NOW the anti-gunners are wanting guns...

[NeoConMan]

my state is about to pass a law this week allowing carry permit holders to secure their guns in the their cars while at work' date=' regardless of the employer's policies. [/quote']

Arizona finally did that too, but guess what - nuke plants are exempted under the DOE.

 

:D

[NeoConMan]

Yeah I got a stake in some things like giving our guys the best technology.

and have talked with Mr Dillon out there in your state Neo

Ah, yes....

I have a t-shirt that has the GE logo and their slogan "GE, we bring good things to life" over a mini-gun.

Our GE rep at work didn't like the shirt, and told me so in a pissy manner.

I told him "It's YOUR fxcking company that builds 'em - don't get pissed at me!"

 

He walked away.

 

Gave me a cool engraved Mag-Lite later on as an apology.

 

What kind of stake, Blackie?

Investor?

Work in the industry?

 

Dillon does some super cool stuff.

I drool like bloodhound when I'm over there....

[Blackie]

Yeah I got a stake in some things like giving our guys the best technology and have talked with Mr Dillon out there in your state Neo

 

Link Fixed...................an uh what did you just say there...............to me

 

I say you embrace lies and push them as facts..........and I hearby say I am right and you are wrong on the point I made.

 

My facts are sound and you squeal and change the subject..........I win like a big dawg in exposing your faulty arguments.

 

HEARBY.............pfftttt.................

[milod]

Okay, here we go.

 

First, anybody who thinks that hindsight is not better than foresight is not thinking, regardless of politics. I remember back to when Truman was president - admittedly just barely - and I was privileged to shake his hand.

 

But I'm hearing what I consider too much "politicized" argument that has some points on both sides. It's too close in time. Clinton? Yup, he got smacked by a GOP revolution and presided over an age of development of an entirely new sort of economy. Yup, it was nice then, but ... OTOH, you could blame or exonerate him for the whole burst of the dot-com bubble and even the current recession; or you could say he got good stuff going and following politicians both of left and right proceeded to blow it. Which side of the argument is right? Probably "yes."

 

Second, I think I can say stuff about Truman and Eisenhower and Kennedy and Nixon. And yet, I think the jury still is out on all four of those and that's a long time ago. Ditto obviously to me all those since then in terms of "policy."

 

Among the best athletes of 20th century US presidents was Ford, but the media certainly did what they could to make him look like a klutz. George B #1 probably was the best-qualified president of 1900 to today from a "who has the best resume" perspective. The worst resume for their time and place? Hmmmm. Truman, Kennedy, Obama - and probably Obama gets the short end of it. Some might suggest Hoover or Taft, although both were cabinet members - since neither had either high ranking military experience (logistics and organizational politics) or major elective office.

 

Obama is likely the best speaker of the past century we have recordings to compare - but then again, I wonder whether a TV style voice should be compared to a pre "PA system" voice. I think Obama would not be a very good speaker in a 1920 ethos or even with '30s style radio stuff as FDR did. And I think FDR sounds really "odd," but that's my youth since he did exceptionally well with audiences of the day.

 

My bottom line here isn't so much that I do not have strong political feelings, but rather that I hear "analysis" that is perhaps very short-sighted since I doubt one can call a U.S. president, a Brit PM or a French whatever the office is called this decade (if you'd lived through the 50s, you'd know why I wrote that) good, bad or indifferent if they held office less than roughly a century ago. It's too soon. Much too soon for historical analysis, fine for political argument.

 

Was TR a good prez? Yeah, if you share many political and cultural beliefs such as I hold. Woodrow Wilson? I dunno since he gets a lot of credit for idealism and not for political failure. Both Truman and Eisenhower? Well, yeah, actually. But once you hit Kennedy? Nope. I think it's way too early to tell. Churchill and Charles de Gaulle? I dunno. It's a matter of time and place...

[Blackie]

Dillon supplies all the mini-guns for our forces now.....GE was always jammin up..........been a few years now

[NeoConMan]

Never had the privilege to fire any of them, so I can't say.

