ehe

[Edited on August 21, 2006 at 4:42 PM. Reason : box]

8/21/2006 4:42:15 PM

funny whats that approval rating again? is it still in the 30s?

8/21/2006 4:45:51 PM

who gives a fuck about approval ratings, he's not gonna get impeached like clinton

8/21/2006 4:46:26 PM

not liking bush doesn't mean voting democrat

8/21/2006 4:48:52 PM

id rather a president who gets impeached for purgery then a president who gets thousands killed in a failed middle east experiment

[Edited on August 21, 2006 at 4:49 PM. Reason : SDFGSDG]

8/21/2006 4:49:09 PM

wasn't it a "war for oil" at one time


now it's just an experiment?


oh yeah need some more of this on this page
since apparently nobody in charge wants to take firearms away from citizens

http://www.gunowners.org/abcnews.mpg

mms://a568.v129484.c12948.g.vm.akamaistream.net/7/568/12948/v0001/vod.ibsys.com/2005/0908/4946889.300k.wmv



[Edited on August 21, 2006 at 4:52 PM. Reason : fuck them]

8/21/2006 4:50:44 PM

Yea I agree. Bush never could keep one reason for going to war. WMD ... democracy ... freedom ... we'll never know why he really did what he did

8/21/2006 4:52:21 PM

^^^you must not like Harry Truman...a Democrat...he only hundreds of thousands of people in a failed japan experiment

8/21/2006 4:52:21 PM

i must not

8/21/2006 4:53:02 PM

my bad, dont let me put words in your mouth...i just figured if you didnt like someone killing thousands of innocents, you must not like someone killing hundreds of thousands of innocents

8/21/2006 4:54:15 PM

well, whatever it was, a horrible person was captured and will face trial for his crimes

8/21/2006 4:54:41 PM

you are correct. i dont like people who kill innocent people.

8/21/2006 4:57:06 PM

then why do you like hezbollah

8/21/2006 4:58:03 PM

Quote :

"Denying the antecedent (also known as vacuous implication) is a type of logical fallacy. Suppose in an argument one were to deny the "if" part of a conditional (the antecedent) first, and conclude with the denial of "then" part (the consequent). If P, then Q. P is false. Therefore, Q is false. "

learn some basic rules of logic toolbag

8/21/2006 5:04:29 PM

i just dont know why you are in love with hezbollah since you dont like anybody who kills innocents

8/21/2006 5:05:43 PM

i know i know. these rules of logic are fucking mind bending.

8/21/2006 5:06:35 PM

wait a minute, when the hell did you stop trolling?

8/21/2006 5:08:08 PM

right after i started

8/21/2006 5:16:14 PM

i knew my wording would make hooksaw come back. i realize that law enforcement and our allies help quite a bit, but im not convinced that the armed citizenry is the reason no one is invading us.

8/21/2006 5:48:51 PM

it's not an invading army that we'll have to fight as citizens on our own soil one day though

8/21/2006 6:14:11 PM

thats fine, but that wasnt his point.

8/21/2006 6:15:36 PM

Quote :

"the average homeowner who uses a pistol for protection doesnt spend $700 on a gun. they buy cheap guns. this is REALITY."

the average homeowner may not spend $700 on a gun, but you don't need to spend that much to get a reliable weapon. most guns are pretty damned well made and reliable. Most gun owners DON'T buy junk. just go down to the store...they barely even have any shitty pistols for sale.

8/21/2006 9:48:17 PM

still not more reliable relative to an electronic thumb print scanner.

8/21/2006 10:08:07 PM

maybe not.

and it could be programmed to accept more than one operator's print.

i'd just be concerned about the additional cost. a quality firearm already costs a shit ton.

8/21/2006 10:11:34 PM

Quote :

"you don't need to spend that much to get a reliable weapon"

8/21/2006 10:14:59 PM

you took that totally out of context.

that statement was that you don't need to spend $700 to get a reliable weapon.

even $400 is a pretty fair amount of money, and even then, it may or may not be a really nice piece...i was just saying that you can get something very reliable for that price.


to illustrate what i'm getting at:

I once bought a SIG P226 once for like $250 (or thereabouts...don't remember exactly). The bluing was halfway worn off, the grips were marred up, and it was noticeably worn. however, after thousands of rounds, I had TWO jams, and they were both with a no-name SUPER cheap brand of reloaded ammo that I was just using at the range. Even with cheap factory ammo, it NEVER jammed. Ever.

