GlockSpock

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]I've been thinking a lot today obviously. A lot of people have convinced themselves that Obama is going to ignore the 2nd Amendment issues at hand. I hope they are right, but greatly fear that they are wrong. As we all have suspected, there are many ways in which Obama could infringe upon and destroy our gun rights. From executive orders and amending the constitution to supreme court justice appointments and UN treaties, the battlefield is large and has many battlefronts. It is a gloomy day indeed.[/font][/color] [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]However, now is not the time to give up. Today is the day to put even more effort into the fight. I for one believe that the only chance is with the house and senate. If our representatives have a backbone and do what they can to guarantee our 2nd amendment rights, I feel we have a chance.[/font][/color] [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]We freedom loving gun clingers (all across the nation) must let those that represent us in the capitol that if any infringement upon our rights takes place during their watch, we collectively will vote to replace them with anyone running against them. In order to get the current crop of politicians to represent us, the People of the United States, they have to realize that they will not keep their seats in Congress if they do not represent us. If they think we are bluffing, their votes and behavior will continue the same way it has been for a long time.[/font][/color] [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]That is the only peaceful resolution that I see has a chance of upholding our 2nd amendment rights. We have a system of checks and balances in this country that has been allowed to become an unfair scale. Perhaps someone will come along with another idea that I have not seen nor considered. If so, please, by all means share. But to keep silent right now is to accept defeat. This does not go solely for the 2nd Amendment but other issues as well, I just feel that the 2nd Amendment is the guarantor for our other rights.[/font][/color] [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Let the congressmen know that they are out if they sit idly while our rights are being stripped away, and we stand a chance. If the numbers show that there are more that do not care about our rights than those that do, it's an uphill battle with an ocean on the other side of the cliff. [/font][/color][b]That is why we must stand strong, stand together, and make a point to our representatives that there are (hopefully) enough of us that would vote against them if they ignore us continuously.[/b]

[quote]It was proven last night that more people want Other People's money than want freedom and liberty or anything close to financial responsibility[/quote] It just occurred to me that, in a sense, we are just bringing back slavery. The freedom loving minority will slave away providing the entitled majority with goods and services, all while the entitled majority kick back and drink their iced tea...or perhaps a nice glass of Kool-Aid.

[quote]I heard an interesting interview a few weeks ago on the radio by what appeared a well schooled individual on the history of a democratic society back to early times. He explained how over time, people who work and produce eventually become the minority. People that expect free stuff and have the entitlement mentality, eventually overcome the workers in population and thus, the decay of society. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...............[/quote] Although I believe the following quote is "debunked" as to have come from any of our founding fathers, I still personally believe it is true to our current society regardless of who said it: [b][i][color=#000000][font=sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(252, 252, 204)]A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury.[/background][/size][/font][/color][/i][/b]

[quote]Conservatives are the minority.[/quote] I dont' know if I am convinced of this [i]yet[/i]. Give it a few more elections. However, if it is true, then the sheep have finally decided that they are willing to take down their fences and let the wolves be their shepherds.

Something that I am finding interesting to waste some time on is the exit polls. CNN is showing some interesting stats. I think it is interesting that the "Vote by Education" exit poll shows that (excluding postgraduate education) as people attend more school the tend to vote republican more than democrat. For the 3% of the nation that didn't graduate high school, it appears roughly 65%-75% vote democratic. Yet, somehow the "enlightened" democratic party presents itself as the party of the intelligent and that republicans all sit around near shacks all day and play the banjo back and forth. <-- [i][color=#333333][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]He got a real pretty mouth ain't he?[/size][/font][/color][/i]

[quote]Naw, they have get more concrete than that. I think there's just a booger in a puter chip somewhere that adds the numbers.[/quote] [font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][color=#282828]Didn't consider this, it's probably the same computer chip that they install in the machines they ship to battleground states as well.[/color][/font][color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif] [/font][/color][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][color=#282828] [/color][/font]

Well even though I am rather quite disappointed currently, due to these "discrepancies" in reporting data vs blue and red states, I am honestly wondering how much good it actually does to try and keep up with this stuff live. If a person were able, it would truly be better to just put the election away and not take part in the rollarcoaster ride of instantaneous data. Imagine what it would have been like a bit over a hundred years ago when it wasn't as simple as turning on the TV and seeing what states were reporting when. Educate yourself, vote accordingly, and go to sleep. Wakeup and either celebrate or curse, and then go along with your daily life as much as possible for as long as possible.

[quote][color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Something weird going on there with data feed or something, Fox has called Wis for Obama, but the scroll showed Mitt's % as higher.[/font][/color] [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]- OS[/font][/color][/quote] Exactly! [b][color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Something I have never understood, granted I've only been "aware" of roughly the last 3 elections, is how can they "award" some states so early? For example, WI is now blue, but only 2% have supposedly reported and it is approximately 39k to 37k. How is this at all statistically correct? Someone care to chime in with either affirming or rebutting comments?[/font][/color][/b] Perhaps the "awarding" takes into account historical wins, exit polls, current data, along with many other things? Because otherwise I just don't understand how the "awarding" works on many of these networks.

