• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Queston for hunters...

Cool. An Obama fan. Maybe you can explain to me all this CHANGE and NEW FACES Obama is implementing when all his picks are the same ones that were working with the OLD administration (i.e., Clinton)? Even if you love Obama, aren't you offended that his platform was "the worst we can do is continue with the same old faces" only to appoint the same old faces?

As far as the economy goes, Bush isn't the one that gave loans to people too stupid to understand a variable interest rate loan. Obama didn't do that, either. Neither Bush nor Obama made people so short sighted that they took put loans with payments greater than they could afford. Stupid people did that, banks allowed them, and THAT is the cause of this mess. Americans need to blame themselves - it is not someone else's fault that a person who can't even balance a checkbook properly takes out a loan they can't afford! The economy was screwed by Americans - not AN American.

First...I am NOT an Obama fan. I don't like Obama or his cabinet one bit. I DO, hoever, like a LOT more than electing G Dub'ya's cronies to a third term. Sure...Obama might be bringing back some "old faces". But it beats the heck out of having the exact same cabinet in power that got us into trouble in the first place...

And don't you remember?? Bush Sr...his administration was the last time the economy was this bad. Remember that? And then Clinton came into power, made some changes, did a few things, and got the economy back on track. But of course...the religous front and republican faithful were so abhored at the idea of a man getting sexual gratification outside of his marriage that everything else fell to the side. All of the GOOD that Clinton did was pushed aside because...why? Because he didn't admit in fron of his wife that he got a BJ from another woman? People clamoured for his job, shouted for impeachment!!

But no sign of impeachment for Bush after continuously lying under oath, forcing his administration to lie under oath, and creating an absolutely devestated economy based on lies, secrets, and their personal belief that the American Public was too stupid to protect itself.

The Economy was screwed by the ability of large corporations to screw the little guy by inflating profits beyond any reasonable limitation, so far out of proportion that every financial institution that we relied on was discovered to be broke. Institutions inflated debts by 33%, and layed those debts off on other institutions at a [further 33%. The poriginal debt of $100,000 is now being claimed as a "tax break" for upwards of $600,000. So that company gets a HUGE tax break on an inflated debt that doesn't exist.

All of a sudden...people start paying off their debts, and when it comes time for Company A to collect the $600,000 from Company C, they find out that Company C only collected $250,000. What happened to that $150,000 dollars left over??

It never existed. Company A's "net worth" was based entirely on a made-up, random percedntage of an original debt, purchased on faith at an inflated rate. Of COURSE they're going to go broke...

So what did Bush do? He decided that WE, the AMERICAN PEOPLE, are responsible to pay the debts that these companies now find themselves in. How is it that for the last 8 years, while these companies were raking in record breaking "profits", that WE are responsible when it comes out that they LIED about their net worth, and were spending OUR MONEY? You know what that's called?

It's called Privatizing Profits and Publicizing Debt. When things are going well...these companies rake in the dough, pulling in millions hand over fist. When the facade of stability crumbles, we, the people, having NO PROFIT in this company, are forced to cover their debts.

No...Bush didn't give people the loans. Bush allowed the corporations to regulate themselves, which caused an over-inflation of profitability, and an inflated sense of net worth. It created a false economy, that never existed, and gave loan and financial institutions carte blanche to lie to the public, and basically commit "legal fraud" every step of the way, until it all crashed down.

And if McCain had won the election...it would still be happening, for another 4 years or more, with the same faces that we saw over the last 8 years telling us the same lies, hiding the same truths, and performing the same civil atrocities to OUR PEOPLE under the false guise of National Security that has been going on since 9/11/01.

The "War on Terrorism" is G Dub'ya's best friend. Without the atrocity of 9/11/01, Bush would not have made it out of his first term. But scaring the crap out of people, and telling them they will die unless they follow him was the best thing that could have happened to him...

Of course...none of that matters, as long as you have your guns, God is taught in school(instead of scientifically proven facts), and abortions are illegal...right?
 
I was going to go off on some rant regarding the current administration and the policies they may try to implement, but I am not gonna do it. I done erased it all! It just ain't worth it.

I learned a long time ago, don't talk about politics or religion with friends and family. In the end, the only outcome will be anger and bitterness.

Everyone, Have a good day!!
 
So, when is Obama and his party gonna repeal the bad parts of the Patriot Act. I'll hold my breathe now and start patiently counting. Face it - NO popular party ever releases power voluntarily. They just take more and keep what the others have already taken as long as they can.

He's already doing it. He released the "prisoners" from Gitmo his first day in Office. He also forced the ACTUAL criminals to face ACTUAL charges.

He's also stopped tapping cell phones without a warrant, opened the Oval Office back to the press and media, and stopped hiding behind the guise of "National Security" as a way of not needing to admit anything or even TALK about anything that is said behind closed doors. In fact...most of the doors have been opened from day one, so...you tell me what I'm missing...

I'm also willing to bet that the next "Summit Council" meeting will have a PUBLISHED list of attendees, and a media-friendly program...unlike under Bush.