I'm less of a fan of General Electric every year.

Been dealing with them for 3 decades now - gets worse all the time.

I'm GLAD they lost a military contract...

 

 

 

I say you embrace lies and push them as facts..........

and I hearby say I am right and you are wrong on the point I made.

 

My facts are sound and you squeal and change the subject..........

I win like a big dawg in exposing your faulty arguments.

 

HEARBY.............pfftttt.................

You made a point?

When?

 

:D

 

 

 

 

Once again' date=' here's a template for a list, so you can document anything you deem to be a lie.

 

[i']NeoConMan's Lies - courtesy of Blackie[/i]

 

1.

 

2.

 

3.

 

No way you can even fill this list...

 

 

Just quote it and fill it in.

Maybe even add in the post numbers for convenience.

 

Be careful, the truth can be awfully thorny when you fxck with it unwisely...

[Blackie]

It is above..............Bush disreguarded ample warning of a coming attack by A Q and the record bears this out in overwhelming detail.

 

I still win and you can not accept reality..............so we will have to just disagree. I enjoy a good debate and did my part to my satisfaction.

I have been mostly civil and am calling it a day with the win I claim. You do yourself a disservice in endless rehashing and argument.

 

So I say to you sir...............Good Day !

[ledzep59]

I bought a gun a couple years ago in college. I shot my friend's AR-15 and thought it was so much fun to shoot that I decided to buy myself one. Personally, I would consider myself a passive individual who avoids physical confrontation and violence at all costs. I just bought the gun because I thought it was a lot of fun and a healthy hobby that teaches one about precision and responsibility.

 

However after shooting this thing, I realize why some people would want to ban assault rifles- there is just no good reason for any regular person to have one. The crazy thing is, because it is a rife, any 18 year-old can go out and buy an assault rife. I will be the first one to tell you that ARs and AKs are a boatload of fun when you are being careful and intelligent, but there is no reason why these things should be out on the streets. These things can cause a sh!tload of damage, and fall nothing short of killing machines. I understand the reasoning behind letting people own shotguns and powerful deer rifles, or handguns for protection, but assault rifles are pretty dangerous things to be letting people go out and buy them.

 

So I guess that really leaves me with no excuse for owning one, but I'm glad I have one.

[NeoConMan]

I dunno. It's a matter of time and place...

That's the part that blows me away Milod...

 

I'm far from a lockstep supporter of GW Bush, and even less of his father.

That being said, he accomplished a great deal of what needed to be done - the adult decisions I call them.

 

Any four year old can decide what flavor of ice cream is the best.

I want a government that can make hard decisions fast, do it right, and then stand by for any consequences.

 

If you're right, nobody can touch you.

They can mad, but they can't touch you.

 

 

I would agree with ANYBODY who's on top of events and problems enough to spell out where Bush really did

screw up, and there's plenty of blame that lies squarely on him, especially his second term.

 

But nobody seems to be able to see the wood for all the trees.

 

I spent much of Bush's terms screaming at my TV set.

I was much more active - and critical - in the RNC/GOP after he was elected.

Still am to this day.

 

On the local level, I'm trying to get people here to wake up and send John McCain to the VFW/War Hero circuit.

As a politician, he's pathetic and he's gotta go.

But those running for his seat aren't exactly Grade A Prime selections either....

[FennRx]

I bought a gun a couple years ago in college. I shot my friend's AR-15 and thought it was so much fun to shoot that I decided to buy myself one. Personally' date=' I would consider myself a passive individual who avoids physical confrontation and violence at all costs. I just bought the gun because I thought it was a lot of fun and a healthy hobby that teaches one about precision and responsibility.

 

However after shooting this thing, I realize why some people would want to ban assault rifles- there is just no good reason for any regular person to have one. The crazy thing is, because it is a rife, any 18 year-old can go out and buy an assault rife. I will be the first one to tell you that ARs and AKs are a boatload of fun when you are being careful and intelligent, but there is no reason why these things should be out on the streets. These things can cause a sh!tload of damage, and fall nothing short of killing machines. I understand the reasoning behind letting people own shotguns and powerful deer rifles, or handguns for protection, but assault rifles are pretty dangerous things to be letting people go out and buy them.

