In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Liberal Popped on here by accident
mikesurf
Member Posts: 2 ✭✭
Hey... ok dont jump on me yet. I just found this site totally by accident while researching something totally different...but found it interesting.
Anyway yeah Im liberal, I loved clinton ( both of em), I think GW has got the brains of a pea, I liked Reagan, I dont own a gun, never will, and have told my kids to always tell me if they think or a know if a friends parents own one... and I dont believe in God. I respect our troops, I think we should have bene in Afghanistan, we should have stayed there longer, and our reasons for being in Iraq are suspect.. ) ie its about oil guys..not fighting tyranny.. because if it was there are a lot of other places we could/should be)
Anyway,Im not here to rank on anyone though because I am totally cool with everyone having their own set of beliefs. There have always been some things I dont get about gun issues. Listen I fyou are a hunter or whatever, thats cool.. or if you truly believe that having a gun for "protection" is your right.. then well I can even go for that although I dont believe it will help in any real situation. I rarely hear a story about a gun owner having to use his gun to fight off an intruder.. im sure its happened but its not typical.
couple of questions... why do you fight things like the assault gun ban? Does anyone really need one? What is the harm in that? or is it more that you think it will lead to other restrictive laws?
Also I know most of you I hope can appreciate a need for background checks and all that. But there is always this fight to enact a law like this. I mean even if it is a month wait.. what harm could it do?
Listen, I wont lie.. if there was a gun ban I wouldnt be sad. I know its not realistic.. and yes its not fair. I just see that whenever there is a restrictive type measure that is proposed you fight it tooth and nail, even if it makes sense.
Again Im not looking to rank on anyone here or anything like that.. Im just trying to understand this issue a bit better. I cannt relate to references to the bill of rights or anything like that because that was 250 years ago.. and our forefathers, as many o fyou like to refer to, gave us the right to amend those laws as times change.... they are not written in stone but rather appropriate for the times..
Anyway yeah Im liberal, I loved clinton ( both of em), I think GW has got the brains of a pea, I liked Reagan, I dont own a gun, never will, and have told my kids to always tell me if they think or a know if a friends parents own one... and I dont believe in God. I respect our troops, I think we should have bene in Afghanistan, we should have stayed there longer, and our reasons for being in Iraq are suspect.. ) ie its about oil guys..not fighting tyranny.. because if it was there are a lot of other places we could/should be)
Anyway,Im not here to rank on anyone though because I am totally cool with everyone having their own set of beliefs. There have always been some things I dont get about gun issues. Listen I fyou are a hunter or whatever, thats cool.. or if you truly believe that having a gun for "protection" is your right.. then well I can even go for that although I dont believe it will help in any real situation. I rarely hear a story about a gun owner having to use his gun to fight off an intruder.. im sure its happened but its not typical.
couple of questions... why do you fight things like the assault gun ban? Does anyone really need one? What is the harm in that? or is it more that you think it will lead to other restrictive laws?
Also I know most of you I hope can appreciate a need for background checks and all that. But there is always this fight to enact a law like this. I mean even if it is a month wait.. what harm could it do?
Listen, I wont lie.. if there was a gun ban I wouldnt be sad. I know its not realistic.. and yes its not fair. I just see that whenever there is a restrictive type measure that is proposed you fight it tooth and nail, even if it makes sense.
Again Im not looking to rank on anyone here or anything like that.. Im just trying to understand this issue a bit better. I cannt relate to references to the bill of rights or anything like that because that was 250 years ago.. and our forefathers, as many o fyou like to refer to, gave us the right to amend those laws as times change.... they are not written in stone but rather appropriate for the times..
Comments
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
~Sinclair Lewis, It Can't Happen Here
"Our enemies...never stop thinking about new ways to
harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
~President George W. Bush
Do you dispute the bible because it was written 2000 years ago as well? No I guess with no religion you probably feel the word of god is up for review as well. Ask yourself this if you were in a situation where your life was in danger would you rather have a gun or a belief to defend yourself with? Good luck to you. Your distorted views on guns and life do not surprise me, you are another unwed marriage counselor.
