HeloDude

This just keeps on getting better... Now, I know that shortly after the picture was taken she was shot and almost killed...with a handgun (same type (handgun) of firearm her husband just purchased the other day, along with the AR-15). It was no secret before she got shot that some crazy person can get a hold of a handgun, AR-15, whatever, and do some damage if they choose to...just like it's no secret that it can happen very easily again. So if a few tragic instances over several years can cause someone to change their mind about a Right, then I question why that person ever supported that Right in the first place. I don't have to wait to get hit by a drunk driver to know that I'm against drunk driving. And even if I was ever hit by a drunk driver, I would never want to ban alcohol.

It appears that there is bipartisan support in the Senate to pass an amendment to force the DoD to reinstate TA. Be interesting to see where this one goes.

Way overpriced man--like most of Bud's items since the scare began, much worse than other online firearms dealers. And this is coming from someone who has given Buds a lot of business in the past. I was able to get these cans for $135 from Sportsmans Guide before the scare and even AimSurplus has had them for $170-180 the last 1-2 months. Obviously if you need/want the 5.45 go for it as it's in stock. Just trying to add some perspective.

Because those are OPR bullet 'savings', not real savings.

You surprised me on this one man...sad really. By your logic, the government should confiscate your firearms because someone in your family 'may' becoming mentally unstable, your children 'may' get a hold of one of your firearms, somebody (a previously convicted felon) 'may' break into your house and steel your firearms (the excuse Chicago officials used for years to ban handguns btw)... Where's the line? Why not do the same thing with alcohol? As for convicted felons...so if one of your parents was a convicted felon and you allowed them to take residence with you and in your home, you'd be fine with the government coming to your door to take YOUR firearms away? What if your wife went to the doctor for depression and they labeled it as 'mental illness', what then? That's essentially what you're saying if you agree with what happened in the article. It's basically guilt by association.

And for my lovely folks on the left...yes One, this includes you: http://www.bloomberg...html?cmpid=yhoo Unbelievable. Here's what I find most disturbing: So if I'm a legal gun owner and I have a wife or a child who has been hospitalized for mental illness (which I would say is a good thing because that means they are at least getting some sort of help/treatment), then I can't have any of my firearms even if it's in my own house? What's to stop the government from going as far as to say that unsupervised children can't have access to firearms, and thus, you're not allowed to have any firearms in your house? Why aren't the government officials going to all the houses with those people who have been convicted of a DUI or have enrolled themselves in an alcohol rehab program from attempting to enter your house and start searching for alcohol? Those people who may have alcohol problems may then drink and then get in a car and kill somebody, so we should do something about it, right? Drunk drivers kill quite a bit more people each year when compared to homicides with a firearm. Now as a responsible citizen, I'm all about keeping firearms out of reach/secured from children, and I would definitely extend that in my house if someone was mentally unstable. But now the government can attempt to come into your house (article seems to say that they can't forcefully come into your house without a warrant, thank goodness at least for the 4th Amendment), but still--they are trying to come into your house, just because you have a firearm and somebody who has been hospitalized for mental illness? This right here is one of the many reasons why gun owners do not want a national registration. There are people who want and are trying to take people's guns away. And if you're ok with the above article, I then ask--how far can the government go? What's their limitations when it comes to 'protecting' you?