Exactly what I am talking about: Just saw a headline that says WI goes to Obama, Ohio (with a few other states) too close too call. HOWEVER, when you click on WI it actually shows Romney is ahead. Either there is some sort of huge delay between the data coming in and being updated on the sites vs the data coming in and making determinations about who is ahead. Even though it isn't at all looking as good as I believe most of us had hoped, I'm also thinking that perhaps the map will be "shooken" up a little bit when we wake up? Perhaps I am just clinging to one last thread of hope (along with my guns and religion? ).

Something I have never understood, granted I've only been "aware" of roughly the last 3 elections, is how can they "award" some states so early? For example, WI is now blue, but only 2% have supposedly reported and it is approximately 39k to 37k. How is this at all statistically correct? Someone care to chime in with either affirming or rebutting comments?

Fox is currently reporting that Florida has Romney with 3,000 more votes than Obama...76% reporting. Can we say [i]close[/i]?

Sure, why not, it'll be fun. Put me on the list and send me a PM whenever necessary.

[quote]But what ever floats there boat. i sure don't mind paying the 10 bucks for the check.[/quote] I suppose that's why we have a $10 Tennessee Fee

[quote]This is why you have volunteer pollsters who hail from both sides of the political spectrum. They watch one another. The only way we could ever have 100% accountability would be to give up the anonymous vote. Are you ready to do that?[/quote] Although as a whole I don't think it would be a good idea because it could cause the potential for huge voter intimidation (especially in "hot" areas), I am not for one ashamed of whom I voted for. With technology it could be very easy to greater ensure that no voter fraud ever takes place, but the problem with computer systems is they are only as strong as the weakest programmer. I suppose the best way to do it would be to have everyone that wants to vote for one candidate stand in a line starting on one side of the country and everyone else that wishes to vote for the other candidate to start a line on the other side of the country. Whichever line is longer via satellite photos will be declared the winner. Free popcorn on my side!

[quote][color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]The state is speaking to everyone in the class I took. That class alone was more than $500 with of attendees costs. 15 x $95 each as well as all the other classes this jerk did. He is going to get hit hard by the state. Jail time for sure[/font][/color][/quote] What amazes me is that a person would even be able to do something like this more than once, unless it was literally all within a month period or so. Did some people literally just pretend they never took the class or assume that they must not have been "approved" for whatever reason when they never received their "scores" from the state?

After I read the above posts and though about it a bit more, I figured out that it is all about money of course. Imagine going into a store, saying "that gun", and then them running the check and you being denied. Unless the store feels willing to eat the $10 Tennessee Fee, they are going to ask you to pay them $10 to cover the fee. In which case a lot of people would at least consider walking out of the store while I am sure many would. In the situation that I bet more and more shops are adopting, they let you pay for the firearm, run the check, and then if you are denied it is easy for them to reimburse you everything minus the $10 fee. Doing it that way guarantees their money without much of a hassle. And it isn't exactly "their money", but rather just money that they don't have to lose.

Just got back to work from voting the first time around. Something that I was surprised was how the electronic machines work. I think I understand that different precincts use different machines, but in mine the "administrator" swiped a card on the machine to "activate it, and then you just vote. I assumed you would have to enter some unique ID that could only be used once into the machine, and then vote. In the current setup (assuming that their was a band of corrupt administration at the location), could they not allow the same person to go through line multiple times and continue to swipe the card authorizing them to vote? Then again I suppose they take your manila card and theoretically make sure the total number of votes equals the total number of cards? Of course it is a flawed system, but it just makes me grind my teeth thinking about how flawed it actually is.

[quote][color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Because it has been a federal law since 1993.[/font][/color] [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]- OS[/font][/color][/quote] I could have misread the OP, but I think he is asking why you must "pay for" the gun and then have the check done, vs having the check done and then pay for it.

It is actually interesting, because I have seen over a few purchases that it depends on the place you purchase it. I could be wrong, but I think technically they are supposed to run the check first. A few of the places I have purchased a firearm have done this, such as VOW in Cleveland and Sportman's Warehouse in Chattanooga. However, at Benton Shooter's Supply, they took my money and then ran the check from what I recall.

I was just thinking yesterday. One of these days....it is going to be reported that more people voted than there are citizens in this country. That will be an interesting day. I hope it never happens, but wouldn't be surprised if it did.

Parkerized finishes will rust very easily if exposed to moisture/salts. HOWEVER, the point of the parkerizing is to hold oil. Rub it down with oil and let it soak in, and you'll be fine. The finish absorbs oil, and the oil itself is your rust protectant. Personally, I like the looks of a parkerized gun. I would also say it is more "forgiving" compared to blued guns with you accidently scuff it up a bit. I like some parkerization.

Now there will be many TGO'ers that will specifically go and find a 10 year old kid to take with them to gunshows.

My understanding is also that the Ranger T series is practically the SAME EXACT THING. Minus the black coating of course. I've actually been reading a lot about the RA9T and the RA9TA. Ranger ammo sometimes sales pretty high because Winchester doesn't market it to "civilians", and most places won't sell it to non LEO. SGAMMO.COM is one place that sells them to civilians, and even though they are costly, they are nowhere near what that auction went for. Sometimes I wonder if things like this aren't a "fixed" auction to make people think that 500 rounds of Black Talon ammo is worth over 1k, and then actually sell it to someone that falls for it. Online bidding makes it easy to have a buddy with an account bid an outrageous price for personal gain.

Take this to heart: My dear brothers, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, Praying for you Ben.