In the future please respect us by using a spell checker. Here is a link to one.
http://www.iespell.com/
" From my cold dead hands"
Why do I have a gun? First off, I'm not a hunter. I used to be, but have gotten away from it for various reasons. Hunters use guns, but guns are not needed solely because of hunters rights. Think of cars, for example. We do not allow civilian ownership of cars solely to protect the rights of taxi drivers, or NASCAR racers. We allow them because having a car generally improves a persons quality of life. Same goes with a gun. How does a gun improve someones quality of life? I'll try to explain
Self Defence: Does an elderly person or someone who is physically handicapped have a fighting chance against an intruder in their home? Especially an intruder with a weapon, gun or not? The simple fact of the matter is that the police can not always get there in time, no matter how numerous, dedicated, or well trained they may be. Guns are necessary so that people do not live in fear in their own homes. Until you can personally guarentee the safety of everyone, you have no right to remove the guns that people use to protect themselves
Recreation: Some people enjoy recreational shooting. Whether its shooting beer cans off a fence, or targets at 300 yars with a rifle. Some people just enjoy shooting. If these people are hurting no one, who are you to take their guns away?
Personally I have no problem with background checks, as long as it can be done in a speedy manner. I don't think that felons should have guns, or those that are mentally incompetant. But I do believe that if I want to buy a gun, and it is legal for me to purchase it, then I should not be subject to a waiting period. Did you have to wait 10 days to pick up your car after you bought it?
I wasn't going to answer your question on "Assault Rifles" until I could get your definition of "Assault Rifles" (I would like to hear it though) but I might as well go ahead, and I'd also like to throw in your comment about the bill of rights being 225 years old, and therefore out of date (in some parts).
Do I really need an assault rifle? Probably not in your opinion. Most Americans need don't an SUV, they don't need DVD players, Swimming Pools, ect...The point is, this is America, and we live in a society (and economy) fueled by WANT. I want an AR-15, and if I feel so inclined who are you to say otherwise? The fact of the matter is far more people are killed by cars, alcohol, and tobacco every year than by guns. Unlike other things, however, guns have redeeming social value in that they allow people to protect themselves from those who would attempt to prey upon their weakness.
On to the bill of rights: The American system of goverment is based upon a series of "checks and balances". Every branch of the goverment holds some power over the other. The ultimate expression of checks and balances is between the Goverment and the people. There is an old expression "Power comes from the barrel of a gun". The goverment maintains its power through a standing army (which the founders were wary of) police, ect. The people maintain their power through the private ownership of weapons. For example, if the goverment confiscated all weapons, then decided to suspend elections, who could stop them? Honestly....the UN? European Union? The second ammendment ensures all other ammendments.
I'm sorry if I was rambling. I look forward to your response and the responses of others. By the way, I hope you have thick skin!
Molon Labe
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Luke 22:36.
"Followers of Christ, be armed."
Reread your post, first you say you don't believe in religion but you're cool with those that do. Then you try to convince people you're cool with the right of individual gun ownership then you say you were lying and can't relate to the 2nd Amendment as written. Can I believe you about religion? I ask you, should "they" 'amend' the 1st Amendment to discourage any religion except Catholicism or take away our right to post here? You know Buddism is a minority religion in the U.S. and it's really old too and most terrorists are of arabic decent. That would have to change too, no? And what about womens' suffrage, bi-racial restrooms and them damn Indians? They are appropriate for these times but what about 200 years from now? Shouldn't the Justice Dept be merged into the Military Dept because of 'these times'? What, in your opinion, is so different about 'these times'?
Have you ever had any firearms safety classes? Your children are the ones at risk of being accidently injured by firearms because you have kept them ignorant. Do you really believe your kids, through their teenage years, will continue to run to daddy and tell you who they suspect owns firearms so you can keep them from hanging with their friends? You will probably teach them to drive one day. Why keep them in the dark about firearms? You must be thinking about it or you wouldn't be here. You say you are liberal. Why not prove it by finding the courage to give your children all of the knowledge they need to live in the real world?
The beauty of the Bill of Rights is that it provides us rights inherent with being humans answering to a power higher than our government (which was originally supposed to answer to us, anyway), and provides such rights without relevance to need or want.
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Luke 22:36.
"Followers of Christ, be armed."
Most people's definition of Assault Weapons are fully automatic, military grade killin machines. Unfortunatly the ban that expired to which you are referring to didn't ban those. Machine Guns and other weapons are covered under a 1934 weapons ban. To help stop criminals like Bonnie and Clyde from running around with sawed-off B.A.R's (She may have only been 5ft-nothin, but Bonnie could wield a BAR with the best of'm)
The ban you are talking about banned Neat-o attachments, magazines and various other cosmetic's.