Since I'm fiscally conservative, I'll bite: First, I would like to know--what is the definition of a 'government handout'? If TA is a government handout, then are my flight suits a government handout as well? When I go TDY, is the gas money that is reimbursed to me a gov't handout? I could go on and on. One of the reasons I ask, is because the Air Force has made it painfully clear in the past that it wants their officers to get a masters degree--so much that promotions/retainability are greatly affected by whether you have one or not. So it can be effectively argued that the Air Force has told us that we need a masters degree to our job (whether I agree or not). And prior to recently, leaders have told us that there is no reason we cannot obtain a masters degree, because TA more/less covers the cost. The post 9-11 GI Bill (which is actually fairly new) only becomes available to many officers at their 8-9 year mark, in which case it would be challenging to then start a degree program and finish in time prior to your O-4 Board...you know, that board that gives a lot of weight to whether we have a masters degree or not. So again, if the Air Force tells us we need a masters to compete/do our job, then it's not much different than the Air Force paying for my flight suit...get my point? Now should the Air Force be in the business of making/paying for all of us to get Masters degrees?--I say no. I'm in agreement that I don't think it makes us better leaders, pilots, space officers, etc, and unless your job can not be completed without an advanced degree (physical therapist for example), then we don't 'need' one. But for my entire career thus far, that is not the message the Air Force has sent out (save the couple of years when AAD's were masked on the PRF). So all of a sudden budget issues have caused leadership to tell us that they were wrong/lying this whole time and that masters degrees really don't make us better leaders/better at our jobs? I'm all for that, but then they of course need to immediately mask it on PRF's and explicitly tell Sq/CC's and above that they can not even ask their folks about advanced degrees because that could unjustly influence stratifications, DP's, etc. I'm all for the cuts man. As I have said, I think the DoD cuts should be in the form of closing bases and ending missions, but yes, get rid of TA too. But then leadership needs to change their tune, and they need to change it soon.

Just got the email from the CSAF--interesting that they put something to the effect of 'potentially changing eligibility requirements for future sustainability'. Fortunately I used all of mine years ago, though I had hoped in the future to have used the one-time certificate deal...probably won't happen now. IMO this plays right into the Big Blue's hands: This way they can get their officers to do the SOS/ACSC Masters PME (whatever it's called) and then save money by not using TA while at the same time getting more people to do their masters program because it will still be free. Thoughts?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/03/11/Schakowsky-Assault-Weapons-Ban-is-Just-the-Beginning Here's another one...more specifically for the leftists who like to say 'nobody is trying/wants to take your guns away'. The folks who believe this are just following the party line (ie "tell people we don't want to take their guns away"...regardless of what they say when they don't know they're being recorded) or they're too stupid to believe that people in government do not believe you have the Right to own firearms. Just another example for guys like One...because Cuomo, Dem Missouri legislators, what Obama said in the past, etc is not enough to prove that if there was an up or down vote that they thought they could get passed without hurting them (or their party) politically, many would vote to outright ban the ownership of firearms.

Watching A Few Good Men more or less concurs with everything you just said. I should have been a lawyer.

Touché, I stand corrected. I was referring to the question "Are you the actual buyer of this firearm?". I thought there was a law against buying the firearm if you knew/planned that you were going to turn around and transfer it directly to someone else (not including a gift)? I'll step aside and allow M2 to answer (and anybody else with an FFL). Thanks for keeping me honest. That being said, he's still a hypocrite and I don't believe his story one bit. Again, why buy 2 firearms to turn around and to give one to the PD? Not to mention the fact that most firearm homicides are committed with a handgun--looks like he gave the wrong one up.

