiscal conservative" does have a nice ring to it though..............
and it's a heck of a lot better than a "tax and spend liberal". ;)Is it a heck of a lot better than "borrow and spend."




The government endorses private agencies in a supporting role for the military.
Ask liberal politicians. They vote for the support too.
Happened before Bush (and his cronies) and will happen after.
It's good for the economy and Americans, unless you've got a problem with Americans dropping money back into America.So, you support spending millions to train military personnel in various trades and skills to perform various tasks, then when those trades and skills are needed you support paying private contractors billions to perform the very tasks for which you already have trained personnel?

So, in your own business, you think it is sound business practice to pay and train an in house installation crew, yet when you have an installation, you pay even more to a subcontractor to do that installation?


You seem to have a very curious understanding of economics.

[scrogdog]

The fact that we use subcontractors and mercenary forces in Iraq has nothing to do with paying twice for what we can already do. It has to do with the fact that the mercs do not have to abide by the same stated rules of engagement as US forces do.

It is also why we grab other coalition forces to do certain jobs. For example, our boys might identify and track a given target, but use a Polish sniper to take him down. That doesn't mean that our snipers aren't good or that there aren't enough of them, it means the Polish guy could take out a suspect that we could not... because we are so nice. :rolleyes:

This is also why the subcontractors have thier own security... they can go all out in their own defense where on the other hand we might be shackled by certain rules. War's a dirty game. Sometimes you have to play it a bit dirty instead of trying to appear "nice". Construction is expensive, if we pussyfoot around eliminating a threat that halts the building of whatever project is going on... I'd say you are looking at about a five-fold increase in cost. The mercs squash threats with hammers. Back to work.

If one is primarily concerned with cost effectiveness, then using US combat forces to do the work most certainly is not the way. In other scenarios it might work, but not here. It would depend highly on the stated rules of engagement. It would also depend on whether or not a "hot zone" still existed during the construction in a safe zone. In that case combat engineers would be needed in combat.

[James 3528]

I love reading liberals rant about the military. It's like reading the garbage man rant about quantum physics.

The other irony is that they would never join on their own anyway under any circumstances. Modern day liberalism is based on receiving, not giving. Of course it is fine giving something gained by someone else. All they need to do that is to do what they do best. Demonize the haves because their lives were spent as underachievers of profiting from ignorance and the clinically miserable..


I also love know liberals don't have guns.

[geerair]

The fact that we use subcontractors and mercenary forces in Iraq has nothing to do with paying twice for what we can already do. It has to do with the fact that the mercs do not have to abide by the same stated rules of engagement as US forces do.

It is also why we grab other coalition forces to do certain jobs. For example, our boys might identify and track a given target, but use a Polish sniper to take him down. That doesn't mean that our snipers aren't good or that there aren't enough of them, it means the Polish guy could take out a suspect that we could not... because we are so nice. :rolleyes: Ok, if coalition partners can do things our troops can't, then why the need for mercs? Call up Polish headquarters have them send over however many men the mission requires. These people are paid by the Polish government and do not cost the U.S. the typical pay of subcontactors which can run up to $150,000 per man.


This is also why the subcontractors have thier own security... they can go all out in their own defense where on the other hand we might be shackled by certain rules.Can you cite specific rules that limit a soldiers ability to defend himself? From what I understand the Marines in Fallujah were told to kill a threat don't wound it. Doesn't sound like any limit there.



War's a dirty game. Sometimes you have to play it a bit dirty instead of trying to appear "nice". Construction is expensive, if we pussyfoot around eliminating a threat that halts the building of whatever project is going on... I'd say you are looking at about a five-fold increase in cost. The mercs squash threats with hammers. Back to work.What specifically could these contractors do that soldiers couldn't if a building site they are guarding comes under attack? Are you saying that soldiers aren't allowed to vigorously defend building sites?



If one is primarily concerned with cost effectiveness, then using US combat forces to do the work most certainly is not the way. In other scenarios it might work, but not here. It would depend highly on the stated rules of engagement. It would also depend on whether or not a "hot zone" still existed during the construction in a safe zone. In that case combat engineers would be needed in combat.So your whole case boils down to rules of engagement. Yet in the same post, you say coalition forces may be called upon to perform tasks U.S. troops are forbidden to do. If this is the case then why go to the expense of duplicating this effort at a much higher cost?

Of course we haven't even delved into the subject of providing meals, amenities, trucking, supply convoys, providing fuel, camp services, and various other tasks.

