If this guy gets in

Eddie,

Very well said (other than the part about me being a cancer - owch, you know how to hurt a guy).

Despite that, turns out you and I are in the same party. To quote you "[font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]im not a DEM im not a REP im a decide what i like and vote for the person who best represents that-ian." Ditto for me. I think it is the only sane party to be in.

Charlie
[/font]
 
Wow Bill,

After reading most of the replies on this thread, I'll have to admit that you northern boys are actually pretty smart and not nearly as mean spirited as we in the south are led to believe.

I would like to point out that many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were Freemasons and that the Boston Tea Party was probably carried out by a Freemasons Lodge members dressed as Indians. (wrote that in for Rick's benefit) This has been a thought provoking thread but it's high time to get back to the sport we all love.

Great job Bill,
Harry
 
ed.....we definately need the poutine at the brat and beer Wednesday night get together. Maybe before they band the assault weapons we could have them too...just to shoot some cans or old pumpkins etc.
 
Ed, #4 is a little against your grain in other statements. Sure cars are licensed and registered and you have to have a license to drive one and are safe "in the right hands". The only reason cars are licensed, registered and you have to have a license to drive one is because the tax revenues generated for supposedly fixing roads and maintaining them. You buy a hunting license and pay sales and Pittman Robertsons taxes on fire arms and ammunition..why should you be taxed MORE than you are on a car? Would you be any deader being shot with an AR15 than a Remmington 742 30-06? What is the difference? Should a guy that wants a Corvette be subjected to more scrutiny than the guy that wants a mini van? What if the guy that wants the mini van wants it black with chrome wheels and wide tires...does that make that mini van more deadly and the owner less trustworthy? Well...I think you see where this is going. Our right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with hunting and target shooting..it has everything to do with insuring that the Government doesn't enslave us. The second ammendment says..sure, we need to have an army(trained militia)..but the rights of the people to bear arms against such army in such event that the government uses it to wrest control from the people, shall not be infringed. Taking from our founding fathers, the populace shall be allowed to bear substantially the same weapons as what could be used against them. I am surprised really at some of your views. In 1973-74 I lived in New Hampshire and the friends I met and made there were very protective of their rights and pretty strict believers of our constitution. Live Free Or Die , I always loved the NH motto proudly displaye on their license plates.
 
After reading through six pages of political battling over who is right or wrong liberal or convservative republican or democrat, I was the most educated by Steve Sutton's comments..... big boobs, beer, and an actual war HERO for me. Save this discussion for CNN CNBC FOX or all talk radio this forum is about enjoying hobbies ...hunting, boat building, outdoors, carving, friends, beer, big boobs, etc. This topic could go on for the next 100 years with no clear WINNER.
 
#4 guns designed for the military should be in the hands or the military only. now i suppose if you want to fight this even more you could say that the birth of the gun was for the killing of ones enemy then so be it. i think if a gun designed with the tactical intent in mind then a tactical permit should be issued. a dealer for one should not be able to sell a gun to anyone with out this permit. you need a license to drive a car which is a safe in the right hands but deadly weapon in the wrong.


There are only a couple things wrong with that Ed.
First, there is no 2nd amendment for driving. It is not a right.
Second, just what guns are we be allowed to hunt with?
Nearly all bolt action rifles are based on the Mauser action, that was designed as a military weapon. Maybe we can use lever actions, oh sorry the original henry became popular as a military weapon during the civil war. It may not have been an official weapon but there was no doubt it was marketed to those going to war.
Single action revolvers were designed as military and police guns from the start, that is why the companies added 'Navy' and 'Army' to the guns names.
The benelli shotguns that so many use has to be OK. Well unless you take into account that the first ones I ever saw were imported by H&K and were as tactical as it gets. They were police weapons not duck guns to start with.
If you go back to the origin of most US made semi auto guns they are based on something John Browning designed. His work in this field was for military weapons. Those guns like the BAR and the many Remington semi autos over the years are based on his designs.
Ruger's popular mini 14 and 30 are not well hid copies of the M1.
Even the Model 12 and 1897 shotguns were popular military weapons through out the years. The 870 is a very popular tactical weapon and there is even a .223 version of it.
Most guns can be changed to a tactical look and use with as little as changing the stock and barrel.
You will have trouble finding guns that either were either designed completely as a hunting gun (something like the TC Contender and Encore, the NEF Handi Rifle and several other single shot rifles new to the market) or have never been used as a tactical weapon. Almost no handguns other then the single shots fit that.