 

So I guess that really leaves me with no excuse for owning one, but I'm glad I have one. [/quote']

 

an ar-15 is not an assault rifle. ak47s are already illegal (except for class 3 stamps)*. rifles other than ARs fire the .223. are they "killing machines"? rifles other than ak-47 variants fire the 7.62 soviet round. are they "killing machines"?

 

how often are crimes committed with an AR-15?

 

* an AK-47 is a fully automatic rifle. AK-47 variants such as WASRs are not real AK-47s. they are variants.

[NeoConMan]

It is above..............Bush disreguarded ample warning of a coming attack by A Q and the record bears this out in overwhelming detail.

 

I still win and you can not accept reality..............so we will have to just disagree. I enjoy a good debate and did my part to my satisfaction.

I have been mostly civil and am calling it a day with the win I claim. You do yourself a disservice in endless rehashing and argument.

 

So I say to you sir...............Good Day !

Pffffttttt!!!!

Obama voters...

 

They're all alike.

 

:D

 

Blackie' date=' do you recall where I posted this little nugget regarding "AQ" warnings as you call them?

 

 

Are we talking about the August 2001 Morning Brief for Bush where UBL threatened to attack the USA?

And then he refused to act on it?

 

NEWSFLASH:

Bin Laden had been regularly threatening to attack the USA and our interests repeatedly since the FIRST attack

on the World Trade Center in 1993.

Hells bells, I knew who Bin Laden was before 9/11 - from watching CNN no less!

The morning of the attacks, I told the woman I was dating to remember the name Osama Bin Laden.

 

"Osa... wha? Who?"

 

ABC News had done an interview with him a couple years before, I believe it was aired on 20/20.

So, one more threat from Bin Laden - with no actionable intelligence added - was not news.

[ledzep59]

Uh, last time I checked AR is definitely an assault rife. I know what rounds my gun shoots and I also know what rounds go in other traditional types of guns.

 

I don't have any silly stats to show you that ARs or AKs kill people- but they do. All I am saying is that these guns have no purpose being in civilian hands. They are killing machines because that is what they are manufactured to do just like all guns. Guns are made to kill, they are not made to drive in a nail or for aesthetics.

[Blackie]

I did'nt vote for Mr Mc Chese or Obama............your throwing around a lot of insults there Mr Potato Head.

[milod]

Led...

 

The most destructive instrument you own probably is your motor vehicle. It makes the AR look really wimpy if you think about it a little.

 

A private aircraft is perhaps even more potentially destructive.

 

The AR is, as you said, great fun. It's also not functionally different from many other sporting rifles. Frankly I don't care for the things and think them terribly overpriced for the kind of shooting "fun" that I enjoy. I'd much prefer a '73 Winchester in .38 Special.

 

In some circles even the Henry received the kind of "anti" comment you're making. Who in the world would want even 10 rounds in a fast firing firearm? Well, the Henry was just exactly that and it was used in the 1860s "civil war."

 

Bottom line is the argument a lotta people don't like: Folks who don't like the idea of hurting other folks probably won't unless they have no choice, but they may well have plenty of potential to do so if they're realistic.

 

Folks whose life paradigm is such that they want to hurt people, or don't care if they do so to achieve some other illegal end will figure the means to do so - and thereby shock those who just don't understand that attitude. It's that lack of understanding of those who would hurt others that brings the anti-firearm sort of argument, IMHO. It's easy to understand how to ban firearms, much less easy to understand how to change antisocial attitudes.

 

I'd not care for a tank, but gee, if I had the time and money to purchase and learn to operate, I'd dearly love to have a Harrier of my own, or perhaps a Spitfire or P-38 - and hurting others has nothing to do with that little fantasy.

 

OOPSSSSS.... add on...