[geerair]

I love reading liberals rant about the military. It's like reading the garbage man rant about quantum physics.

The other irony is that they would never join on their own anyway under any circumstances. Modern day liberalism is based on receiving, not giving. Of course it is fine giving something gained by someone else. All they need to do that is to do what they do best. Demonize the haves because their lives were spent as underachievers of profiting from ignorance and the clinically miserable..


I also love know liberals don't have guns.If you are going to continue to channel Rush, you really need to give him credit for these rants.

[James 3528]

If you are going to continue to channel Rush, you really need to give him credit for these rants.


Confirmation I nailed them again.

[geerair]

Confirmation I nailed them again.Confirmation you are parroting Oxy-Rush.

[jmac00]

Confirmation I nailed them again.


confirmation: your talking to a Turnip :confused: :rolleyes: :D

[James 3528]

Ah, more confirmation. Other than what I wrote nailing liberals for their behavior, they also think individual thought and behavior is bad. They hate being exposed. They all write and think in unison. They all wear the same face. Their are thousands on the Internet using the same buzz words right now. Geer is a great example of that.

[geerair]

Ah, more confirmation. Other than what I wrote nailing liberals for their behavior, they also think individual thought and behavior is bad. They hate being exposed. They all write and think in unison. They all wear the same face. Their are thousands on the Internet using the same buzz words right now. Geer is a great example of that.Brrrrwwwwokkkk Jamie want a Oxy-Rush cracker.

[James 3528]

More confirmation.

[geerair]

More confirmation.Next we'll see the line he stole from Savage.

What was that about thinking in unison? http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/rotflol.gif

[James 3528]

More confirmation.

[geerair]

More confirmation.Are you aware you have nothing to say that didn't come from Oxy-rush or Savage.? :eek: :p :p

Come on give us the line about liberals you stole from Savage.

[acmanko]

The real problem is the conservative religious government of Iran does not see eye to eye with the conserative religious government of the US. Liberals are what's needed to break this quagmire.

[scrogdog]

Ok, if coalition partners can do things our troops can't, then why the need for mercs? Call up Polish headquarters have them send over however many men the mission requires. These people are paid by the Polish government and do not cost the U.S. the typical pay of subcontactors which can run up to $150,000 per man.

Because the mercs are internal to the contractors who are doing the work, and the Polish Army is notably light in the area of combat engineers... as in zero present in Iraq. Besides, if cost of the war is so important to you, why send home free troops? When we did not have enough there to start with? I wish it were as easy as calling up the Poles for whatever we need, but that is hardly realistic. :)


Can you cite specific rules that limit a soldiers ability to defend himself? From what I understand the Marines in Fallujah were told to kill a threat don't wound it. Doesn't sound like any limit there.

There is a lot more to rules of *engagement* then defense, my friend. A whole hell of a lot more. I just gave you an example with the Polish sniper. It has to do with how we engage the enemy, and what collateral damage is permissable. The mercs have a much freer hand in this.


What specifically could these contractors do that soldiers couldn't if a building site they are guarding comes under attack? Are you saying that soldiers aren't allowed to vigorously defend building sites?

Well, I could only speculate a scenario. Again, to speak soley of defense is not even close to what rules of engagement are all about. Think of the difference between a US held captive and someone the mercs just caught who not only just killed a few of thier buddies, but might know more about source, size and intent of the attackers.


whole case boils down to rules of engagement. Yet in the same post, you say coalition forces may be called upon to perform tasks U.S. troops are forbidden to do. If this is the case then why go to the expense of duplicating this effort at a much higher cost?

I don't think you quite understood what I was saying. Clarification on what rules of engagement actualy means is above. :) The short answer is that there are not enough troops in Iraq as it is, why ask free ones to go home. Why is it all about money with you? :) You are the first to jump on Bush when he ignores commanders on the ground. What if the commanders didn't want them to leave? :)


Of course we haven't even delved into the subject of providing meals, amenities, trucking, supply convoys, providing fuel, camp services, and various other tasks.

Delve in to it all you like. First, you don't like it that there weren't enough men or that they were poorly equipped. Well, to provide enough troops properly equipped is expensive. Not all things are about money, nonetheless, my point with regards to mercs vs US CE's and the related costs stands. In another scenario things could be different, but we aren't in another scenario. :)

[whec720]

The real problem is the conservative religious government of Iran does not see eye to eye with the conserative religious government of the US. Liberals are what's needed to break this quagmire.

