"jim" wrote in message
...
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
Canuck57 wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...

The concept of individual citizens armed with small arms holding off
a huge invading army is an NRA wet dream. Americans aren't as tough
as Afghanis.

Based on what? Your left wing, elitist opinion that you present as a
"fact"?

History proves you wrong.

Eisboch
Based upon the fact that this isn't the 18th or 19th century, and that
any huge invading army is going to be equipped and organized as a huge
invading army. It's going to be up to our military to protect the
homeland.

Hell, as far as I can tell, there are only a couple of "regulars" in
this newsgroup who regularly practice with firearms.

I don't own one, does not mean I don't know how too. I have had some
training, and have in earlier years gone hunting.

If I ever had to pick one up to use it to protect life, property or
freedom bet I could beat most Canadians and would at least check the
barrel for being pinned so I wouldn't blow my face off.

Responsible owners should be allowed to keep their firearms. Take
Canada as proof you can pass any law you like and spend whatever you
like but the criminals still have them. It's only possible redemption
is that it does deter the irresponsible owner, but leaves the rest
without.

Taking guns from responsible people addresses nothing of the problem it
is pandered to solve. Just lets liberal control freaks control more of
your life.



I haven't seen anything from Obama in his two year campaign that
indicates to me he plans to go after my firearms. I don't accept the
prognostications of the NRA.

Nice cherry picking Krause.

I wonder why the NRA fears Nobama. Do they know something that Harry
doesn't?

Yes, his previous voting record. Mostly against people owning guns for any
reason.

"Boater" wrote in message
...
Canuck57 wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Canuck57 wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...

The concept of individual citizens armed with small arms holding off
a huge invading army is an NRA wet dream. Americans aren't as tough
as Afghanis.

Based on what? Your left wing, elitist opinion that you present as a
"fact"?

History proves you wrong.

Eisboch
Based upon the fact that this isn't the 18th or 19th century, and that
any huge invading army is going to be equipped and organized as a huge
invading army. It's going to be up to our military to protect the
homeland.

Hell, as far as I can tell, there are only a couple of "regulars" in
this newsgroup who regularly practice with firearms.
I don't own one, does not mean I don't know how too. I have had some
training, and have in earlier years gone hunting.

If I ever had to pick one up to use it to protect life, property or
freedom bet I could beat most Canadians and would at least check the
barrel for being pinned so I wouldn't blow my face off.

Responsible owners should be allowed to keep their firearms. Take
Canada as proof you can pass any law you like and spend whatever you
like but the criminals still have them. It's only possible redemption
is that it does deter the irresponsible owner, but leaves the rest
without.

Taking guns from responsible people addresses nothing of the problem it
is pandered to solve. Just lets liberal control freaks control more of
your life.
I haven't seen anything from Obama in his two year campaign that
indicates to me he plans to go after my firearms. I don't accept the
prognostications of the NRA.

Agreed, public record is better:

http://www.sportsmenforobama.org/content/view/13/26/

1 for, 6 against and one neutral. While Obama's mouth moves one way his
votes tend to go the other way.


I'm familiar with some of those proposals and as a responsible gun owner,
I support most of them. None of them interfere with my use or enjoyment of
firearms. You'll have to do a little better.

Oh...I favor closing the "gun show loophole."

If the gun shop loophole is something like:

- must show drivers license and verify identity
- must have a clean record, no violent wilful crimes
- must wait 72 hours to obtain

Yep. But I think if you look deeper you will find it goes much further than
that.

Canuck57 wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...

When I was "of age" for the military, there was nothing happening that
required the homeland to be defended. There was that mess in Vietnam, but
that was a war we perpetuated by taking over from the French, who got
their butts kicked there and left.

Ho Chi Minh had no designs on U.S. territory. He did work as a baker here,
though. And he did seek the help of the United States in evicting the
French from his country, but we paid no attention to him.

Who knows...had we really been a champion of democracy around the world,
we might have helped the Vietnamese after WW II achieve it. But we didn't.

