Leaderboard

Robert, with all due respect - if the measure of insulting someone is poking fun at or ridiculing their opinions, you are just as guilty as anyone here. Maybe not in this thread, but most certainly in others.

I went ahead and ordered a Savage Model 11/111 hog hunter and Nikon Monarch so she'd forget about Eotech. It worked. Don't know how I'm going to get her past this. Hehe Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

Turned off is acceptable to me. But if a teacher sees it in use, the teacher should now own it.

Just answer the door with a 12 gauge and a beer, smlile at them and say, " You sure got a purty mouth... mhmmm."

By that token, I'd say that there are quite a few - perhaps not 'Romneybots', per se, but more like 'Republibots' running around. Those folks are likely more or less equalled in number by 'Demobots', too. In other words, they act as if they've been programmed to support a candidate - any candidate - who is 'the guy' for their, particular party and argue that their candidate is 'much better' than 'the other guy' no matter what facts or issues or reality is presented to them. As you say, they act robotic. In my opinion, furiously insisting that there are really great differences between two anti-gun politicians who have both strongly supported goverment-run healthcare sounds pretty danged robotic. Insisting that an anti-gun politician only acted like an anti-gun politician because he held one executive office (governor) and not another (president) sounds like programming, to me, as does insisting that a politician only supported government-run healthcare because he was governor and not president - especially when the only support one has for that belief is simply because the anti-gun, government run healthcare supporting politician said so, himself, when there is no other evidence to support the idea that he isn't simply lying to get elected (no politician ever did that, huh?) I'm not pointing to anyone, in particular, but that is honestly how I feel. Maybe there are minor differences but, in the end, I think that getting so worked up over insisting that Romney is a clearly superior choice for president over Obama (or vice versa) has more to do with party affiliation than fact. That is what folks who get angry at those of us who really don't see any marked difference cannot and will not understand. We have heard and seen all the arguments as to why Romney is 'better' but we have nothing but his word (again, the word of a politician - which generally equates to 'professional liar) and the opinions of many who so desperately want - perhaps even need - to believe him. Thing is, if you don't simply accept the word of a politician/professional liar and the opinions of folks who would probably support him even if he had horns, a pointy tail and carried a pitchfork as long as he swore that he wasn't going to behave like he has in the past then there is really no other evidence to support the idea that Romney isn't simply another anti-gun politician who supports government run healthcare, just like the guy who is currently in office. See, it isn't that we 'like' Obama - I, for one, place him just about on the level of pond scum. It is simply that Romney hasn't given us any reason to believe that there are enough differences between him and Obama to warrant getting all excited about.

OK, read this and then tell me that Mitt Romney cares about your Second Amendment rights more than Barry ODumbo.... “Actually the law that we signed in Massachusetts was a combination of efforts both on the part of those that were for additional gun rights and those that opposed gun rights, and they came together and made some changes that provided, I think, a better environment for both, and that’s why both sides came to celebrate the signing of the bill.†Mitt Romney, CNBC, July 23rd, 2012. While signing into law a permanent ban on many kinds of semi-automatic rifles, he proclaimed “Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.†With Republicans like Romney, who needs Democrats? http://www.thetrutha...simultaneously/ That's it; I'm not voting for this puke.

I'll agree that most everything in hollywood is BS but like I said, you take a couple MIT grads and a tool and die shop with decent equipment and you can build just about anything. As far as fissionable materials go, that's very hard to get. It's not a like a stranger can just walk in to a place like Oak Ridge.....oh wait.

Not for the .40 Shield but maybe the 9mm Shield:)

I graduated high school in 1985. No cell phones back then. I am just wondering what we did when we had an emergency. I guess there were no emergencies before cell phones were invented. I also think they should not be allowed at work unless you are using for work related calls. Nothing that I have seen in the last 25 years has led to more unproductivity and lack of respect for the workplace than cell phone usage and texting.

My son is 12 and a half. My wife and I have decided that he is going to grow up like us. No cell phone until he gets a job and pays for the entire bill himself (and car insurance too). If his behavior goes south, regardless of him paying for it, he will lose that privilege. So, no job, no phone. We are pretty old fashioned in my household. Cell phone is a no no but guns and slingshots are ok.