Talk about stepping in it. Okay Mr. Liberal, what do liberals need to do to break this alleged "quagmire"?

[chillbilly]

Talk about stepping in it. Okay Mr. Liberal, what do liberals need to do to break this alleged "quagmire"?
Oh, they can give an armchair QB's list of what they would do alright, but eventually world events do and will require a patriotic decision and not a politically expedient one.
Quagmire. LOL

[bootlen]

The real problem is the conservative religious government of Iran does not see eye to eye with the conserative religious government of the US. Liberals are what's needed to break this quagmire.

Pppfffffffttaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaa !

Please, ac. Please tell me you had your tongue in your cheek when you posted that.

[geerair]

Because the mercs are internal to the contractors who are doing the work, and the Polish Army is notably light in the area of combat engineers...as in zero present in Iraq.So we are still left with paying up to $150,000 for security when we have soldiers who can provide this at a greatly reduced price.



Besides, if cost of the war is so important to you, why send home free troops?More important is the practice of paying to train soldiers and then paying even more to have the mercs do the job that you are paying the soldiers to do.



When we did not have enough there to start with? I wish it were as easy as calling up the Poles for whatever we need, but that is hardly realistic. :)We have other coalition partners. At least those who haven't wised up and went home.




There is a lot more to rules of *engagement* then defense, my friend. A whole hell of a lot more. I just gave you an example with the Polish sniper. It has to do with how we engage the enemy, and what collateral damage is permissable. The mercs have a much freer hand in this. Then why not just turn the whole occupation over to them? Freer rules of engagement, all the collateral damage you want.

Of course that might really crank up the manufacture of terrorists and cause an irrepairable destabilization of the ME, but what the hell.




Well, I could only speculate a scenario. Again, to speak soley of defense is not even close to what rules of engagement are all about. Think of the difference between a US held captive and someone the mercs just caught who not only just killed a few of thier buddies, but might know more about source, size and intent of the attackers.Did you forget about Abu Graib, renditions. If we are reduced to getting our intel from mercs then we have slid way down on the credibility pole.





I don't think you quite understood what I was saying. Clarification on what rules of engagement actualy means is above. :) The short answer is that there are not enough troops in Iraq as it is, why ask free ones to go home. Why is it all about money with you? :) You are the first to jump on Bush when he ignores commanders on the ground. What if the commanders didn't want them to leave? :)One word: Draft.




Delve in to it all you like. First, you don't like it that there weren't enough men or that they were poorly equipped.Having gone in with a sufficient force first would have avoided a large part of the problems with which we are now faced. Other policy blunders by Bush caused more problems as well. Too bad they blew off Shinseki.

Of course the ultimate cure to this fiasco would have been to have never invaded in the first place and concentrated on the people who actually attacked us on 9/11.



Well, to provide enough troops properly equipped is expensive. Not nearly as expensive as four and one half years of stumbling from one blunder to another.




Not all things are about moneyTrue enough but just pissing money away with little to show for it besides an inflated bottom line for contractors is not wise policy.



nonetheless, my point with regards to mercs vs US CE's and the related costs stands. In another scenario things could be different, but we aren't in another scenario. :)In other words because we stumbled from the start, we should continue stumbling.

[acmanko]

Pppfffffffttaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaa !

Please, ac. Please tell me you had your tongue in your cheek when you posted that. I can't help it if you are to ignorant to know you are in the presence genius.:confused:

[acmanko]

Talk about stepping in it. Okay Mr. Liberal, what do liberals need to do to break this alleged "quagmire"? I believe we need to go in with all branches of the Military and stop when Irak, Iran , Syria and anyother country in the region that complains are like one big territory, like Guam.

[bootlen]

I believe we need to go in with all branches of the Military and stop when Irak, Iran , Syria and anyother country in the region that complains are like one big territory, like Guam.

Like Guam.

Like Guam?

O-o-o-o-k-a-a-y.

[bootlen]

Quick. Somebody near AC get over there right away. He has OD'ed on his pains meds.

[jmac00]

I believe we need to go in with all branches of the Military and stop when Irak, Iran , Syria and anyother country in the region that complains are like one big territory, like Guam.