The reasons most of us opposed it are varied but alot of it had to do with the bill doing nothing to protect anyone and more with a political agenda. (I.E "Feel Good legislation")
I cant speak for anyone but myself, but yes I agree the 1934 weapons ban should be in effect. However (there is always a however) I would enjoy the oppurtunity to fire or even own these weapons as I myself am not a criminal. Nor do I plan on being one ever
However we all get extremly bitter when we see regular studies showing the death rates of Car accidents, Doctor misdiagnosys, Tobacco. Yet when Gun deaths are tallied each month/year despite being smaller. We see Guns/gun owners get singled out.
We oppose Gun bans because each step back, no matter how little, is a win for those who would prey on others. Look at D.C, Can't own a handgun there. Has it stopped handgun Violence? No. New York? Nope! San Fransico is debating a total Gun ban last I heard. Despite having seen it fail elsewhere they are still willing to sacrfice themselves. Its a personal choice we all have to make.
Here's how I look at it. If theres a 1/200,000,000 chance that my family or loved ones would get severely hurt or killed by muggers/robbers/murders/rapists/racists/etc... isnt that 1 chance to many? We have Health Insurance so that in that 1/10,000 chance we fall ill or get hurt (God Forbid) we know we can get help. I see owning a gun AND knowing how to use it much the same way. If I can stop it by owning/using a gun, I will.
Do I worry that they too might have a gun? No, because if I have one and know how to use it I am atleast maintaining parity with said villians, as opposed to being at thier mercy (Mercy I wouldnt be willing to trust)
Police? Police have no obligation to protect a indivual. Neither thier rights, well being. Dont belive me? I dont blame you, I didnt belive it either. Then I was told to look up the court case Warren Vs D.C I wont go into details but it made me sick and ashamed to be a man
"Yo Homie!...
...
...
That my briefcase?"
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
Keep in mind that I do not want violent criminals to get guns.
The 1994-2004 Clinton so-called assault weapons ban was a lie and a trick upon not only gun owners but the non-owning citizens who were lied to and tricked into believeing that the "do-nothing, feel-good" assault weapons ban actually impacted anyone other than the already lawful and peaceful gun owners.
Limiting magazines/clips to only 10 rounds was the same as limiting the amount of ink in a ballpoint pen in an effort to control forgers. If a violent criminal needs more than 10 rounds, all he has to do is carry several 10 round magazines.
Limiting any gun simply because it is a semi-automatic (NOT an already illegal fully automatic machine gun) would be the same as outlawing automatic transmissions in all cars because allowing such a transmission would encourage reckless driving, accidents and deaths.
Outlawing a folding stock on certain rifles was just plain silly. If a violent criminal just HAS to have a way to make his rifle smaller so as to commit a crime, he can just saw off the buttstock. Or better yet, GET A HANDGUN.
I don't want one, but outlawing bayonet lugs on rifles was also just plain silly. Have you EVER heard of violent criminals in America going on a "bayonetting rampage"?
Outlawing the "flash suppressor" was a wasted effort. The key word is "suppressor". It is NOT an "flash eliminator". I doubt there has ever been a case where the police were unable to apprehend a criminal just because he had one of those evil "flash suppressors" on his gun.
Outlawing some rifles because they have a "pistolgrip" is also just plain silly. If "pistolgrips" are so "evil" why not outlaw EVERY HANDGUN MADE SINCE THEY ALL HAVE "PISTOLGRIPS"?
This whole assualt weaapons ban was a sham. And why should you care? For several reasons. One is that all the time and effort and money spent getting that assualt weapons ban should have been spent passing laws THAT ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING TO HELP THE CITIZENS.
Plus, by so many Americans accepting and supporting that law, they have demonstrated to the politicans just how easy the citizens can be tricked. And just how willing many citizens are to be tricked.
And mikesurf, if this type of treatment of making laws that are really lies becomes common, the next phony law that comes down the pike MIGHT BE AIMED RIGHT AT YOU AND YOURS.
JMHO
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
quote:if there was a gun ban I wouldnt be sad. I know its not realistic.. and yes its not fair. I just see that whenever there is a restrictive type measure that is proposed you fight it tooth and nail, even if it makes sense.
If its not realistic then why have it? Gun ban of no gun ban criminals will have guns.(Hence the term criminals) We all have the right to self defense, and thats why we fight it. If you had an idea of about how many people in your area conceal and carry you might be surprised.
quote:Im just trying to understand this issue a bit better. I cannt relate to references to the bill of rights or anything like that because that was 250 years ago.. and our forefathers, as many o fyou like to refer to, gave us the right to amend those laws as times change....