 

The AR is NOT an "assault rifle" by definition because it is semi automatic instead of fully automatic. Only one "bang" per press of the trigger means it ain't by definition an assault rifle, much as some folks wanna change the definition. The true "AK" is a fully-automatic assault rifle by definition, but it's illegal in the US in full auto form. A semi-automatic version is NOT an assault rifle unless one determines that the looks of a firearm define a class rather than the technology involved.

 

Also, one of the major reasons for firearms technological improvement was for hunting and target shooting and aesthetics. That dates back to replacing the "hand cannon" with various muskets, thence rifles. The Brit Brown Bess was the finest infantry weapon "assault weapon" for what, roughly a century? And the rifle was considered a rather inefficient civilian arm. Hmmm. It's a matter of attitudes, not realities, folks.

 

The .22 cal type rifle rounds are used for all kinds of hunting and target shooting. Consider the millions if not billions of rounds fired and figure how many people injured by those projectiles and you might make a case that cars are far better designed for killing people and we're just fooling ourselves thinking otherwise.

 

m

[NeoConMan]

Uh' date=' last time I checked AR is definitely an assault rife. [/quote']

Start over.

This time, use facts.

 

 

:D

 

If you can give me a clear, concise, legal definition of what exactly constitutes an "assault" weapon, post it.

 

We've played this picture game for a couple decades, just like the NRA did 20 years ago.

This one is, that one's not - and they function identically.

 

You're using a media-pushed phrase that made its way into idiotic legislation that has been largely stripped

from the law books in this country. Anywhere it remains and is quoted shows a clear lack of understanding.

[ledzep59]

Led...

 

The most destructive instrument you own probably is your motor vehicle.

 

Wrong, it's my guitar and amp turned to 10!

[NeoConMan]

I did'nt vote for Mr Mc Chese or Obama............

your throwing around a lot of insults there Mr Potato Head.

Let's try this again...

 

:D

 

 

 

Blackie' date=' do you recall where I posted this little nugget regarding "AQ" warnings as you call them?

 

[b']Are we talking about the August 2001 Morning Brief for Bush where UBL threatened to attack the USA?

And then he refused to act on it?

 

NEWSFLASH:

Bin Laden had been regularly threatening to attack the USA and our interests repeatedly since the

FIRST attack on the World Trade Center in 1993.

Hells bells, I knew who Bin Laden was before 9/11 - from watching CNN no less![/b]

[FennRx]

Uh' date=' last time I checked AR is definitely an assault rife. I know what rounds my gun shoots and I also know what rounds go in other traditional types of guns.

 

I don't have any silly stats to show you that ARs or AKs kill people- but they do. All I am saying is that these guns have no purpose being in civilian hands. They are killing machines because that is what they are manufactured to do just like all guns. Guns are made to kill, they are not made to drive in a nail or for aesthetics.[/quote']

 

negative. an AR-15 by definition is not an assault rifle as it is available only as semi-automatic configurations. An assault rifle is loosely defined as a selective fire rifle designed for combat that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.

 

assault weapon is a phrase that politicians dreamed up for the 94 AWB.

[ledzep59]

Start over.

This time' date=' use facts.

 

If you can give me a clear, concise, legal definition of what exactly constitutes an "assault" weapon, post it.

 

We've played this picture game for a couple decades, just like the NRA did 20 years ago.

This one is, that one's not - and they function identically.

 

You're using a media-pushed phrase that made its way into idiotic legislation that has been largely stripped

from the law books in this country. Anywhere it remains and is quoted shows a clear lack of understanding.

 

 

[/quote']

 

I'm not trying to just "throw around" a bunch of weapons lingo, but my understanding is that an AR is an assault rife. I really don't care if they are banned or whatever, I am just saying there is no real justification for someone who is not at war to be messing with a weapon like this. I'm sure there are all sorts of designations and categories that we could argue about, but the AR is just the civilian version of the M-16 or the M-4 carbine. Both assault rifles. How would you classify the AR?