Territory like GUAM ????????? didn't they recently Carpet that "territory"

Stop Huffing the R-22:rolleyes:

[acmanko]

Yep, I'm saying the ME should be like this
http://www.guam-online.com/

[bootlen]

Yep, I'm saying the ME should be like this
http://www.guam-online.com/

Hell, ac. FORNEY should be like that.

[scrogdog]

So we are still left with paying up to $150,000 for security when we have soldiers who can provide this at a greatly reduced price.

Uh, no. We negotiate a contract and they provide whatever men and materials are neccessry. You are talking about independent security contracts that have nothing at all to do with reconstruction. Tell me, Mr. Geer, which brigades should operate at lesser efficiency to escort dignataries? The forces that are there have jobs already, in fact, we need even more of them.


More important is the practice of paying to train soldiers and then paying even more to have the mercs do the job that you are paying the soldiers to do.

Well, if you wish to ignore just about every point that I've made and just end up here without regard or refutation of my comments, that's you business. :) There is a very good reason for these companies to provide thier own security. So far, not one of your arguments refutes it... you just go off in aonther direction. :) I've stated the good reason more than once.


Then why not just turn the whole occupation over to them? Freer rules of engagement, all the collateral damage you want.

Again, because we are trying to be nice. I'm all for sub-contracting out the war so we can meet the enemy on his own terms. At least... moreso. In truth it would never fly, and I think you already knew that before asking the question. :) It surely is possible though.


Of course that might really crank up the manufacture of terrorists and cause an irrepairable destabilization of the ME, but what the hell.

It might. Then again, withdrawal from Iraq offers up that opportunity with a much greater chance of it actually occurring.


Did you forget about Abu Graib, renditions. If we are reduced to getting our intel from mercs then we have slid way down on the credibility pole.

When did I say that US forces are getting itel from mercs? You don't seriously expect a merc group to just stand there, eh? You suppose pros would know what to do... like gain intel on the enemy for thier OWN use?


One word: Draft.

Anyone who uses that word has in no way considered its implication, in my view. The cost and time to restructure and re-doctrinize would be staggering. We need MPs and special forces... not the grunts a draft would provide.


Having gone in with a sufficient force first would have avoided a large part of the problems with which we are now faced. Other policy blunders by Bush caused more problems as well. Too bad they blew off Shinseki.

Oh, I quite agree. That does not mean that we should pull out however.


Of course the ultimate cure to this fiasco would have been to have never invaded in the first place and concentrated on the people who actually attacked us on 9/11.

We did that. And even if we had taken Bin Laden next all that would have amounted to is a dog and pony show. It would bring us no closer to solving the problem. Revenge is fine... but useless in this case. We need an in your face base of wealth and influence. Too bad we don't have the balls to see it through.

[geerair]

Uh, no. We negotiate a contract and they provide whatever men and materials are neccessry. You are talking about independent security contracts that have nothing at all to do with reconstruction. Oh my Zeus scrog those government contracts are where the the contractors rake in the money. Remember the $500 hammers and toilet seats? Let's also keep in mind that the up to $150,000 figure is just what the contractors are paying the mercs. Zeus only knows how much the government is being billed for these services.




Tell me, Mr. Geer, which brigades should operate at lesser efficiency to escort dignataries? The forces that are there have jobs already, in fact, we need even more of them.And one of those jobs is providing security, a job that they are trained and paid for. The Marines have people that are specifically trained to guard embassies and dignitaries.






Well, if you wish to ignore just about every point that I've made and just end up here without regard or refutation of my comments, that's you business. :) There is a very good reason for these companies to provide thier own security. So far, not one of your arguments refutes it... you just go off in aonther direction. :) I've stated the good reason more than once.What are these very good arguments why these companies provide their own securitry? I seen little more than ad hoc rationalizations.

Of course the crux of the issue is that we have well trained people to accomplish these tasks, yet we pay out millions to private contractors to do those wery same tasks.



Again, because we are trying to be nice. I'm all for sub-contracting out the war so we can meet the enemy on his own terms. At least... moreso. In truth it would never fly, and I think you already knew that before asking the question. :) It surely is possible though.Then let's sub the whole fiasco out and quit duplicating and paying for the effort.

Wouldn't that be the ideal conservative "less government" market driven solution??




It might. Then again, withdrawal from Iraq offers up that opportunity with a much greater chance of it actually occurring.The maufacturing and destabilization is occurring as we type.






Anyone who uses that word has in no way considered its implication, in my view. The cost and time to restructure and re-doctrinize would be staggering. We need MPs and special forces... not the grunts a draft would provide.Why couldn't a draftee be trained as as an MP?