-Not the federal government's job. The federal government was created by sovereign States (not the other way around) to protect the Rights of all (obviously originally dicked up with slavery, but it's not like it was a secret) and to serve the States (ie border protection)--try reading a book man. Giving a massive federal government money just to turn around and have them give it back to the States is inefficient and allows for many more opportunities of corruption. Or is it a person's Right to be given food, healthcare, shelter, etc? -I firmly believe that 80-90% (throwing a number out there) of poor people are poor because of poor choices they make. Trust me, I have a brother who doesn't do nearly as well as the rest of us siblings because of the continued amount of poor choices he makes. Being lazy is just one of the many potential poor choices that some poor people make. Having children when you can't afford to care of them (often out of wedlock) is another poor choice. Drug and alcohol abuse is another poor choice. Not studying much and/or dropping out of high school. Not living within your means (ie buying lottery tickets for example) is another poor choice, just like having cable, a smartphone, a vehicle that is not the cheapest one you can find that still works, etc. Not buying your clothes at the goodwill stores is another bad choice...do I need to go on? Please show me quotes for 4 out of the 5 people on this forum said anything of the sort with regards to the first 2. The Kenyan part is the most interesting in terms of a discussion because some of Obama's own folks up until around 2005ish were saying he was Kenya. For example, his Harvard Law Review biography said he was born in Kenya. I think it's interesting for a discussion because there is proof to argue it either as true or as several 'errors'...but my problems with the President have nothing to do with where he was born...he could have been born in the Soviet Union for all I care as he is in fact the President--I take issues with his policies and lack of leadership. But again, I do not believe the country is in a bad situation because of where the President claimed or currently claims to have been born, it's irrelevant. Do you argue that there are not government folks who want to take away various firearms? Feinstein said she would take them away if she could. As for the President, look how he voted when he was in the Illinois State Legislature and what he said before he ran for President. He was definitely for restricting the Right to bear arms, even handguns. So even if he isn't actively trying to take guns away at this moment, he has shown in the past that he has little respect for allowing people to have this Right. So at a minimum it is accurate to say that there are many government officials trying to 'restrict' our Rights to bear arms, even more so than have already been restricted. It's called incrementalism. The Democratic Party ran on a message of free stuff! Did you not watch their convention? The national party ran on free healthcare, free college education, free birth control, etc. 81% of those who believe 'Government should do more to solve problems' voted for Obama. Did he not run on what the federal government would, could, and should do for people? Especially for the people already paying the least amount of federal income taxes? To be honest, I don't know what the 'average' Republican believes in anymore, hence why I am no longer one. In most cases they have shown that they can be the party of 'Democrat-light'. I do know that the traditional Republicans still support corporate welfare. I feel my lack of personal education in the past led me to once be a rubber stamp for the GOP, just like how I duped into believing that Lincoln was an honest man and truly believed in a government 'for and of the people'. Sadly I also thought years ago that he started the Civil War to free the slaves. It's amazing what some personal research will do for you. Then again, I understand you are 24...but almost 25 if I remember correctly. It took me a few more years after my mid 20's to actually see things correctly.

He brought it up on his FB after he got caught...that's why what he said 'doesn't make any sense'. He's a hypocrite, regardless of what happened to his wife. And of course he can buy a legal firearm in a State that supports our Rights, just like all of us non-criminals can (at least for now)--so what would he have been trying to prove? And who buys a gun just to turn around and give it to the local police? Is he going to try to buy all the firearms available just to turn them all in? And this is the BS from his FB page...you know, the one he posted 3 days after he made the purchase: Oh, and did he coordinate with the Tucson PD prior to the purchase? And if he did, did he in fact make a straw purchase if he lied on the NCIS form? Oh, and there is no 'loop hole'--it's just the way the law is, nothing secret/tricky about it. I can only hope that he gets in front of another legislature and tries to spew his propaganda so that he can be grilled for his hypocrisy.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/03/10/Mark-Kelly-Gave-Pro-Gun-Control-Testimony-In-Col-One-Day-Before-Before-Buying-AR-15-In-AZ This is how it works for the liberals, especially their elites--do as I say, not as I do. This is as bad as if a conservative was fighting for pro-life issues and then went out and got an abortion. This is why I laugh at the guys on this board who are hypocrites...you preach and throw your support one way, but then do something different when it comes to your own lives.

Funny, I've been saying the same thing about you and your liberal friends regarding guns, taxes, and welfare. Though I believe in evolution, last I checked, that issue wasn't affecting the country that much.

What do you suggest? Taking wealth from those who have earned it in order to give those who have not? Oh wait, we already do that with the estate tax...though I guess the dead aren't able to defend themselves from that form of theft. Dude, I am doing better than my parents, who did better than their parents, and who did better than their parents. Like others have said, it's not like there is a limited amount of wealth--liberals (and those who are uneducated and buy into their liberal point of view because it's easier to play the victim) like to believe that the wealthy are only wealthy because they took that money from somebody else. Now ever since Lincoln, government has been taking from people to give to wealthy in the form of corporate welfare...but people constantly support government taking and redistributing, whether it is to the lazy or to corporations--both of which in the end reduces competition and efficiency. I will most likely never be as wealthy as those in the '1%', and that is more than fine with me. As long as I have Liberty to live my life the way I chose and can take chances to increase my personal wealth, I am more than happy. Trust me, if someone in the bottom 50% had a remarkable idea/product that people viewed as desirable and of good value, that person would build wealth. But if people live just to keep their heads above water than that is the best they will ever do...and if they stumble along the way (drugs/alcohol abuse, out of wedlock births, gambling addictions, and overall bad decisions, etc), then as you correctly point out, they will probably go backwards.