It was also one of the most accurate pistols (tactical pistols, at least. .22LR match pistols and scoped revolvers and stuff aren't comparable) i've ever shot. I shot a 382 out of a possible 400 points (WELL into the expert scoring range) on my last USMC pistol qualification with the M9 (Beretta 92FS), and I never could perform as well with the Beretta as I could've with my beat up, ugly SIG.

I wouldn't say it was a nice pistol, but it was extremely reliable, and a first rate killing machine.

[Edited on August 21, 2006 at 11:57 PM. Reason : ok, i should've said "nice", not "quality". my beat up SIG was still certainly a quality piece.]

8/21/2006 11:56:40 PM

To you fuckin' geniuses who don't think that an invasion of the United States is possible: Do you remember Pearl Harbor? Do you remember September 11? Self-styled illuminati, like you, assured us that we would never be attacked on our own soil but it happened--twice in about a sixty-year span. An invasion or other forms of attack are indeed possible--as we have seen all too well.

If a large hostile force were to somehow breach our border, what are we going to do? Nuke'em? Even short-range nukes would not be suitable. We could, however, use very small payload, shoulder-fired nuclear rockets--if they even still exist in the US arsenal. But the civilian casualties would likely be catastrophic. In addition, I can say with ABSOLUTE certainty that the US military is not properly trained for an enemy invasion of our own country.

As I said, I was in the Army. I have been to secret briefings in which what was called the Fulda Gap scenario was discussed and planned for (what I'm about to discuss is common knowledge now). I'm sure you don't know this, cyrion, but Fulda Gap was the most likely invasion point of Europe by Warsaw Pact forces. This example illustrates that militaries plan invasions and counterattacks against invasions all the time.

In fact, I find it laughable when some so-called journalist--or ill-informed TWW-er--acts shocked and outraged that a given attack has been planned "months or years in advance," as I’ve heard it put. When is a good time to plan for an attack? When the goddamned hun are overrunning your defenses, raping your women, and raining death down on your homeland? Hell, no! So, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

To Josh8315: According to icasualties.org, which is certainly NOT a right-wing organization, the latest total for US military deaths in Operation Iraqi Freedom is 2,613 (the Department of Defense has it at 2,615; I'm going to go with the accurate DoD number). Of the 2,615 deaths, 539 were "Non-Hostile," which means enemy combatants did not kill them. So, the total number of US military deaths due to combat with the enemy is 2,076. Guess what? That is just BARELY "thousands," as you put it. And if you divide 2,076 by the approximately three years that the US military has been in Iraq, the number of ACTUAL combat deaths per year is 692.

Here's the kicker: In 2005, there were 43,200 traffic deaths in the United States (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration). I await the thread that will outline your plan on how we should cut and run from our nation’s highways.

8/24/2006 4:03:53 AM

Quote :

"If a large hostile force were to somehow breach our border, what are we going to do? "

Give them jobs in construction, cleaning, farming, etc.

8/24/2006 7:49:37 AM

guns in the hands of private citizens is never gonna change in the this country, but by all means keep peeing into the wind

8/24/2006 9:53:30 AM

this thread has made me think of purchasing another gun today

well, this thread had nothing to do with it actually

but I'm all about buying new guns

8/24/2006 10:09:54 AM

I want a .22 supressor. any recomendations?

8/24/2006 5:57:27 PM

Quote :

"If a large hostile force were to somehow breach our border, what are we going to do? "

you're right
damn i wish we had a standing army

[Edited on August 24, 2006 at 6:00 PM. Reason : and also small arms wouldnt have really helped with pearl harbor, you should have mentioned alaska]

8/24/2006 5:59:24 PM

Quote :

" Here's the kicker: In 2005, there were 43,200 traffic deaths in the United States (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration). I await the thread that will outline your plan on how we should cut and run from our nation’s highways."

number of drivers vs number of people in iraq
also
apples vs oranges

8/24/2006 6:07:14 PM

Quote :

"So, the total number of US military deaths due to combat with the enemy is 2,076. Guess what? That is just BARELY "thousands," as you put it."