No

Grind it into cornmeal. It can be rough on a grinder like a Back to Basic, but an inexpensive Corona type should handle it well. But it'll take several passes. It should store a long time, especially in Mylar with o2 absorbers. And the price will probably rise dramatically after this years drought. I don't know about you guys, but I love cornbread.

Hypocrite much? Before we go on, perhaps we should quote the entire post you take such offense to... I'm sure that linking to the Huffington Post as if it was a legitimate source for facts was just a joke. My "response" to your link was not exactly a response and wasn't even directed to you; it was was directed to 6.8 AR as a reply to his comment and was offered as a joke; it was a joke at your expense but a joke nevertheless. I thought it was clear that it was a joke but since I apparently offended you then I apologize. I've definitely been personally criticized and even personally attacked for opinions I've expressed...however, I really don't recall being personally criticized for posting a link. I suspect hat if I went back and looked I could find an example or two where that has happened but I don't see much point in looking...I mean; what if I found 100 examples where I've been "personally criticized" for a link I had posted...what would that prove???Not long ago I received a negative iTrader rating from someone I had never traded with because of something I said about the Martin/Zimmerman case...does that make any difference? It seems odd to me that you would feel so "personally criticized" by me when I wasn't replying to you in the first place....it also seems odd that you would wait almost a whole day to bring it up...even more odd that you would reference a post in a different thread to make your point. I wonder; do you feel as "personally criticized" by 6.8 AR?

I think the problem here is that some folks, including you, are assuming that because some of us have zero faith in Romney's ability to be a good president and zero faith in his claims that he will behave differently as president than he behaved as governor we are somehow saying that Obama is better. See, this isn't a 'one must be better' thing with some of us. It is more along the lines that we believe them to be equally bad. Being anti-Romney doesn't automatically make someone pro-Obama. Some folks seem to think that it does and that one must 'believe in' one or the other but that simply is not the case. I don't think that strickj is saying that Obama's lies and pandering are any better than Romney's. Instead, he is saying that Romney is just as guilty as Obama of lying and pandering. In other words, I think that he is saying that (in his opinion) Obama sucks as a presidential candidate and, when taken on his own merits (or lack thereof), and judged by his own actions. independent of anything else, rather than a viewpoint of "I hate Obama so Romney must be good," Romney also sucks as a presidential candidate. As for myself, I have no faith in either of them when it comes to choosing the next leader of our nation. Zero. Zilch. Nada. None. So why the heck should I vote for a candidate in whom I have no faith, whatsoever - be it Obama or Romney - regardless of who the 'other guy' is?

The point isn't so much about whether or not Obama has been given the opportunity. The point is that Romney was given the opportunity and he took it. What Obama might do is not certain - although I suspect you are correct in assuming he would sign such a law. What Romney actually did do is clear fact and, therefore, is certain. It happened and no amount of, "Well, I was governor then but I want to be president, now," attempts at spinning what he did is going to change the fact that he signed sweeping gun control legislation. I, for one, refuse to simply take his word that he wouldn't do it, again.

Fix it! First you get the money, then you get the power, then you get the women.

Right? My passport stays in the safe... losing that thing is a much bigger deal than losing a license. I'd never carry that around with me all the time.

Damn yankees don't understand playing possum...

I still think the question is legitimate sounds like a fair question to all who feverishly back Romney 6.8 AR ,Mentioned Romney being a successfull business man and how with our econmey like it is that would be a great thing to have in office. So he is the only person who saw strickj's question for what it was "A QUESTION" and actually answered it others accused him of playing the race card including you and Maybe Punisher athough he never said punisher was a Racist he pointed out that he was being accused of playing a Race card when others werent so, if by "YOUR" definition the above quote is "Playing a race card" then others are aswell . However your defintion of playing the race card is way off . he asked a simple question then outlined the perameters by saying "Other Than" Opinion , likeability and race . which means your not aloud to use those responces when replying to the question , and instead of answering him "You" accused him of playing the Race card"

Yes, I've called some, not all, Paul supporters "Paulbots" because there are many Paul supporters who act as if they've been programmed to support him no matter what facts or issues or reality is presented to them...they act robotic. Have I said other things that people took as insulting? I'm sure I have but that does not mean it was intentional. Have I used the +1/-1 functions? Yes I have. Have I used them when I probably shouldn't have? I"m sure I have. Have people done the same to me? I"m sure they have. However, I at least try to use them to express not agreement or disagreement with a post but whether or not the post is useful and/or at least seems like a attempt was made to add something to the discussion...many posts don't do that or even attempt to do that. As to strickj...I never called him a racist...or even hinted in that direction and I know nothing about him other than his posts here. I said and I say that he has used what is commonly called the "race card" in suggesting/insinuating/outright stating that ThePunisher was a racist...that ThePunisher was basing his opinion of Obama based on Obama's race. If you think that is calling strickj a "racist" you are wrong; the two things are very different from each other.