But according to Ed Shultz, a civilian has never stopped a shooting...

I heard she was going to run for Gov and Rainman would run for Lt Gov. Or Rainman could challenge Al Franken in MN...

Maybe I'm just a boobs guy (ok, no maybe about it, I am)...if you covered up this chick's head she could have been mistaken for a dude. To quote one of the Iraqi Colonels I used to advise and fly with "Why would you want to be with someone who looks like a boy? You want a woman to look like a woman!". Grant it, the Iraqis seemed to like their girls a bit on the extra 'curvier' and thicker side, but still. Now somebody post some more boobs pics damn it!

So you then concur that it shouldn't be done at the government level via taxes? Especially at the federal level? Thats what the Libertrian Party says, damn near their exact words. Vertigo, if you want to give your hard earned money away to charity and to help people, whether they really or not, then that is more then fine and I commend you for doing it...but stealing from people to give it to someone else isn't charity, it's government theft. Or as Obama says "spreading the wealth around". My number one Libertarian view is the Federal and State governments honor and follow The Constitution...the 10th Amendment was specifically put in to give most of the powers and decisions to the States, regardless of whether you disagree or agree that it's a good idea. From that, my personal opinion is that charity works best when it's not ran by an inefficient government. Again, why is it ok to take from a person in order to turn around and give it someone else? Because you say it is? Because 90% of people say it's ok?

Not at the federal man...and not so much even at the State level, though The Constitution definitely allows for it under the 10th Amendment. If a self described Libertarian wants to voluntarily help people on a private/organizational level separate from the government in the form of charity, then I'm all for it. And just case you were curious as to what the Libertarian Party says on the issue: http://www.lp.org/issues/poverty-and-welfare Or are you just all about the Libertarian stuff when it comes to drugs, gay marriage, and abortion?

If she is able to work and not make poor choices and decides to do the opposite and that kills her, then so be it. Just like when someone kills themselves when they drink and drive or do drugs--personal responsibility man. Like you said, it's not rocket surgery. You want people to be able to marry whoever they way, ie make their own choices, and I agree. No different in this case--she can get off her ass and do something, and if not, she gets the consequences. If your kid doesn't do their homework or study for their tests and then gets a bad grade and fails are you going to say it was their fault or somebody else's fault? Now, having said all of this...I believe it's up to each individual State to determine how they take care of their poor--whether they want massive taxes and entitlements or to do nothing and let them fend for themselves or somewhere in between. And by the way, charities have always been there in this country to help the most venerable. The government didn't hire Mother Theresa to help people...she decided to that on her own. As for the rest of the stuff you posted, I'm interested in Liberty, Rights and Freedom...you're more interested in winning elections and turning the country into an even larger welfare state. Hence why I don't back up the GOP's nonsense either...I'm actually surprised they kept together and didn't break before the Sequester, though I guess they always still could. And again, you never commented on why we have wayyyy more people on some sore of welfare today? You say it's not getting worse, then why are more people on it? And why are we spending more on it? Again, if taxing more and the government spending more led to more prosperity, then why wouldn't every country be doing it and also doing well?