Actually einstien, our president has said 10s of thousands of innocent civilians have been killed.

8/24/2006 6:13:11 PM

Quote :

"I want a .22 supressor. any recomendations?"

a good friend of mine has a walther .22 suppressed, it's a great shooting gun, I can't remember who made the can though

suppressors get kind of aggravating though because you have to keep them lubricated and the fact that they will shoot out and not be effective

it's cool though

the key to owning and affording a suppressor (NFA item) is to own multiple weapons that are threaded to accept the suppressor.

8/24/2006 6:29:45 PM

how quiet was it? I've never heard one in person.

8/24/2006 6:36:46 PM

it doesn't sound like a "hollywood" suppressor

it sounds more like a bb gun, "poof" type sound

plus you have to buy subsonic bullets unless you are shooting really short range

I use CCI .22 LR CB cartridges in a couple of my .22 rifles(pump and bolt action) and they are very very quiet. You can shoot squirrels and stuff with them and it not bother your neighbors

aguila also makes some good quiet .22 rounds (yellow box is super quiet, red box is pretty quiet with a better bullet)

8/24/2006 6:49:24 PM

Quote :

"To you fuckin' geniuses who don't think that an invasion of the United States is possible: Do you remember Pearl Harbor? Do you remember September 11? Self-styled illuminati, like you, assured us that we would never be attacked on our own soil but it happened--twice in about a sixty-year span. An invasion or other forms of attack are indeed possible--as we have seen all too well."

id say thats a pretty good track record considering the world today. do you really think we could prevent 100% of every attack that is possible? do you think armed citizenry is the way that you'll get 100% success ratio?

Quote :

"If a large hostile force were to somehow breach our border, what are we going to do? Nuke'em? Even short-range nukes would not be suitable. We could, however, use very small payload, shoulder-fired nuclear rockets--if they even still exist in the US arsenal. But the civilian casualties would likely be catastrophic. In addition, I can say with ABSOLUTE certainty that the US military is not properly trained for an enemy invasion of our own country."

nukes? wtf are you talking about? where did this massive hostile fighting force come from that we didnt happen to notice, nor did any of our allies.

if the military isnt trained to deal with this, what makes you think an armed citizenry is?

Quote :

"As I said, I was in the Army. I have been to secret briefings in which what was called the Fulda Gap scenario was discussed and planned for (what I'm about to discuss is common knowledge now). I'm sure you don't know this, cyrion, but Fulda Gap was the most likely invasion point of Europe by Warsaw Pact forces. This example illustrates that militaries plan invasions and counterattacks against invasions all the time."

id imagine that is the military's job. id like them to have these types of things planned out. my question is, where are you going with this? you say the military cant handle an invasion and then tell me that they are planning on how to deal with it "all the time." pick your argument.

Quote :

"n fact, I find it laughable when some so-called journalist--or ill-informed TWW-er--acts shocked and outraged that a given attack has been planned "months or years in advance," as I’ve heard it put."

no intelligent person would be surprised. shit takes planning, be it a terrorist attack or a business negotiation. you cant wing that shit and hope to be all that successful. id say the planning is why we DO catch many plots before they happened. people are surprised that we werent able to find out despite a great deal of intel that we collect

that said, do you really want me to beleive in a magical boogyman force thats coming to our borders that can only be fought with shoulder-fired nukes?




no offense dude, but you sound like either salisbury or some secret government brain camp got to you. not only that, but you didn't explain at any point why citizens owning guns would solve these problems.

[Edited on August 24, 2006 at 7:19 PM. Reason : .]

8/24/2006 7:18:25 PM

why does some dude gotta get his head blown to have a "win" for gun owners.

I would say a win for gun owners would be when some dude shoots a huge deer and feeds his family for awhile.

8/24/2006 8:08:04 PM

why does some dude gotta get his head blown to have a "win" for gun owners.

I would say a win for gun owners would be when some dude shoots a huge deer and feeds his family for awhile.

8/24/2006 8:08:42 PM

With every post, you reveal more of your ignorance, Suspended. First, I addressed the issue of the US Army. I'm telling you that our forces ARE NOT adequately trained to repel an invasion of our country. If you think they are, prove it.

Second, your claim of a false analogy ("apples and oranges") is equally ridiculous. I am comparing what liberals do find objectionable versus what they could find objectionable--populational numbers don't fucking matter. Try to focus.

The Cindy Sheehans and others base their objections to Operation Iraqi Freedom primarily on the number of US military fatalities. If fatalities REALLY is the issue, then the number of US traffic deaths (43,200/year) should be much more of a concern than US military combat deaths (692/year).

Obviously, the issue for liberals is not deaths--it is let's bash the shit out of Bush as often as possible. Hey, maybe our war protests will be like the '60s! Groovy, man! But it's not like the '60s, is it? Because a lot of people know that this war and others SHOULD be fought.

To Josh8315: You will note that your post of "einstien" (sic) is in error in the following ways: (1) "Einstein" should be capitalized, as I have it here; (2) in this context, the name of said genius is an interrupting element, which requires a comma preceding it; and (3) YOU SPELLED "EINSTEIN" INCORRECTLY, EINSTEIN! YOU FUCKING MORON! In addition, I posted "total number of US military deaths due to combat." You posted "10s of thousands of innocent civilians." Talk about apples and oranges! Can you fucking read?

To cyrion: You wrote, "100% success ratio"; I did not. I am suggesting that an armed citizenry greatly reduces the likelihood of an invasion AND helps guard against tyranny by one's own government. By the way, a "ratio" is the relationship between two things; you meant "rate," dumbass.

Concerning the possible breaching of our borders, you are obviously too mired in left-wing groupthink to get it. I didn't say that such a thing was likely or imminent; I said it was possible. Again, an armed citizenry is a deterrent, whether you understand that or not. As to your comment on how a large force could get in, it could happen in a variety of ways. One scenario is that many large troop transport aircraft fly under the radar through Mexico and start the invasion there. Hey, speaking of Mexico, TENS OF THOUSANDS of undocumented people cross the border undetected every day.

Concerning planning, the military plans for a great many possibilities--but it can't plan for them all. Moreover, PLANNING and TRAINING are two different things. Oh, that's right, you were not in the military, so you don't know the fucking difference.

You compare me to "salisbury" and you say "no offense" in the same breath? FUCK OFF! I have made my points about why an armed citizenry is desirable over and over again--you and some others just don't want to hear it.

8/25/2006 3:09:45 AM

Quote :

"The Cindy Sheehans and others base their objections to Operation Iraqi Freedom primarily on the number of US military fatalities. If fatalities REALLY is the issue, then the number of US traffic deaths (43,200/year) should be much more of a concern than US military combat deaths (692/year)."

i think you are off base here. driving IS pretty much necessary in our country because of its size and lack of wide-scale public transportation. a war in Iraq is not necessary. any deaths thus become unnecessary (including those of the iraqi civilians).

Quote :

"To cyrion: You wrote, "100% success ratio"; I did not. I am suggesting that an armed citizenry greatly reduces the likelihood of an invasion AND helps guard against tyranny by one's own government. By the way, a "ratio" is the relationship between two things; you meant "rate," dumbass."

it could be a ratio of plots foiled VS plots attempted, in which case id see a 1:1 as 100% success, but you are probably right that i was typing too fast to care. instead of addressing the issue here, however, you've decided to call me a dumbass for using a different word.

2 attacks in 60 years isnt that bad (and how far back do you have to go to get a 3rd major one?). what makes you think (or as you ask josh for, PROOF) that it is reasonably large factor. id say it isnt much of one in the US's case.

so your suggestion is equal to mine in weight, but one of your proposed reasons (deterring an invasion) is EXTREMELY unlikely.

Quote :

"Concerning planning, the military plans for a great many possibilities--but it can't plan for them all. Moreover, PLANNING and TRAINING are two different things. Oh, that's right, you were not in the military, so you don't know the fucking difference."

i was unaware that being in the military was a prerequisite for arguing about it. i was also unaware that participation in an organization gave you comprehensive knowledge of every attack plan, training exercise, and strategy. MY BAD.

my point was that you argue that we arent prepared and then say we are thinking about them. sure they arent exactly the same thing, but one certainly leads (perhaps not right away) to the other.

if it was such a pressing threat, perhaps you should have used your great knowledge and power within the military to exact some change.

Quote :

"You compare me to "salisbury" and you say "no offense" in the same breath? FUCK OFF! I have made my points about why an armed citizenry is desirable over and over again--you and some others just don't want to hear it."

im sorry, but do you not see a connection when you start talking about people flying over the mexican border and then needing to be repelled with shoulder-fired nukes? thats a black helicopter pic waiting to be queued. do i think it is impossible? no, but it ranks so low in the threat level that it can be pretty much ignored by common citizens.

again im in no military, so PARDON me, but when was the last time a major industrialized nation was invaded? how has the weapons/intelligence technology progressed since then?

you have discussed your other views, but you have yet to provide any good reason why people owning a handgun is going to prevent any of that. i've already said i didnt mind people owning certain firearms, so as was argued earlier, you're just fighting the anti-gun boogeyman for the most part while preaching fire and brimstone.

[Edited on August 25, 2006 at 9:59 AM. Reason : /]

[Edited on August 25, 2006 at 10:00 AM. Reason : wouldnt want that missed 'o' to invalidate my whole point ]

8/25/2006 9:57:57 AM

if the military cant stop an invasion what are some dudes with handguns going to do?

also as much as you try to make it not true, you are in fact significantly more likely to die in iraq than driving in the usa

thirdly, you are retarded

8/25/2006 10:25:41 AM

I swear to God, you fuckers are damned exhausting!

To Suspended: "if [sic] the military cant [sic] stop an invasion [sic] what are some dudes with handguns going to do?" Invade my house, Suspended, and I'll demonstrate. By the way, your use of the word "thirdly" reveals ineloquence. Would you say "eleventhly"? Most authorities recommend use of the nonadverbial "first," "second," "third," and so on, retard.

To cyrion: It is not about what is "necessary." The point is where one chooses to place one's focus--and more important, why one made the choice. The Cindy Sheehans and others have chosen to focus on Operation Iraqi Freedom based on the politics of said issue, and the effect such a protest can have on President Bush and other conservatives and war supporters. All I am saying is let's get real: The objections of a vast majority of said protestors has NOTHING to do with US military deaths--most of these people don't give a damn about the military--it's about the politics.

And I'm not going to address anymore of your stupid-ass points. I don't know if he agrees with me or if he'll answer, but I'm activating the J-Signal. I'm calling in Mr. Joshua for back-up--I need an energy drink. You guys can keep on drinking the Kool-Aid.

8/25/2006 8:45:33 PM

Quote :

"2 attacks in 60 years isnt that bad (and how far back do you have to go to get a 3rd major one?). what makes you think (or as you ask josh for, PROOF) that it is reasonably large factor. id say it isnt much of one in the US's case."

yea what about those liberal scandanavian countries. those are fighting off invading armies left and right.

8/25/2006 9:07:45 PM

1. this is a message board, im not going to capitalize
2. using [sic] makes you look like a choad an should only be used to point out real mistakes
3. thirdly is appropriate

if a military force can sneak past the military your handgun isn't doing shit when they enter your house

[Edited on August 25, 2006 at 9:12 PM. Reason : .]

8/25/2006 9:11:30 PM

no our handguns will take out invading tanks, ships and choppers.

8/25/2006 9:13:11 PM

i guess i could always use the small shoulder fired nuke i have in my closet

8/25/2006 9:15:23 PM

we need them, and hand gernades, and various explosives on hand to protect our country. sure a bunch of whack jobs will have tons of explosives, but we need are powerfully armed citizenly to deter would-be invaders.

8/25/2006 9:18:39 PM

we also need wizards, cause if an invasion force can sneak in they are probably using magic

8/25/2006 9:22:10 PM