RobertNashville

I've had two classes from Range Masters and will be taking more...I wish Memphis was closer to me for that reason - I don't have any experience with the other but I think you'll definitely get your $ wroth from Range Masters. If you don't mind a small amount of traveling I can also highly recommend Tactical Response in Camden - I've trained with them as well and have another class scheduled for this fall.

This is a very sad story...I guess any example of hunting a species to extinction or any other form of animal cruelty affects me more deeply than almost any other atrocity. If you can find a wildlife organization to donate to that isn't too far off the deep end I'd like to donate as well and I hope you'll pass the information along.

The electoral college saves us from government by majority (in other words, a true democracy)...I think we all agree that the founders were especially wise that they gave us a republic rather than a democracy. I don't know if the EC as it's currently structured is the best we can do but I for one am glad it exists.

Of course there is no real way to know for sure how he really feels but I doubt he is all that disappointed with the Republican ticket. Despite their differences there are enough issues they likely can agree on than disagree on and other issues where the differences aren't that large.

very well said!

It's a shame he spent more than the gun was worth but as had been said, as long as it's safe and is reasonably accurate he can still wring a lot of enjoyment out of it!

I voted for someone different in the primary too...I contributed to three different candidates during the primary season, none of them were Romney. That said, I won't have any problem at all voting for Romney/Ryan. With regards to Romney saying exactly how he will fix the economy; I suspect he has some specific ideas now and will likely have an entire team of people with him when elected...however, given the general lack of an informed electorate; what could he say about it now that wouldn't cause people's eyes to glaze over, assuming their 5 second attention span allowed them to listen at all?

From the article... http://www.gundigest...2&rid=232433667

Yup; and this is exactly where all the anti-gun nuts would like the U.S. to be. England was a great country; even a great empire once but they've sold their souls for the promise of a few pieces of gold (and didn't even get the gold).

I think the RNC's move was entirely ethical - it was the actions and stated purpose of the Paulbots who have an ethical problem here.The Paulbot delegates made it perfectly clear that they didn't care who had won their state's primary (thereby ignoring the vote of the people) and they made it clear that they intended to cause a disturbance. Under the circumstances, the RNC had to act and had I been in charge of the RNC I would have done the same thing.

'm not sure why you are so hung up on how "relevant" the parties are...if you wish to claim they are relevant or very relevant or extremely relevant that's fine.They serve a function; how much relevance you want to ascribe to that function is purely a matter of opinion.

That's an interesting opinion but I don't agree.For one, we've already got multiple parties other than Republicans and Democrats; if your theory worked wouldn't we already be at the point you say multiple parties would bring us to? What logic suggests that bringing more parties would change the outcome? We had a plethora of choices in the Republican party this cycle; all but one was rejected and by a large margin...the fact that some don't like the choice (and in some cases, vehemently don't like the choice) that was made doesn't change that fact the the vast majority does like the chosen candidate. Competent choices are available when competent people run....competent people get elected when an informed, involved, electorate who value liberty and freedom, vote for them. The number of parties is not going to change that. There are two, significant political philosophies in this country. One is the liberal or progressive philosophy which in general, believes that government is the solution to every problem...that bigger government and more government control is the answer which naturally leads to socialism/communism. It sees the great unwashed masses are incapable of making correct choices for themselves and cannot be trusted with true freedom. The other philosophy is the conservative; which believes that government is usually the problem and rarely the solution. It values freedom and liberty more than security and embraces free-market capitalism...it understands that even if people make "bad choices", those choices are still theirs to make. I suggest that people naturally, even if unconsciously, gravitate toward one or the other philosophy (or are brainwashed toward one or the other) and as such, two parties the generally represent those two general philosophies are all we really need. That the "elite" in each party has mucked up the system is a problem but it's a problem that can be solved without destroying the two parties and without creating more parties (more parties that over time would likely fall into the same problems we currently see in the two main parties). I really don't know if there is time to change things before the great experiment fails but I am pretty sure that we don't have time to waste trying to reinvent the wheel with new parties.

Then I clearly misunderstood.

I don't vote for "them"...I vote for the best candidate that's running and can win the election; to do otherwise is, in my opinion, a worthless gesture at best.As someone who donated a lot to Col Rodgers, I concur but if you'll note, that happened in PRIMARY; not a general election...we are no longer in a primary season, we have a general election to vote in and a clear choice to make between communism or capitalism. There is no "trick" about it...the parties are irrelevant...in particular, their internal rules which is what this line of posts has been discussing; but yes, they serve a function; that is not a contradiction; it's just the way it is.