Looks don't make a gun to me only how the action works. The 50 year old design of the AR15 works the same as the new Remington 750 for all practical purposes. High capacity clips means nothing. They are only metal, easily modified if one wants to.
Like Lee I'd much rather be shot with an AR15 in .223 then a .30-06 out of anything and for sure it would be better then a shotgun full of buckshot.

Tim
 
After reading through six pages of political battling over who is right or wrong liberal or convservative republican or democrat, I was the most educated by Steve Sutton's comments..... big boobs, beer, and an actual war HERO for me. Save this discussion for CNN CNBC FOX or all talk radio this forum is about enjoying hobbies ...hunting, boat building, outdoors, carving, friends, beer, big boobs, etc. This topic could go on for the next 100 years with no clear WINNER.


First off I'm a big fan of boobs and beer. More specifically I like them better when there’s a nice body and a pleasant head and good taste attached. That being said, I will remind the individual I quote here; the person who started this thread also started this web site.

FYI,

Hitch
 
Because I thought your reference to the Barbary wars in trying to validate the war in Iraq was equally rediculous.

If you haven't noticed, a faction of muslims are not the only group to hate westerners. And to paint all "muslims" as western-hating and looking for total eradication of us is equally rediculous. There are nut-jobs everywhere and only a small percentage of them of muslim. I don't think Timothy McVeigh was muslim. To think cleaning up a few of them in Iraq is making the world demonstrably safer for us is just wishful thinking.

Back to the point- if you thing the Bush administration has done such a good job, it oughta be easy to at least hit the high points. I think it's only fair to give you first dibbs on taking a crack at giving me proof of his wonderful accomplishments before I discuss the downsides.


I don't believe I tried to "paint all "Muslims" as western-hating". Where did you read that part? I’m sorry if I gave that impression. I also apologize to all the innocent Muslims out there that read this forum.

And I have no doubt there are more than enough people that hate America here and elsewhere; like the Reverend Wright for example. The ones who accuse Bush of being responsible for this hatred fail to recall attacks during other administrations. Those who blame Bush also fail to have any answers of there own other than to blame Bush. They seem to lack suggestions for solutions for anything for that matter. They just seem to enjoy bitching.

The characters in history that attacked us first were Islamic terrorists…Muslims. They were also responsible for the attacks on our trading vessels (also unprovoked) during the timeframe that led up to the Barbary wars. They were all Islamic terrorists of one form or another. Call them what you like. Ironically, now that you mention it, there has been significant evidence that Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols spent time in the Philippines and trained with Islamic terrorists there where they learned bomb making techniques. In addition to that they could be linked to an Iraqi trained military group in Oklahoma City. There’s a very good book on this: “The third terrorist”. Have you read it?

“Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.”

You should turn off CNN and read more. It may improve your vision of politics and improve your spelling skills.

Hitch


Man, did you sniff too many fumes while welding up your duckboat? Do you live your whole life in similar paranoia? By you and the authors of anti-terrorism propaganda books it looks like we're just one day away from complete annihilation via an islamic armageddon. I bet you pony-up every time you get a phone call from the NRA with the "important" message from Wayne Lapierre about how we are only days from losing all our guns, too?

My advice for you is to stop wasting your money and time reading books with shady and unproven conspiracy theories and get a reality check. The war in Iraq was perpetrated on bad "intelligence" and there was NOT a direct link between Saddam Hussein and the hijackers. Some muslims are terrorists, but we went after the wrong ones by invading Iraq. The Husseins were bad people, but that's true of most dictators around the world. If you think it's OK to spend $3+B (sorry-should read T as in TRILLION or $3,000,000,000,000), to "right" the situation in Iraq, please do so with your own money and the money of your offspring. Start by selling your boats to fund the war if you think it's such a worthy cause. I don't think it is and there has been no overwhelming information since 9/11 to prove to me that this was the correct thing to do. It was just lynchmob mentality and I guess you got suckered by it.

BTW- calling me out for incorrect spelling is laughable. I may make a few typos on occasion, but since I was the champion in several spelling bees in my youth I'd be more than happy to take you on in a spelling contest.