I didnt insult you .I have noticed you on the other hand trolling the forums insulting any and every Ron Paul supporter you come across with names like paulbot Etc. and anybody who doesnt see Romney as a "Good Guy " Looking out for americans , sheeple you called out strickj insinuating that he was being a racist because he said "Are there any actual differences between them on paper? Or are the only differences based on opinion, likeability and race? " Instead of answering the question with anything other than he is a business man or pure opinion Even though alot of people see those as the only "Fact based differences between the two" he never said he cared one way or the other what color the guy is . Then if anyone disagrees with you further after being "Insulted" by your advanced knowledge of how "Romney will Majically not be the same guy he has always been , You run through and click your little -1 buttons , Then you go make a post in a different thread about how people need to lay off using the -rep buttons because of a disagreement., either way it goes in your eyes Im a sheeple because I dont see a difference between the two other than one is a business man and the other isnt . according to some . And in my eyes people like you are the reason we have such a great choice to choose from this election .

Romney is a great guy and has obviously changed his mind about everything he has ever done or said in politics . from this day fourth everything he has done or said in the past is erased because the GOP chose him and thats it. since the GOP chose him then we must vote for him because they said he changed. Obama must be voted out because he hates America , He spits upon you while you sleep. Obama wants your guns, Romney doesnt anymore. Obamacare has to go , Romney said he will fix it! Romney is a Mans Man , he creates businesses from thin air and makes more money than you can haul in a truck Romney is The man. Obama is the Devil Never mind that I said he changed quit being a sheeple !

Perhaps not in the five years prior but you played the race card at least twice in this thread, including the post I'm quoting here. You have, multiple times accused ThePunisher of being motivated by race and that IS playing the race card...it's the perfect definition of playing the race card. ThePunisher has NOT referenced race as a motivation even once in this thread.

"..... It requires ammunition buyers who are not licensed dealers to present photo identification at the time of purchase, effectively banning the online or mail order purchase of ammo by regular civilians....." ID for ammo....., but DEMs are against ID for voting?

I post just a small sampling of Obama's lies (all of which have happened during his administration), and you don't deny that he is a liar, yet you post links to articles quoting Obama as saying he won't push for new gun controls measures "this election year" as if the promises of a liar are supposed to mean something. Actually, I can easily believe that Obama won't push for new gun control measures this year...my concern is with regards to the next four should this country be unfortunate enough that he wins a second term. Would you care to cite and substantiate the lies Romney has told? I don't believe that anyone who has participated in this or any of the plethora of other "Romney is no good" threads is dismissing what you call the "blatant anti-gun past" of Mit Romney nor has said Romney is some huge fan of Second Amendment rights...I am sure he believes in some degree of "gun control" that I and many here find objectionable and I even believe that Romney might well sign some gun control legislation should it cross his desk. On the other hand, I'm positive that Obama will sign anything that further restricts gun rights that crosses his desk; up to and including an outright ban/confiscation - I do not believe Romney would ever go that far. I believe that Obama would confiscate/outlaw all firearms if he could because I believe that he, as a Marxists/communists/socialist, has a disdain for power residing in the "people" rather than the government and arms, in the hands of the people, represents tremendous power that Obama sees a need to quash or at least control. Even if I believed that Romney was as much of an enemy of the Second Amendment as I believe Obama is, that wouldn't stop me from voting for Romney because I am not a "single issue voter"...I would still vote for Romney for the simple reason that no Marxist/communist/socialists should ever be sitting in the oval office and the one sitting there now needs to be sent back to the Chicago cesspool he came from.

I hate it when anti gun people breathe oxygen that the rest of us could be putting to better use.