As far as I know, their is no shortage of volunteers for Special Forces.




Oh, I quite agree. That does not mean that we should pull out however.Also doesn't mean that we should keep throwing money and blood at a failed effort.




We did that.We were doing that until Bush diverted military and intelligence assets to Iraq.


And even if we had taken Bin Laden next all that would have amounted to is a dog and pony show. It would bring us no closer to solving the problem. Revenge is fine... but useless in this case. Not talking revenge, talking justice.

Useless? That would be the current Bush talking point but let Bin laden be captured and it will be hailed as the greatest military triumph in U.S. history not to mention being trumpeted as a crushing blow to international terrorism.




We need an in your face base of wealth and influence.Don't quite get this one. Could you clarify?

[scrogdog]

Oh my Zeus scrog those government contracts are where the the contractors rake in the money. Remember the $500 hammers and toilet seats? Let's also keep in mind that the up to $150,000 figure is just what the contractors are paying the mercs. Zeus only knows how much the government is being billed for these services.

I don't disagree at all. I live 17 miles from the Big Dig, perhpas the greatest example of goverment and union corruption and graft in the history of planet Earth. I'm not sure if this made national news, but the contractor who provided the faulty glue has been identified. It is also known that they knew beforehand that the glue was not up to the task. Which resulted in the death of one woman so far. They face a very stiff $1500 fine for this, if convicted. :rolleyes:

My overall point is that we have heard many liberals slam the president over the fact that there were not enough forces present in Iraq; which, btw, I agree with. The problem was not the lack of desire by the president, it is simply that we are in to too much stuff at once for the size army that we have. We do not have the forces available for the protection of dignataries or watching over reconstruction. Again, not everything is about money... it's about what is logical to do given the task at hand. We are short troops, so we bought some. I really don't see a problem with that especially considering I guess what we should call the former liberal stance regarding troop strength in Iraq?

If you want you criticize Bush's lack of foresight in this regard, be my guest. But I don't think the administration can be fairly criticized for employing mercs. Of course, you want us to leave the ME in shambles by withdrawing anyway, so no skin off of your back. :)


And one of those jobs is providing security, a job that they are trained and paid for. The Marines have people that are specifically trained to guard embassies and dignitaries.

As I have tried to make clear, it is not about who is trained to do what. It is about the rules of engagement and the number of troops available.


What are these very good arguments why these companies provide their own securitry? I seen little more than ad hoc rationalizations.

What's so ad hoc about stating that 10 standing divisions is not enough to do what we need to do? Both sides have agreed that we need a bigger army, isn't that true?

Do you also disagree then that mercenary forces are not bound by US rules of engagement?


Of course the crux of the issue is that we have well trained people to accomplish these tasks, yet we pay out millions to private contractors to do those wery same tasks.

Again, the issue here is not money or training, yet you keep returning there. :)


Then let's sub the whole fiasco out and quit duplicating and paying for the effort.

I am all for it. I don't think we are in the majority opinion here, my friend.


Wouldn't that be the ideal conservative "less government" market driven solution??

Something like that, but I can hardly expect ideal conservatism from Bush, far from it, in fact.


The maufacturing and destabilization is occurring as we type.

I don't think there is much question the the current Iraqi government is an utter failure. So, we need to find a solution.


Why couldn't a draftee be trained as as an MP?

As far as I know, their is no shortage of volunteers for Special Forces.

A grunt is a grunt regardless of what service that person performs. We are not set up for that type of situation. There may be no shortage of volunteers for special forces, but they ARE volunteers, not draftee grunts. Volunteers are held to a standard, draftees... a much, much lessor one.

Now, a draft could be done, but it would cause a major restructuring of US doctrine. That is simply because the force that we built is structured around highly complex technology to make up for lack of numbers. In hindsight, I view this as a mistake as much as I view the same thought process affecting our intelligence services. Satellites are no replacement for boots on the ground. I don't blame Clinton or Bush for a lot of what went on because neither are military men and all they could do was to listen to thier advisers. And they both got plenty of bad advice.