Here's the problem I see when you try to argue (which means I'm either getting better or you're getting worse or some combination of there of) is that you argue almost entirely on emotion. Your main source of argument is that 'we should do X because it's the right thing to do, it's the 'fair' thing to do, it's what other western countries do'...blah blah blah--that's arguing on emotion. Or when you say, 'well, the majority of the people want X from the government, therefore we should do it, blah blah blah'--now you're just arguing on behalf of other people's emotions. And occasionally you'll bring up The Constitution, when it suits you--ie gay marriage, voter ID, etc...and good on you when that occasionally happens. And occasionally (you used to do it much more) you'll actually post data to back up what you say...and for the record, finding someone else to give their opinion that you share still makes it just an opinion. So to address your comments: -The woman in the video doesn't 'seem' like an idiot, she is one. 200 years ago she'd be dead because nobody would want to support a lazy bum (and yes, I'm aware of slavery, etc...200 years ago a white guy saying the same thing would be dead). And there are plenty more just like her, in all genders and ethnicity. Again, welfare has been rapidly on the rise over the recent years (you never responded to that one). I watched some of the DNC convenetion--your party ran on giving free stuff, whether it was healthcare, education, birth control, health insurance, etc. This woman (again, regardless of what color she is as there are crack moms of all ethnic backgrounds) helps your party win elections. -Yep, the article on Obamacare came from the National Review, though the GAO came out with the figure. You never commented on the fact that the GAO said it will add $6 TRILLION to the debt--you just dodged the issue and talked about how you wanted something else. Also, you never responded to the fact that if the Dems were serious about spending cuts then they would have never had passed Obamacare in its current form. -It is almost entirely about winning elections for the Dems, that and getting more people on the government dole, which then helps then win more elections. You proved my point a couple days ago by saying it was non-politically smart for Obama to decide where to make the cuts. But yet, I'm supposed to believe that he really wants cuts? If he wanted cuts, then he should have had his party accept the GOP proposal so that he as the President could decide where to make the cuts. But, since it's all about politics, he refused. Me, I would love to prioritize what's important and what's least important and make the cuts accordingly, but then that would require leadership on his part. But I understand, he'd rather campaign more than lead. -As for future elections, dude, you called it a while back when I didn't see it--the demographics are changing so rapidly that the Dems have a distinct advantage, and thus again, that's why they want to provide more entitlements (that an amnesty) to ensure the vote. Rubio may be able to pull out a squeaker against Hillary in 2016 (and if so, may be able to pull out another close one in 2020 due to incumbency), but I think that's it. The only way the GOP could win after that is if they became more like Dems and jump on the entitlement bandwagon, but in that case, what's the difference (In many ways they've already done this). A latest poll I saw 2 weeks ago (searched but couldn't find it) stated that 79% of Hispanics believe the government should do MORE for people...well, we all know the party that enjoys giving more, and the vast majority of these 79% will vote accordingly--similar to what happened in Nov. Like you said man, it's not rocket surgery--I get it. Here is the link about how Hispanic vote is likely to double by 2030. So there it is man, like I said, I get it. You even have more and more people from the Dem party saying we don't have a spending problem--Pelosi, Sen Harkin, and I could name others if need be. So until something big happens, like an economic collapse, I see the vector heading the same way. ...oh, and for the other BO'ers, sorry for the TDLR post again. If you were a true Libertarian, you would be against just about all forms of federal welfare programs. If States want to do it, that's fine. Man, had to call you out again.

And what is a liberal's (ie Nsplayr) response to this: More people on some form of welfare than ever before, whether it be food stamps, government housing, disability, Medicaid, etc, but yes, 'it's not getting worse' he says--give me a break. Oh and he also tried to argue that increases in out of wedlock births 'may not be a bad thing'...yes, more unmarried moms are definitely the way forward to prosperity <sarcasm>. The Dems always play this game--they deny, shift the discussion, and then deny again if necessary. Just look at how the Dems vote and the statistics that arise from their policy--they WANT people relying on the federal government in one form or another. Then they are the ones saying 'look what we are doing for you...the other side wants to take it away'. If the Dems were serious about cutting spending then they would have never passed Obamacare, which the GAO is now saying will add $6 TRILLION to the long-term deficit. NSplayr is correct when it comes to one thing--to him and the left, it's all about politics and winning elections.

Here's another sad but important reason to not send your children to a public schoo-just in case you needed another reason to not allow your child to be indoctrinated by liberal thought. Funny, when I was growing up we always drew pictures of airplanes shooting each other, missiles being fired, guys shooting each other, etc. Then again I was fortunate enough to attend a private school where the teachers and administrators used some common sense. http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2013/03/02/7-Year-Old-Boy-suspended-for-shaping-pastry-into-gun