I don't know what you've heard, but...I don't watch Fox News...I prefer to get my information from reliable sources...
 
I was going to go off on some rant regarding the current administration and the policies they may try to implement, but I am not gonna do it. I done erased it all! It just ain't worth it.

I learned a long time ago, don't talk about politics or religion with friends and family. In the end, the only outcome will be anger and bitterness.

Everyone, Have a good day!!

Why rant about what could be, or what *might* be when there is plenty to rant about that has already happened? :shrugs:
 
But no sign of impeachment for Bush after continuously lying under oath, forcing his administration to lie under oath, and creating an absolutely devestated economy based on lies, secrets, and their personal belief that the American Public was too stupid to protect itself.

WOW, I didn't know that Bush lied under oath. I must have missed that bit of information. Oh wait, he didn't. Well maybe he did, I have no idea, but there is no data what so ever to prove that opinion.
 
WOW, I didn't know that Bush lied under oath. I must have missed that bit of information. Oh wait, he didn't. Well maybe he did, I have no idea, but there is no data what so ever to prove that opinion.
That's because all of the "meetings" and "summits" and discussions were held behind closed doors, instead of being susceptible to public scrutiny.

We don't know what was said, because transcripts were blacked out. We don't know what was heard, because transcripts weren't even taken.

We know, for a fact, that ALL of the information we were spoon-fed by the Bush administration in the lead up to the war was based on intelligence KNOWN to be outdated and false.

We know, for a fact, that as the administration came under more scrutiny in it's last days, SEVERAL members of the Bush administration were found to be lying under oath, performing illegal activities, and indicted on several counts.

Of course...Bush hasn't been charged because nobody can seem to recall having ever had any conversations about anything with Bush. I wonder why that is?

And of course...when one of Bush's buddies is on trial for...whatever...it's a 3 second clip on the news at 11. But God forbid, someone forget to pay some taxes...which a LOT of people do, and which can EASILY be "fixed"...it covers the news for 4 days.

Nobody talked about the family ties between the Bush's and the Bin Ladens, but everyone wants to talk about Obama's ties to a reverand that doesn't like George W. Bush.

Nobody talked about G Dub'Ya's OWN COMPANY making record profits while he was in office, but everyone wants to know why so-and-so didn't pay their chauffer's wage taxes.

Nobody talked about the violation of Civil Rights under the Bush administration, but everyone wants to make it well known that Obama is Muslim...

Yea...We may not have any black and white proof that Bush lied under oath. But...do we really need it? We have black and white proof that he lied, to us, publicly, willingly and knowingly just to get what he wanted on MANY different occasions. So leave out the "under oath"...he still a liar...and it's still worse than extra-marital oral...
 
Nice to see a thread where I wasn't responsible (partially or otherwise) for it straying off topic! Woohooo! Dorfbunkles for everyone!

D80

PS. It would be interesting to see if there's a caliber of ammunition that's more difficult to find than another. Anyone have an idea or see something from this angle. ie. "self protection" calibers as opposed to "hunting" calibers. I know there's some cross over, but 9mm isn't a hunting caliber, while .243 and 30-06 are and .40 or .45 could go either way, etc.
 
PS. It would be interesting to see if there's a caliber of ammunition that's more difficult to find than another. Anyone have an idea or see something from this angle. ie. "self protection" calibers as opposed to "hunting" calibers. I know there's some cross over, but 9mm isn't a hunting caliber, while .243 and 30-06 are and .40 or .45 could go either way, etc.

From what I have personally seen, it is hard to find most anything across the board, way to much demand. Heck I'm buying bricks of .22s and I only own one, and it is a single shot.
 
7.62x39 I haven't been able to get in a while. Shotshells don't seem to be as much of a problem, I can still get 12 and 20 ga by the case when I need em. (I shoot a lot of trap/skeet to get me ready for duck season) 30-06 can usually be found at walmart, along with 7mm magnums. 9mm and .45 can be difficult. That's pretty much all I shoot so I'll have to look and see what else is out next time I go to pick up some more ammo.
 
Nice to see a thread where I wasn't responsible (partially or otherwise) for it straying off topic! Woohooo! Dorfbunkles for everyone!

D80

PS. It would be interesting to see if there's a caliber of ammunition that's more difficult to find than another. Anyone have an idea or see something from this angle. ie. "self protection" calibers as opposed to "hunting" calibers. I know there's some cross over, but 9mm isn't a hunting caliber, while .243 and 30-06 are and .40 or .45 could go either way, etc.

Not really. Popular calibers - especially in things like JHP - are harder to find than less commonly shot ones. 7.62x25 is still on shelves - where it used to be carried - even though it has better AP-capabilities than any 9mm. 7.62x39 is pretty hard to find (as is some .308 rounds), but .30-06 is much easier to get. All three are military rounds, but .30-06 is an older military round. 8mm milsurp is easy to get, but some of the modern milsurp rounds are hard. I've seen very little shortages of 7.62x54R so far...and NO shortages of .30-30. .223 Rem is really short, but it has been that way off and on for 3-4 years. .45 ACP is around in ball, but harder in self protection rounds. Primers have also been in SHORT supply much of the past few months. Of course, much of this information is in relationship to what I see from bulk sellers and not local discount stores.