If I were the one to make decisions on US force restructuring, I would not return to a draft unless a way could be found that our naval and air forces could retain thier technology edge. We won't do that with draftees. Personally, I think we could probably add two full divisions without going with a draft. If we want more than that, then we have a sticky problem with regards to all of our high-tech stuff. If a way could be found to perhaps draft in to the Army only and let the Navy and Airforce continue to be run bu highly trained volunteers... maybe. I need to think about that more... sounds a little sticky. :)

Unless, of course, we are willing to spend the money it would take to keep things all-vounteer but to make it a more attractive post-education choice by way of excellent benifits and pay. We need the stories of vets getting screwed over to end.


Also doesn't mean that we should keep throwing money and blood at a failed effort.

It is not a failure until we decide it is. Not to be insulting to you, but pulling out when the going gets rough is not what we ahould be about as Americans. We are a goal-driven people that drive ourselves to success. I don't want my nieces to see us running from a problem that not only we made, but made worse than it was when we started. That is unacceptable.


We were doing that until Bush diverted military and intelligence assets to Iraq.

Not talking revenge, talking justice.

Useless? That would be the current Bush talking point but let Bin laden be captured and it will be hailed as the greatest military triumph in U.S. history not to mention being trumpeted as a crushing blow to international terrorism.

We are still doing it. Justice? Fine... if that's what a legit use of blood and treasure means to you. That justice is STILL a dog and pony show and will have very little effect on the problem.

It also occurs to me that turning Bin Laden in to a martyr may not be the smartest idea we have ever had. Maybe that explains our "failure" to get him and Bush is crazy like a fox in this regard. :)


Don't quite get this one. Could you clarify?

Sure. The so-called "war on terror" will not be won with guns. The source of terrorists themselves is a fairly easy thing to see. First problem is the system of governments that are either dictatorships and monarchies. These systems keep the people relatively uneducated intentionally, and they are kept fired up with religous fervor. Thus the rich and even middle class use thier money to finance terrorism, and in some cases poor people will gladly blow themselves up so thier families will be awarded more money than they would ever see in a lifetime. It's not all idealogy or all the love of money. It is both.

In any case, it does not matter what motivations are. We need to change things for the betterment of the *people* in the ME. They need to feel that thier lives are worth a crap. And that isn't going to happen given the current conditions especially when the morning kid show is "Farfur the Hamas Mouse".

Saddam was merely a convenient scapegoat, nothing more. Our presence in Iraq has nothing to do with WMDs and never did. It was largely a move against Iran, which contains one of the largest populations of reformists in the ME. Also, even with all of Saddam's faults, they are one of the most advanced nations in the ME, graduating more scholars and having better health care than most in the region.

In the short term, the invasion has backfired. We hoped the advance culture in Iraq would lead over other petty differences, and we were wrong. The invasion also caused exactly the opposite of what we wanted to happen in Iran. The reformists we rendered powerless in the most recent elections.

Nonetheless, this is far from the time to abandon ship. Iran's president is losing internal popularity by the day. If instead we withdraw, I assure you that Iran will end up in control of Iraq's oil interests. That's what their interest in Iraq is all about.

All we can do now is to acknowledge our mistakes and push forward. There really is no other option. Sooner or later Iraq will be molded and shaped. And then others, particularly in Iran are going to say "hey WE can do that too".

I'm sorry if the cost is too high for you. The time to determine that was before we entered. Now that we are there, we finish the job regardless of cost, because that's how America should always be. We are the good guys. Not the guys that bomb your country in to shambles and leave.

[James 3528]

The government gets something from the contractors. What did we get for 50 years of welfare and entitlement programs. Anyone got a figure on that cost?

[acmanko]

The government gets something from the contractors. What did we get for 50 years of welfare and entitlement programs. Anyone got a figure on that cost? we have most of the population 49 and under.

[geerair]

My overall point is that we have heard many liberals slam the president over the fact that there were not enough forces present in Iraq; which, btw, I agree with. I don't necessarily see the slamming as exclusively a liberal act as the verdict of experts on all sides is that the force was undersized.




The problem was not the lack of desire by the president, it is simply that we are in to too much stuff at once for the size army that we have. We do not have the forces available for the protection of dignataries or watching over reconstruction. Again, not everything is about money... it's about what is logical to do given the task at hand. We are short troops, so we bought some. I really don't see a problem with that especially considering I guess what we should call the former liberal stance regarding troop strength in Iraq?Lack of desire? More like the civilian lackeys and Bush insisted that a small force would be adequate. Need we bring up Shinseki estimates for the force needed for occupation?




If you want you criticize Bush's lack of foresight in this regard, be my guest.I see no lack of foresight but rather a disinclination to listen to experts who didn't follow his script.