Please understand that if our forefathers did not have their firearms the United States of America, wouldn't be here today, instead we'd be a part of Great Britan or Germany. Without our liberation 250 years ago, what might the outcome of WWI, and WWII of been?
or if you truly believe that having a gun for "protection" is your right.. then well I can even go for that although I dont believe it will help in any real situation. I rarely hear a story about a gun owner having to use his gun to fight off an intruder.. im sure its happened but its not typical.
The news media being what it is (biased) I am not surprised that you do not hear of the 2-3 ? MILLION (that is MILLION) times a year that firearms are used for DEFENSIVE purposes. FAR outweighing the THOUSANDS of times they are used OFFENSIVELY. Might want to look here.
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/dgufreq.html
In states that have enacted shall issue "concealed carry" laws, FBI statistics, as well as others, have shown that the violent crime rate has been PROVEN to GO DOWN. Is this a bad thing? As well as the states that have the strictest gun control laws, have the highest murder rate per 100,000 people. Can you tell me, why are these kinds of FACTS being ignored?
http://secondamendmentstuff.com/RightToCarry.htm
Or look here.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,7217,00.html
Or here.
http://www.exit109.com/~gosta/guncntrl.sht
(edit) Just how was it that you ran across this site?
A one hit wonder.
The gene pool needs chlorine.
1. The reason why you don't hear about the millons of defenses is because it's not popular to say so in the media. Most news media is incredibly liberally biased and reluctant to report anything not PC. Want a recent example? In Tyler, Texas, there was recently a shooting outside the courthouse that made national news. Two people were killed. It was widely reported that the shooter was using a semi-automatic rifle (I think some even said an semi-auto copy of an AK) and wearing body armor and a flak jacket. The gunman wounded four, including his son and three cops, and killed two, his ex-wife and a "bystander." That's probably the extent of what 98% of the media reported (let me know if you heard differently).
And now, here's 'the rest of the story': The "bystander" was Mark Alan Wilson, a concealed weapons permit holder who saw what was going on, grabbed his gun, and shot at the shooter several times. It is suspected that Mr. Wilson scored hits, but didn't have an effect due to the shooter's body armor. However, he did distract the shooter enough to draw the shooter's fire (resulting in his death), preventing the continued assault on others, and allowing the cops time to get to the scene and eventually shoot and kill the shooter.
Bet you didn't hear that last part, huh? Lots of nationally reported shootings fail to mention that armed civilians were involved in the resolution. More notable examples include the shooting at the law school in West Virginia a couple years back (stopped by a fellow student who had a concealed weapons permit), the high school shooting in Pearl, Mississippi in 1997 (stopped when the vice-principal grabbed his gun from his car in the parking lot), and one of the most famous ones from way back, the University of Texas tower sniper in the 1960's (stopped by a cop and an armed civilian who charged up the tower and shot and killed the shooter). There are many similar incidents, and many more where an armed citizen was protecting only his/herself.
Regarding the problem with waiting periods, law enforcement's not able to nor liable for protecting its citizens, and the need for ordinary citizens to defend themselves, read up on what happened during the LA riots after the Rodney King incident. The short story is, cops withdrew and refused to answer calls to certain areas, folks who went to gun shops couldn't get guns, and only the store owners who armed themselves didn't have their stores trashed.
2. The premise of gun control as means of preventing violent crime is fundamentally flawed. First, a criminal willing to carry (and thus consider using) a firearm in the commission of a crime and kill someone is willing to risk life in prison, or even the death penalty.
If a person is willing to risk life in prison or even the death penalty, why wouldn't he be willing to commit a crime (illegal posession of a firearm, possession of an unregistered machinegun, etc.) with a maximum penalty of only 10 years? Logically, he would.
Thus, a rational criminal (to use a political science term) willing to use a gun in the commission of a crime will NEVER obey a gun control law. The only person who would would be a law-abiding person...a person whom society need not fear, because he/she is, by definition, law abiding.
The ONLY way gun control might make ANY logical sense (and I'd still dispute it) would be if the penalties for breaking a gun law were the same as those for murder...life in prison or the death penalty. But, there's virtually no way the Supreme Court would be okay with that on 8th Amendment grounds.
End result, gun control will always be ignored by violent criminals, and will only be obeyed by those we needn't fear (and who could probably use the protection from the violent criminals). It only creates targets of opportunity (prey) for the violent criminals. Want to see an example of how a gun ban affects ordinary citizens? Compare the burglary rates in the US vs. the UK where someone is home and mugging rates. Burglars in the UK are much more likely to burglarize a home that is occupied than burglars in the US...in the US, an armed homeowner presents a significant occupational hazard. Similarly, compare mugging rates.
Sure, in the US, we have more violent crime. But how much of that violent crime isn't between two criminals? Personally, I don't think a shootout between two gangbangers over drugs or turf should be equated with an armed thug accosting a law-abiding citizen.
3. The problem with "Assault Weapons" bans. As mostly discussed earlier, it's a feel-good ban that accomplishes nothing. It was based solely on cosmetics. The action of the firearms in question were no different in operation from many popular hunting rifles...the only difference was, they looked 'evil' in the eyes of some politicians. So much for the liberal ideal of not judging a book by its cover or a person solely because of his skin or outward appearance... The ban (and most anti-2nd Amendment legislation) is mostly a cheap political trick; it's very easy for a politician to look tough on crime by saying he's anti-gun than to work for meaningful measures to fight crime. Compare:
Anti-2nd Amendment laws - Cost relatively little money. Only upsets a minority of voters; most don't have much knowledge of the issue, and/or don't care. Very easy to sound good in 3-second soundbite for a TV/Radio ad.
Meaningful Measures (like putting more cops on the street, allowing issuance of concealed weapons permits) - Often costs a lot of money, which means more taxes or budget cutting somewhere...voters hate that. Very hard to explain in a 3-second soundbite.
If a member of the ruling class,he just stopped by to tweak us.
If a member of the great brain-washed masses,you guys made the mistake of well rounded,reasoned logical arguments..the instant they get beyond the emotional whine.."If it saves ONE child"...they are out of their depth...
God,Guts,& GunsHave we lost all 3 ??
Hey... ok dont jump on me yet. Don't worry, there are plenty on this board who will waste no time in telling you what and why you are wrong for contrasting thought.[;)]
BTW: Did you know that with the current gun registration procedures over 35 persons on the "Terrorist Watch List" in the US have been denied ownership?[:0]
Slow day at work.[:o)]
Shadow83
I have great love for humanity, it's the people I can't stand.
The wholesale selling out of the Constitution DOES trouble me.
But even if that is the case mikesurf still did us all some good. He/she asked some of the very popular questions that have long faced and bedeviled gun owners. And I read some fine responses from some of you guys.
And of course I attempted to post my best response also so hopefully we all exchanged ideas that will make it easier for us to encounter and deal with some of the left-wing, liberal anti-gun people.
And that mikesure, is what is wrong with being a "liberal" which you say only means open minded and what is wrong with that.. Liberals all seem to be left-wing and bi-polar in their philosophy.
Sure they are "opened minded" when they are thinking of ways to chart this country in the wrong direction (superior homosexual rights, affirmative "discrimination" for people of special color, open borders so walk right in,
letting foreign countries have w-a-y too much say about our internal affairs, using tax dollars forced from working taxpayers to pay people who refuse to work, letting wothless POS like vehicle murderer Sen. Ted Kennedy try and run our country, etc., etc.
But when some conservative people (most gun owners are conservative) try to chart our own course or to criticise the path charted by the libs, then the libs suddenly lose their "open mindedness" and act bi-polar in that their minds become more closed than even the most extreme person on the conservative side.
THAT is what is wrong with being "liberal" since you asked in your member profile.
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
Absolutely beautiful !!
I had a thought to reply..but realized that the board censors would render it useless....
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
The replies from here were excellent![8D]
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The reason we fight ANY and ALL anti-gun legislation is because it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL...PERIOD. The Constitution says "...shall not be infringed upon." PERIOD. Any and all legislation regulating firearms and firearm possesion is Unconstitutional. A large portion of us guys here have fought for our Constitutional RIGHTS...and we hold them with HIGH regard. It's just a crying shame that we let you liberals get this far to begin with.
Our Constitution was written in stone, and was not meant to change (without some very drastic and difficult steps). It is not a living document that needs to be updated with the times. Our right to bear arms was given to us to keep big brother in check...that is the PRIMARY reason for this RIGHT (read: not priviledge, but RIGHT). The Second Ammendment ensures all the rest.
You could ask the same thing about sports cars that go over 200mph. No one really needs one, but by whose authority are we supposed to trust that we shouldn't be allowed to have one?
What is the harm in that? or is it more that you think it will lead to other restrictive laws?
Bingo! If you're a liberal, then you will agree that the same argument goes for choice, as well. Not one step back because in this political climate if you give an inch, they will take a mile.
Also I know most of you I hope can appreciate a need for background checks and all that. But there is always this fight to enact a law like this.
I mean even if it is a month wait.. what harm could it do?
What good will thirty days do? If you think that a week or a month or whatever will somehow magically make the gun less dangerous, you're looking at the wrong item. The person that uses a gun in anger has a lifetime of issues backing them up - I don't think thirty days will make the gun any less dangerous so long as the hands that wield them are controlled by a dysfunctional mind.
Did anybody even notice that this guy only ever made 1 post?
[?]
My answer: I guess that all depends. If you insist that you are right and won't allow anyone else to "free think", then there's everything wrong with that.
Although mikesurf's side was limited, this being a pro gun forum, he did well at covering all the bases anti- gunners have to work with.
How on earth could anyone with a sane and reasonable mind read this and not believe in the second amendment?
I'd like to see this whole link published in every newspaper in the nation. Now isn't THAT a pipe dream??
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/21cfrpart11/message/4140
I like that quality...
Damn fox. You are a persistent one, aren't you??
I like that quality...
[8D]
Is anyone going to send him an email inviting him back?
None given.I know I checked way back when. Just double checked.
People still think we are in Iraq for the oil....at 3.00+ a gallon how can people think we are over there fighting for oil when it was around 1.60 a gallon when the war started?
I think he's just trolling around a bit but at anyrate he's totally flawed in his thinking.
Oh and Mikesurf---GOD bless you and your family and may he protect all of our rights.
What planet are YOU from ????
By invading Iraq..they sealed a huge leak..that leak was holding down the price of crude world-wide.
So you actually think that Oil Barons want you to have gas for 1.58 a gallon ? When they can get 3 bucks..???
What planet are YOU from ????
By invading Iraq..they sealed a huge leak..that leak was holding down the price of crude world-wide.
Let me interject a new slant on an old and misunderstood concept. A little research will provide you information that: It's all about the Dollar, Not the price of crude. We (The U. S.) have an agreement that all crude sold (worldwide) will be paid for in U.S. dollars. With the current trend toward making the Euro the new standard, we are obligated to try and maintain our control of the world monetary system or the Dollar becomes worthless. Current fears are that Chavez is going to switch-up to the Euro. If you think gas is high now, just wait. I'm not giving anyone (greedy oil companies) a pass here. But, if Clinton had not allowed the oil company merges there would be more than the present 5 (previously 20) oil companies to provide a competitive market, gas would not be so high and all we would have to worry about is the "DOLLAR" as the supreme currency.
OK I'm 23 been around guns ALL my life (dad served in the marines 20yrs) so yes i have been shooting since i can remember. The reason why i like to have guns is (2) i like guns (3) I like to hunt (4) like to plink, to home those skills (can't rely on that processed poison forever) (5) its FUN especially w/ friends and a good way to meet ladies i might add
And the Number 1 REASON, PROTECTION Well lets get a scenario going here first to let you in on why a lot of us do and think why we need them. What would happen if the gov did take them. Maybe the gov. wants to do something that the majority of the people don't want ( the free republic). there's an uprising against the gov (whats voting and boycotting going to do in this situation, there already voted in, boycotting sends a message but does nothing), so whats next, an armed uprising, well sort of, were going to be like British and use rocks while the gov. supporters (military) has guns.
Another question you asked why we need automatics, well it goes with the above, if you know tactics you know why, and since you probably don't I'll tell you. Alot of ammo concentrated on a spot makes your opponent take cover while you can adjust to a better positions or better yet, get out of there. Semis are good for taking something out with precision cause your not fighting recoil of the gun as much.
Remember there are many scenarios, not just are gov.. Another good reason is in LA when the hurricane hit, look what happened, looting , robbery, who's going to protect these people, the police (they had no police force, a lot of them left), there's many many more but these are just an example.
Forgot to add while we will have are guns in the face of tyranny, you will have that assurance of hope, cause we won't be fighting for are rights but for yours when the time comes, even if you want to wield a gun or not we will be the last defenders of the country, NOT THE MILITARY