FMJ and the like are harder to get in military rounds than ballistic tips and the like.
KJ
 
I ordered a bit of shotgun ammo, 20 Gauge 3" Buffered #2 Buckshot 18 Pellets and 20 Gauge 2-3/4" Buffered #3 Buckshot 20 Pellets in mid-December, and they just shipped it a couple days ago.
 
I got a question....

What makes everyone think Obama will do what Clinton couldn't do?

Obama's party holds the majority in the house and senate.

Clinton's party had a majority in Congress, too.....

That was my point. Clinton had 'ideas' of anti-gun stuff and it never got off the ground. I'm betting this will be the same way....at most Obama can only be around the same amount of time as Clinton and with the economy in the shape the media tells us it is in, he's got bigger fish to fry for not.


.45 can be difficult.

.45 ACP is around in ball, but harder in self protection rounds.

I haven't had trouble with .45 here in SC...but we like our guns and have tons of stores too.
 
That was my point. Clinton had 'ideas' of anti-gun stuff and it never got off the ground. I'm betting this will be the same way....at most Obama can only be around the same amount of time as Clinton and with the economy in the shape the media tells us it is in, he's got bigger fish to fry for not.

Actually, Clinton did a LOT of damage. The AWB got publicity, but it is only a small part of the infringements he allowed to happen. That's neither here nor there, though. The new administration is MUCH more pro-serfdom than the previous ones.....

Lost in all the news of the massive bailout bill that just passed the
Senate is another enormous bill, one that increases federal control of
public and private land.

Of particular concern to gun owners is that the bill, S. 22, will
greatly expand the amount of land controlled by the National Park
Service. NPS land is currently subject to a gun ban.

While President Bush took steps in the waning days of his presidency to
reverse the ban, the new regulations apply to persons who carry a
concealed firearm with a permit. Non-permit holders and open carry are
not explicitly addressed.

Another eyebrow-raising aspect of this bill is that it is actually a
compilation of over 150 separate pieces of legislation that never passed
out of Congress on their own merits
.

Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) successfully held up over 100 of these bills,
until anti-gun Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid rolled all of the bills
into one so-called Coburn Omnibus and forced it through the Senate in
January on a vote of 73-21.

As the House prepares to take up the bill, the Democrat leadership has
taken procedural steps to ensure that the measure cannot be amended or
altered in any way
. That means that if it passes the House, it goes
right to President Obama's desk, where it will be signed into law.

Here are a few of the more troubling aspects of the bill:

* It authorizes the federal government to buy private land adjacent to
national parks and trails. Such land would be controlled by the NPS,
and thus be subject to the gun ban.

* The bill federalizes the Washington-Rochambeau Route, a 650 mile trail
that stretches from Rhode Island to Virginia and includes sections of
major thoroughfares such as Interstate 95 and U.S. Route 1, and passes
through cities like Boston and Philadelphia. The entire trail would fall
under the NPS and the gun ban.
[This means that you would violate federal law driving through that area with certain guns on your way to a hunting ground. --KJ]

* The National Landscape Conservation System groups together millions of
acres of federal land and places it under one new umbrella agency. The
NLCS was created during the Clinton administration and run
administratively since then. S. 22 will codify the system, which raises
concerns for hunters and sportsmen. Much of this land is consolidated
from the BLM and the Forest Service, which have always allowed hunting
and recreational shooting. It is unclear what rules will be promulgated
by the new agency and if gun owners' rights will be protected.

* S. 22 strips out small concessions won by pro-gunners in the House
last year that would allow state and local law to govern firearms
possession and hunting on certain land.

* S.22 allows for NO amendments. Pro-gun members who want to offer an
amendment to fully repeal the NPS gun ban are prevented from doing so by
the anti-gun leadership. [More of the our way or the highway serfdom agenda of our in-charge politicians.]
 
I haven't had any problems either, but then again I don't have any hunting rifles. We're bow hunters.
 
But no sign of impeachment for Bush after continuously lying under oath, forcing his administration to lie under oath, and creating an absolutely devestated economy based on lies, secrets, and their personal belief that the American Public was too stupid to protect itself.

Yea...We may not have any black and white proof that Bush lied under oath. But...do we really need it? We have black and white proof that he lied, to us, publicly, willingly and knowingly just to get what he wanted on MANY different occasions. So leave out the "under oath"...he still a liar...and it's still worse than extra-marital oral...


So he did or he didn't lie under oath?


worse than extra-marital oral...?
You see, the problem with your entire argument, is that is entirely opinion.
 
Well, I agree with the idea that you can't trust Fox. After all, 85% of the stock is under the control of Democrats....lol. Wait...which way are they biased again?
 
Back
Top