Of course, you want us to leave the ME in shambles by withdrawing anyway, so no skin off of your back. :)Iraq is a shambles now, the only difference is that staying will cost thousands of more lives and billions of more dollars.




As I have tried to make clear, it is not about who is trained to do what. It is about the rules of engagement and the number of troops availa

What's so ad hoc about stating that 10 standing divisions is not enough to do what we need to do? Both sides have agreed that we need a bigger army, isn't that true?i would agess that the Army and Marines are being strained by the Iraq situation but then there is a cure for that...........Draft.





Do you also disagree then that mercenary forces are not bound by US rules of engagement?I would agree that the merc. forces have relaxed rules but I think you overestimate first the extent of this relaxation and second that the relaxation would lead to any significant benefit.



A grunt is a grunt regardless of what service that person performs. We are not set up for that type of situation. There may be no shortage of volunteers for special forces, but they ARE volunteers, not draftee grunts. Volunteers are held to a standard, draftees... a much, much lessor one.I expect you missed the relaxation of Army standards for volunteers?






Now, a draft could be done, but it would cause a major restructuring of US doctrine. That is simply because the force that we built is structured around highly complex technology to make up for lack of numbers. In hindsight, I view this as a mistake as much as I view the same thought process affecting our intelligence services. Satellites are no replacement for boots on the ground. I don't blame Clinton or Bush for a lot of what went on because neither are military men and all they could do was to listen to thier advisers. And they both got plenty of bad advice.That is all well and good for a peacetime Army without a major conflict going on but we are in an emergency situation where numbers are needed. I would also say that a draft would not only bring in those of lesser education and skills but also educated and technically proficient draftees who would meet the requirements of a technology based military.





If I were the one to make decisions on US force restructuring, I would not return to a draft unless a way could be found that our naval and air forces could retain thier technology edge. We won't do that with draftees. Personally, I think we could probably add two full divisions without going with a draft. If we want more than that, then we have a sticky problem with regards to all of our high-tech stuff. If a way could be found to perhaps draft in to the Army only and let the Navy and Airforce continue to be run bu highly trained volunteers... maybe. I need to think about that more... sounds a little sticky. :)See above.





It is not a failure until we decide it is. Not to be insulting to you, but pulling out when the going gets rough is not what we ahould be about as Americans. We are a goal-driven people that drive ourselves to success. I don't want my nieces to see us running from a problem that not only we made, but made worse than it was when we started. That is unacceptable.It is a failure. Digging the hole deeper is not an answer.







We are still doing it. Justice? Fine... if that's what a legit use of blood and treasure means to you. That justice is STILL a dog and pony show and will have very little effect on the problem.Ah, so we should just forget about the leader and the group that attacked us on 9/11?
Forget about the mastermind behind the most dangerous terrorist threat in the world today?

Wasn't the whole point of this a war on terrorism and those who pose the biggest threat?



It also occurs to me that turning Bin Laden in to a martyr may not be the smartest idea we have ever had. Maybe that explains our "failure" to get him and Bush is crazy like a fox in this regard. :)I would say your view is more driven by the effort to minimalize Bin Laden precisely because we have failed to capture him.




Sure. The so-called "war on terror" will not be won with guns. The source of terrorists themselves is a fairly easy thing to see. First problem is the system of governments that are either dictatorships and monarchies. These systems keep the people relatively uneducated intentionally, and they are kept fired up with religous fervor. Thus the rich and even middle class use thier money to finance terrorism, and in some cases poor people will gladly blow themselves up so thier families will be awarded more money than they would ever see in a lifetime. It's not all idealogy or all the love of money. It is both.I would agree. However this is not going to make you very popular with the "nuke em and let god sort them out " crowd.



Saddam was merely a convenient scapegoat, nothing more. Our presence in Iraq has nothing to do with WMDs and never did. It was largely a move against Iran, which contains one of the largest populations of reformists in the ME.Still looking for a justification for Bush's optional excursion.

I see no evidence that Iran was the motivation for attacking Iraq.


In the short term, the invasion has backfired. We hoped the advance culture in Iraq would lead over other petty differences, and we were wrong. Petty differences? Historical tribal and sectarian differences going back hundreds of years can hardly be called petty.



The invasion also caused exactly the opposite of what we wanted to happen in Iran. The reformists we rendered powerless in the most recent elections.i would say Bush's overblown rhetoric against Iran was a large factor.