So you never did join up. Figures, nothing happening is your excuse. What
is Obama's?

Yep, while busy with Vietnam were you smoking dope in protest?


Sign up for what? Killing people that were no threat to the United
States? Supporting a right-wing dictatorship? No thanks.

"Boater" wrote in message
...


Hey, it isn't my fault you were too stupid to succeed in college and hid
out in the Marines.



This is why the USA will be in deep doo-doo under obamaship.

Eisboch

"Boater" wrote in message
...



When I was "of age" for the military, there was nothing happening that
required the homeland to be defended. There was that mess in Vietnam, but
that was a war we perpetuated by taking over from the French, who got
their butts kicked there and left.


Had nothing to do with the USSR, huh?

Eisboch

"jim" wrote in message
...



Harry reads from a DNC supplied script. Any time he tries to ad-lib he
makes a fool of himself


Yep.

Most of Harry's political posts are nothing more than the latest DNC
official "positions" that we hear otherwise via the media constantly, day by
day, hour by hour. I suspect he's on the mailing list.

It would really be refreshing to hear some personal, real time opinions,
supported by facts.

Eisboch

"BAR" wrote in message
...
jim wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
Canuck57 wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...

The concept of individual citizens armed with small arms holding
off a huge invading army is an NRA wet dream. Americans aren't as
tough as Afghanis.

Based on what? Your left wing, elitist opinion that you present as
a "fact"?

History proves you wrong.

Eisboch
Based upon the fact that this isn't the 18th or 19th century, and
that any huge invading army is going to be equipped and organized as
a huge invading army. It's going to be up to our military to protect
the homeland.

Hell, as far as I can tell, there are only a couple of "regulars" in
this newsgroup who regularly practice with firearms.

I don't own one, does not mean I don't know how too. I have had some
training, and have in earlier years gone hunting.

If I ever had to pick one up to use it to protect life, property or
freedom bet I could beat most Canadians and would at least check the
barrel for being pinned so I wouldn't blow my face off.

Responsible owners should be allowed to keep their firearms. Take
Canada as proof you can pass any law you like and spend whatever you
like but the criminals still have them. It's only possible redemption
is that it does deter the irresponsible owner, but leaves the rest
without.

Taking guns from responsible people addresses nothing of the problem
it is pandered to solve. Just lets liberal control freaks control
more of your life.



I haven't seen anything from Obama in his two year campaign that
indicates to me he plans to go after my firearms. I don't accept the
prognostications of the NRA.

Nice cherry picking Krause.

I wonder why the NRA fears Nobama. Do they know something that Harry
doesn't?

Harry opens his eyes but he fails to see, he opens his ears but fails to
hear.



Harry will be one of the first to cry, "It wasn't my idea ... take care of
me!"

Eisboch

"Boater" wrote in message
...


I doubt that many of those who haven't fired a firearm in years can just
pick one up, load it and shoot straight, unless the firearm is a shotgun.
I further doubt that many of those who fired a firearm years ago even own
a *serviceable* firearm.


And I could prove you wrong.

And I am just a hack.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...

Hey, it isn't my fault you were too stupid to succeed in college and hid
out in the Marines.



This is why the USA will be in deep doo-doo under obamaship.

Eisboch


I hope Nobama has more balls than Krause. His metel will be tested on
several international fronts and if he turns out to be a marshmallow we
are screwed. I don't have confidence in congress to act swiftly and
decisively to remove him when it becomes necessary for our national
defense. You're right deep doo-doo. Harry's ESAD takes on a whole new
large scale meaning.

"Boater" wrote in message
...


Drone on, drone. If you haven't practiced with firearms in many years, it
is unlikely you'll be able to shoot well. Shooting well is not the same as
loading and firing a weapon. Guys who haven't shot an issue rifle since
Vietnam aren't going to be able to hit small targets at 200-300 yards, if
they could even do it when they were young and in practice.


You're out of your league here to be offering expert opinions.

Eisboch