P.S.- Not sure if being a war "hero" automatically validates anyone as a presidential candidate, but I'm OK with the Boobs and Beer! Somethin' about Maslow's hierarchy of needs.........
 
Last edited:

"First off I'm a big fan of boobs and beer. More specifically I like them better when there’s a nice body and a pleasant head and good taste attached. That being said, I will remind the individual I quote here; the person who started this thread also started this web site.

FYI,

Hitch "


That is the beauty of the idea Hitch, Big bazooms and a 12 pack and the rest looks great anyway. When you can take 5lbs of ugly fat and make a guy go nuts over it by adding a nipple...I believe the facts are in.
 
Last edited:
"First off I'm a big fan of boobs and beer. More specifically I like them better when there’s a nice body and a pleasant head and good taste attached. That being said, I will remind the individual I quote here; the person who started this thread also started this web site.

FYI,

Hitch "


That is the beauty of the idea Hitch, Big bazooms and a 12 pack and the rest looks great anyway. When you can take 5lbs of ugly fat and make a guy go nuts over it by adding a nipple...I believe the facts are in.


I was referring to the first 3 or 5 beers, not a full blown, 12 pack woe doggy...Sheesh.

Hitch
 
BDaves....watch the clips by Podhoretz, Kissinger, Hanson.

Where have you come up with your thoughts on Iraq?

http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/

-D
 
Last edited:
Lee,

Thank you for your compliment regarding New Hampshire. I believe your perception is correct. There have been several attempts to change from "Live Free or Die" to the old logo "Scenic". All have failed miserably thank God.

LIVE FREE OR DIE FOREVER.

Beer and big boobs (no reference to the candidate ) forever also.

This discussion has gotten less ugly and I'm glad of it - animosity has no place here - we all share a common interest.

Bill
 
We must remember,when it comes to Rev Wright,that one Aw Shit,wipes out a whole bunch of atta boys.Same for Moyers.
 
Joe,


I'm guess I'm lucky JC didn't (doesn't) feel the same way about me. Besides, after watching & listening, just what Aw Shit we talking about?

Wright's interview doesn't mean I'll vote for Obama (or anyone), but it sure paints me a different picture of the Rev.
 
Last edited:
Bill Moyers, a Socialist/Leftist had that in mind when he interviewed Mr Wright. Bill Moyers is known for painting pretty pictures regarding Socialism and Anti-Americanism. I think where Mr. Wright finally defined himself pretty well was in front of the National Press Club Monday.

Hitch
 
Wright's out spoken views against this Country surely cancel out the good he has done for others over the years.He continues to stand behind his ridiculous statements about the Government causing the destruction of the Trade Center,and his belief that the Government caused AIDS.GD America ,is one Aw S*** .
 
BDaves....watch the clips by Podhoretz, Kissinger, Hanson.

Where have you come up with your thoughts on Iraq?

http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/

-D


Dave,

I don't pay any attention to the nationalreview. I get enough conservative propaganda when I listen to Rush or turn on FOX news. I believe in seeing both sides of any argument, but there are limits to what I'm gonna spend my time on. I don't read moveon.org and I don't read nationalreview.com. I think that evens it out pretty well.

BTW-I've developed my position on Iraq from being a logical and independent person who thinks for myself. Backed up with a few degrees and a lot of edumacatin'. I have always held the belief that invading Iraq was unsubstantiated, even before we went. The info. has always seemed suspicious and the fact that no other country would support us (other than England-there's a stretch) but had access to the same "intelligence" would seem to indicate that it was probably ill-conceived. Don't go on about all other countries are a bunch of sissies and the U.N. is impotent. The U.N. hasn't been so impotent in other wars (Bosnia for instance), so I don't think they're being sissies either. The overwhelming evidence was and continues to be that invading Iraq was and continues to be a waste of time and money. And the rest of the world thought so too. Can I say lynchmob mentality one more time?

Go after the terrorists themselves (of which the Husseins were not, thugs maybe but pretty paltry as terrorists) wherever they hide. In most cases you don't need to invade an entire country to do so. And the first place we should go is Pakistan. I've got a pretty good feeling we'll find Osama there. Train some special ops guys to go in under the wire and we could get the bad guys where they live for a lot less than $3T.
 
Back
Top