Nonetheless, this is far from the time to abandon ship. Iran's president is losing internal popularity by the day. If instead we withdraw, I assure you that Iran will end up in control of Iraq's oil interests. That's what their interest in Iraq is all about.I wouldn't necessarily accept that as a forgone conclusion. But then given the majority Shia population I would say that Iran already exerts influence over Iraq's government.





All we can do now is to acknowledge our mistakes and push forward. There really is no other option. Sooner or later Iraq will be molded and shaped. And then others, particularly in Iran are going to say "hey WE can do that too".You are holding up Iraq as a model to others? Face it scrog, the ME excluding Israel is a fractured entity where tribal and sectarian issues drive actions and given the history of the ME, trying to force a western style government is sheer folly as we have seen.







I'm sorry if the cost is too high for you. The time to determine that was before we entered. Now that we are there, we finish the job regardless of cost, because that's how America should always be. We are the good guys. Not the guys that bomb your country in to shambles and leave.That is idealistic but not very realistic.

[chillbilly]

Quote:by scrogdog
I'm sorry if the cost is too high for you. The time to determine that was before we entered. Now that we are there, we finish the job regardless of cost, because that's how America should always be. We are the good guys. Not the guys that bomb your country in to shambles and leave.
I agree 100% with that philosophy and the fact that we will need a base of operations to take care of Iran while we're there.:D

[James 3528]

Anyone ever notice a liberal never says anything about a contractor on the take that is building government funded houses or domestic contracts employing unions?

[oloenneker]

Anyone ever notice a liberal never says anything about a contractor on the take that is building government funded houses or domestic contracts employing unions?

Oh they did, remember HW Bush 's stupid defense contractor scams, to the tune of stuff like $500 hammers and things like that? Like Father, like son...

[RoBoTeq]

Oh they did, remember HW Bush 's stupid defense contractor scams, to the tune of stuff like $500 hammers and things like that? Like Father, like son...

The $500 hammers and $12,000 toilets were Carter era rhetoric. The products didn't actually cost that much. It was the cost of beuracratic process to buy the items that made the cost of purchasing items astronomical.

[acmanko]

The $500 hammers and $12,000 toilets were Carter era rhetoric. The products didn't actually cost that much. It was the cost of beuracratic process to buy the items that made the cost of purchasing items astronomical. No way, the overcharges were simply a way to pay for the top secret Stealth Bomber and other military weapons that none of us needed to know about at the time.

[RoBoTeq]

No way, the overcharges were simply a way to pay for the top secret Stealth Bomber and other military weapons that none of us needed to know about at the time.

Try again mr conspiracy goof. The cost of top secret operations are much better filched from our taxes. Just how new do you think these top secret operations are anyway?

[James 3528]

Olewanker sure has earned the dolt stamp.

[James 3528]

No way, the overcharges were simply a way to pay for the top secret Stealth Bomber and other military weapons that none of us needed to know about at the time.

Wrong

There is a area in the budget that covers those skunk projects.

I see you know as much about that as you do FEMA

[acmanko]

which brings us back to the rising cost of ammo and the rising cost of loading your own, I suppose you could use a handgun to throw at someone or hit them over the head with a shotgun . No ammo=worthless gun

[gsxrsquid]

California looked at ammo control as part of the gun control scheme. Probably got to thinking what some pissed off gun owner might do with those last frew rounds. :)

Me? I have more than enough

[fixacr]

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/080907dnmetammo.37f6a54.html

the best way to do away with guns is to make them irrelevant

Gun control takes many forms, but it seems to me that the simple law of supply and demand is the main reason for the price increase. While the anti-gun crowd may not be directly responsible, you can bet the farm that they are on the sidelines cheering their little hearts out.

[jmac00]

whats the big deal, around here ammo prices have actually come down a little.

Components are easier to find, particularly small pistol primers, Projectiles are no problem and you can find powder anywhere..

another prediction that DID NOT come true

[sline-dawg]

another prediction that DID NOT come true


They put tracking devices in the ammo and know where you are....:couchhide:

[jmac00]

They put tracking devices in the ammo and know where you are....:couchhide:

Big deal, all they have to do is call the FBI, NYS troopers or the CIA, I'm pretty sure they know where I am. :CU:

and if the tracking device is in the ammo, there better have good equipment, because those little buggers are traveling 1050fps with a power factor of 672
:patriot::patriot: