Mcain's VP NRA memebr... I'm sold.

reply to post by counterterrorist


the system works. I like the gun lovers. Look at the Swiss. If our way was like theirs, how likely would the gov be willing to lie to 300 million well armed citizens.

[edit on 29-8-2008 by Gorman91]

Originally posted by counterterrorist
It just goes to show how much a dog and pony show this all is -- however, it is knee-jerking gun lovers who live in fear of being deprived of their toys.

Do you own a gun?

I believe that the right to bare arms is one of the most important ammendments written. I believe in being able to defend my family AND country from dirtbags (the government or some junkie thug) that want to take them from me. I know that guns are not "toys", Im not a hunter either, I dont even like people that hunt using guns (or anything else for that manner, but if you NEED to hunt, at least use a bow and arrow or a rock or something).

If law-abiding citizens have our guns taken away from us, everyone is screwed, not just gun owners.

If the police and military are armed then we should be, too. Because one day (God forbid) we may just have to be our own military, and if we lose our guns we will lose our lives as well.

reply to post by BloodRedSky


I think the army would be on your side that day. Most soldiers come from places of high gun ownage. Why would they fight for a governemnt that steals for what they stand for?

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by BloodRedSky

 

I think the army would be on your side that day. Most soldiers come from places of high gun ownage. Why would they fight for a governemnt that steals for what they stand for?

I understand what youre trying to say, but that really wouldnt make a huge difference. Its not like you get to keep your M-16 with you on leave or anything. Besides, the Armed Forces does a really good job of molding and re-shaping young soldiers minds to fit their needs.

Also, the whole entire Army would not be on our side, in that type of situation any negative action or even speaking out would probably qualify as treason.

reply to post by badmedia


The NRA is not a joke and there isn't a politician in Washington who doesn't know how powerful the NRA is.

The NRA has not redefined to 2nd Amendment. The NRA's position is that the 2nd Amendment has not one thing to do with hunting. It's the pinheads like John Kerry who break out the hunting gear every four years to prove their commitment to the Second Amendment, while doing their best to ban every gun made.

The NRA's position is that the 2nd Amendment is about defense of our nation and of our persons.

Before you speak of the NRA, you should know whereof you speak.

As former Clinton spokesman George Stephanopoulos said, "Let me make one small vote for the NRA. They're good citizens. They call their Congressmen. They write. They vote. They contribute. And they get what they want over time."

www.nra.org...

www.nra.org...

www.nraila.org...

reply to post by BloodRedSky


I think no matter how much stress you go through, you simply can't crush a patriot.

Also, who's saying they'll GIVE back they're M16

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by BloodRedSky

 

I think no matter how much stress you go through, you simply can't crush a patriot.

Also, who's saying they'll GIVE back they're M16

I agree, a true patriot will fight to the death defending what they believe in.

But the M-16 thing (a joke?), the soldier who is "just following orders" and shoots him in the face. Seeing how the military operates would be the only logical answer.

reply to post by BloodRedSky


Well I must admit the quality of our troops has been a tad bit lower recently due to lower standards but perhaps the good influences of better qualified men and women will help.

I don't know about you, but America really hasn't been known for "just following orders". In WW2, many generals ignored or created their own orders. Some generals in Korea would have invaded china against presidential orders, but didn't. Even today, in Iraq, generals make their own orders.

So I think under a dictatorship, many generals would break off and join with the civilian armed forces.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by badmedia

 

I don't recall him claiming 4 more years. That's a bit odd.

And he didn't say war on Iran. he said toughness against them. Now that could mean anything yea, but not necessarily war.

I can't remember the statement as it's been awhile, but it was along the lines of during his 2nd term.

And yes, he plays the same tough talk about Iran as the rest of them.

And I notice you didn't touch fisa or the general welfare clause.

Obama is another 4 more years of the same. And so is McCain. All we keep getting are more government programs and things from every politician, and they never get rid of the rest. Combine the government where the republicans want with the government the democrats want and you end up with an authoritarian government similar to communism/fascism.

Did the republicans remove any government departments from the democrats? Nope. Did the democrats under Clinton remove any government departments? Nope. But they sure keep on funding or increasing the programs the other side puts in.

If you haven't figured it out, then you aren't paying attention. Game over.

reply to post by badmedia


But the thing is that within a few years we'll be able to afford them.

But yes, they should be more strikily enforced to only help those who seriously need it.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by badmedia

 

But the thing is that within a few years we'll be able to afford them.

But yes, they should be more strikily enforced to only help those who seriously need it.

Kinda like how the soviet union afforded it?

Oh so you think we need to give people special rights?

And I notice once again you ignored fisa and the general welfare clause. In fact, I really don't see how you are actually responding to what I posted.

I'm pretty sure the form of government you want has been tried and it sucks.

reply to post by badmedia


I am not a socialist. I am a mixer. Both 100% capitalism and 100% socialism have been shown to be made of fail. The proper mixing of both works like a charm though.

Sorry to say but seeing the news clip of her firing an m-16 in three round burst got my vote. Im easy... Seriously you show me a clip of any politician in a regular shirt a baseball style cap and firing a machine gun well. That says enough for me.

reply to post by drift393


LOL yea.

Did you notice she was unaffected by recoil? Yes the M4 has low recoil but still, even a somewhat skilled shooter would be thrown back a ways.

She shows that she is essentially a renascence woman:

-Working, and made it there on her own (I'm looking at you Bill & Hill)

-big family

-Big family + job stress & getting that far on her own shows VERY good work ethic.

- If she can do all that and still have time to learn proper gun usage, she's got a more advanced brain then Georgy and McCain put together.

- She's a realist. Look at her face and McCain's. McCain just smiles and look's like he doesn't even know why he's there, Palin acts like she's doing something; she has a purpose.

- Beats Hillary by a long shot in terms of feminism and working for what she believes in.



[edit on 30-8-2008 by Gorman91]

[edit on 30-8-2008 by Gorman91]

NRA member huh?

Mother of Five

Governor of a State

sooo, why exactly didn't I get to meet her before she got married? Why are the good ones always taken?

I really like this lady lol

She is a good pick, I have been getting really sick of seeing girls gack all over Obama...

Thanks McCain for putting a female in on the ballot I can find attractive...

lol

Did I just find a politician attractive?

wow, I never would have thought that was possible... how come all the other women like Hillary and Geraldine are always so... nasty looking?

Sarah is kind of, you know business lady hot

reply to post by mopusvindictus


Well that's.... an unforeseen variable. I like here because she acts like a leader and has shown more common sense then most politicians.



I think I read somewhere that she's what historians call a 4th, or maybe 5th generation feminist. I don't know, it was on the news.

Essentially they are feminists who are conservative, contrary to the past's generations.



I've had a theory that this could be the beginning of a America's 5th "Great Awakening" of sorts. In the past, the last 3 were started by women with contrary ideals to the times.

I don't know where this could lead, but time will tell.

Personally, I think it could only lead us to better times.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Loki

 

Sure, give aks to the store owners. That way, out of fear, you don't steal. Fear is very useful.
I prefer the Switz method: Train ALL your civilians in the art of war and give them ALL gun operation knowledge.

An armed and trained populace, is a protected and self serving populace.

ya im hardcore progun rights too

i think we should follow the swiss example too

great post

The Swiss are under attack by the EU over they're gun rights at the moment. They are trying to have the local Shutzenfests shut down and change the country's rules on firearms ownership. They are using the pressure of suttle subterfuge and missinformation on the youth of that country to undermine most of they're firearm history and culture!

Zindo