This is not a "party support" issue; I'm not a Republican...I stopped calling myself one more than 20 years ago. That said, any organization, including a political party, has the absolute right to run that organization any damn way they chose (without braking the law of course). I've no illusions about "reforming" the Republican party...as I've said before, there is nothing wrong with either party that good candidates can't fix. You can change all the rules you want but it will change nothing unless men and women of good character are willing to run for office. When did the Republican establishment become obligated to hear from any particular "wing"? Why does the Republican party need a "libertarian" wing at all? Parties are irrelevant (except in the mind of those who run then)...their only real function and only real importance is as a vehicle to vet and chose a candidate and run the election process so that a candidate can be chosen and take office. We need a whole lot less concern about the "parties" and a lot more concern and effort in finding and supporting good candidates. You are never going to stop party devotion (or devotion to one candidate) of some; if nothing else, the Paulbots have proven that beyond any shadow of doubt. However, many, me have included have been been vocal about positions and the actions of office holders regardless of what party they belonged to...my support or lack of support for a President or any other office holder has never been about "party"...it's been about what he/she did or didn't do. GWB did plenty wrong; he also did plenty right. Frankly, I'm getting tired of those who claim everyone was silent about Bush's (both) transgressions; that they were somehow given a pass is an opinion based on no evidence. Moreover, it just didn't happen...plenty of people, me included called them out for their bad decisions.

I've suspected for a long time, and have said so here on numerous occasions, that Pau was in it for the sake of Paul's ego...he was never a true Republican at heard and was only trying to use the party to get what he wanted. Now that he realizes what many of us have know for years, thet he'll never win the Presidency, his need to be a pretend Republican is gone. His actions are understandable...he was smart enough to realize that the Libertarian party will never amount to anything more than it already is. At the same time, understandable or not, his actions seem a bit too underhanded for someone who truly has the best interests of the country at heart. There is much that is wrong with the internal powers that be in the Republican party and to that extent, Ron Paul is correct but that's pretty much where his correctness ends.

So now you are down to insulting my position?My only devotion is to unseating a communist who will destroy the country. You've already stated that you weren't Republican; so why you care what the Republican party did or didn't do or why they did it is curious. More curious, however, is that you seem to feel that those who wanted to disrupt the party and the party's convention should be accomodated. They shouldn't have been and, thankfully, there were not.

Frankly, I believe that anyone who blames the party or the two-party system is just looking, unconsciously perhaps but still looking for an excuse...for a scapegoat.The problem is not a party nor how many parties...the problem is "US". Few bother to even register to vote. Fewer still bother to actually go and vote even if we've registered. Of those who do register and actually do vote, there is likely a significant percentage that shouldn't be allowed to vote because they are incompetent, uneducated, and uninformed who are likely paying noting into the system but getting benefits, perhaps their entire support given to them BY the system that the rest of us support. There is NO party, no number of parties and no party platform that can fix that

Maybe I misunderstand but are you suggesting that when someone posts something, especially a political position, that another disagrees with, the one who disagrees should just shut up? Is it impolite to challenge someone's political position? If a position on something cannot be challenged, what is the point of having a forum? Should we all be able to post a position on anything and expect only those who agree with us to post in our threads? Is there no responsibility to be placed on an OP? Is only one side of an issue expected to show restraint while the other creates new threads day after day which all say essentially the same thing (albeit with different videos)?

No, I meant exactly what I said. The Paulbots disenfranchised themselves by making it abundantly clear that their only goal at the convention was to be disruptive in the cause of their loser candidate.What they couldn't do in Main, for example, they were perfectly willing to do by deception...it was they who refused to follow the will of the voters who voted overwhelmingly for Romney.

No, the GOP acted to keep a handful of Paulbot cooks from disrupting the convention for the sole purpose of disrupting the convention.

Doing away with the electoral college process would hand the decision of every Presidential election to a few of our largest cities such as NYC, LA, Chicago...it isn't surprising that a left-wing loon Democrat like Mr. Tree would think that's a good idea.

Off the subject I know but since it's been brought it up...I have no problem with someone being arrested for running a red light if they actually run a read light...I do have a problem with people getting a "ticket" which isn't really a ticket at all because some camera took a picture; especially when we have evidence that the companies running these red-light cameras have decreased the duration of the yellow light precisely so that they can increase the number of drivers they "catch". I don't have a problem with someone being issued a ticket when they are driving at an unsafe speed for the the environment (road conditions, other drivers, etc.). I do have a problem with "speed traps" where tickets are issued with none of the above being taken into consideration...where speed limits are set artificially low for the purpose of generating more speeding and more tickets - people tend to drive the speed of surrounding traffic and naturally cruise at a speed their mind tells them is appropriate, even if they do so unconsciously. Some people will drive 95 in a 70 zone simply because they want to; most people will drive 80 or 85 in a 70 zone because they innately know that the speed they are driving is safe (the road is constructed to be safe at those speeds, pavement is dry, visibility is more than sufficient, etc). What I'm saying is, I'm all for traffic law enforcement that is actually based on legitimate safety concerns. However, far too much traffic law enforcement is based on how much revenue is needed for the county, city, state, etc.

Would anyone like to see some videos from credible sources that says anything close to the possibility of a successful third-party? There seems to be no end of videos from people who would benefit from a third-party; namely third-party candidates and hangers-on but nothing from anyone without a stake in a successful third-party. Why do you suppose that is? Could it be that it's because, outside of those who DO have a stake in it, no one does believe a third-party can be successful today? Could it be that even those who put out all these videos don't even believe their own rhetoric?

Your focus is certainly clear...it's almost a religious fervor; but no, a third-party can't win. A third-party can spoil and hand the election to the worst candidate but that's the only thing in modern history that a third-party has actually accomplished. More to the point, we don't need a third-party candidate this election cycle as there is nothing wrong with the choice we have to unseat the communist currently in office.