My security system is just a early warning devise. Nothing more, nothing less. I only need to know that the perimeter has been breached.

A stroke, an aneurysm and a pulmonary embolism.

More tin foil hattery that really is no concern. We need to use all available resources we have. It’s time to repeal Posse Comitatus and use the military when they are available to help protect or borders or other law enforcement when needed. The idea that our military is going to be used against the civilian populace is non-sense.

Ok, to try and settle this debate I will put my two cents into this discussion. Seeing as how I was at Quantico just a month or so ago, and was talking with the OIC of the Precision Weapons Shop, I feel I have a fairly good handle on this situation. The Marine Corps has always continued to use the 1911. While the standard sidearm became the M9, specialized units like Force Recon and now MARSOC still use custom built 1911's. These 1911's have been built for Marines by Marines at PWS. With a few exceptions, they have continued to use original 1911 frames that were produced during WWII. The problem they have encountered recently, is they are running out of frames. They recently went to Anniston and had to go through several hundred pistols just to come up with a handful of frames that were even suitable for building on. Remember, these pistols are being used by the most elite of Marine forces, and a typical Force Recon Marine will wear out a 1911 doing the six month work up for a MEU. The PWS just can't keep enough rebuilt guns in the system. Hence the desire to find an off the shelf 1911 that will meet the end users needs. Again, this is not to be a standard issue pistol, that is still the M9, actually the M9A1 now. This new pistol is to be used by Force Recon and MARSOC Marines in some of the most hair raising situations that could ever be imagined. They have used the 1911 forever, have found it to be ideal for their uses, and want to continue using a 1911 for the foreseeable future. I hope this clears up some of the confusion, and ends some of the debate about why they didn't adopt this or that modern pistol.

I don't know how we could come up with a better way. Do we want them elected? Do we want them appointed by the POTUS and subject to dismissal at the whim of the POTUS? The idea was to free the Justices from the influence of politics and the threat of losing their job for making a ruling that wasn't politically popular or ran counter to the parties in power. Recommended by the POTUS and approved by the Senate is really the best way to go in my opinion. This is perhaps the most important reason why people need to make informed decisions about who they vote for.

A ban on large capacity feeding devices? I have to warn the other fat people!

Two points that the TV media have ignored: 1) There are several movie theaters nearby. Why did he choose the one he did? We know that he meticulously planned this attack. Is it coincidence that that theater is posted AGAINST concealed carry? 2) There was nother attempted mass murder in Aurora, CO on April 30th this year. Shooter had multple guns, body armor, lots of ammo. Killed two and then was drilled in the head by an off-duty cop with a concealed handgun. End of that 'rampage'! I am terrified at the thought of standing with my little pistol against some nut armed with a rifle and armored like this fellow. But, I hope that I would have the courage to at least try. It's certainly better than cowering in fear and hoping he moves on without shooting me or my loved ones.

You do have people who have simply lost the ability for critical thinking - such thinking needs to be modeled, taught and we seldom do that any more. This leads to people who really think that banning "assault weapons" and or that "non guns allowed" signs are effective because, in a lack of logic and critical thinking, emotions usually win the day in the minds of people (of course, I'm not talking about those who have an agenda to concentrate power and see individually owned weapons as an impediment to their agenda). No one who thinks through the issue logically would ever conclude that the problem is "the gun", be it an assault weapon or simply a weapon that looks like it's an assault weapon - no one tho thinks through the issue logically would ever believe that "No Guns Allowed" sign is going to stop someone who is intent on massacring innocent people. No one thinking logically would believe that taking firearms out of the hands of decent, law-abiding citizens is going to sole the problem...what gets me is that these people will claim that you can confiscate and ban ALL weapons in the U.S. (estimated to be somewhere around at lest 270 million firearms) and often will concurrently claim that it's impossible to find and send some 14 million illegal aliens back to wherever they came from because there are just too many of them. Last time I took a math course I'm pretty sure 270 million is a much bigger number than 14 million.

before and after (ultimak gas tube and lower hg)

An unloaded gun will get you or someone else killed. You are suppose to treat all guns as if they are loaded. What better way than to keep it loaded. That way instead of thinking it is unloaded, you know it is loaded. If you train to keep your gun unloaded, then guess what it's going to be unloaded.