Ferguson, MO: Might as well start the ball rolling...

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by Cpalmson

First off, this was another black thug who got what he deserved. You NEVER go after a cop's weapon. That is a death wish. To be fair, the idiot race car driver who got out of his car and tried to confront Tony Stewart while Tony Stewart was driving a 2,000 pound sprint car got what he deserved as well. There's no cure for stupid.

As for social disobedience, there is a time and a place for it. Also, it doesn't take the form of tossing bricks off a bridge onto an interstate. Those fools should have been shot on the spot. BTW, the government it totally to blame for this and I'm not talking about the locals. I'm talking about the failed policies from mostly democrats who have essentially re-enslaved a vast preponderance of the black community by making them dependent on handouts (bribes).

Though I was loathe to say it I would also advocate firing on the rock throwers. What they're doing is not only illegal but potentially lethal.

I recall an incident in Texas about three or four months ago when a 70 some year old man was shot down in his own driveway by the police. A 70 year old WHITE man. I recall there was outrage but no marches, no riots, and no threats of murder of policemen. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/2...is-own-garage/

[SpeedRacerXXX]

We can't have a difference of opinion as to what is or is not an assault weapon because I have no real idea what is or is not an assault weapon. If you think that sometime in the past I've defined what is or is not an assault weapon let me know. I may have said something like an assault weapon is a weapon that fires continuously while you have your finger on the trigger. That was a total uneducated guess.
I'll let the "experts" come up with a definition. I have not even looked at the list of weapons on the proposed list that came out after the Newtown killings because I wouldn't know what they are. I have said many times, my knowledge of handguns and other similar weapons is minimal. Any discussions we've had in the past are independent of what is or is not an assault weapon.

Okay, you'll let the experts decide. The US military has defined them but the democratic party has other ideas. I'll let you decide who the expert is of those two. You admit that you don't understand what is what but you support their laws when it is obvious that they don't either. Why do you support ignorantly thought out laws.

I support laws. That is the American way. If you disagree with a law you can try to get it changed. When it comes to laws concerning assault weapons, I rely on the powers that make such decisions to do it correctly. It may be obvious to you that the weapons defined as assault weapons is incorrect but the vast majority of the people in this country, myself included, it is not so obvious.

If I am reading your statements correctly, you believe the store owners need more firepower to protect their stores than is currently legally available to them today. You would have to tell me what that additional firepower would consist of. An M-16? Then the people in power who determine if giving all citizens the right to purchase M-16s would do more good than harm or more harm than good would have to make that decision. IMHO, there are times when owning an M-16 or similar weapon would be advantageous, such as in the scenario you presented. And how often does such a scenario occur? Do the politicians in charge of the decision-making base decisions on a single incident?

Well I don't specificially recommend an M-16 or any other assault weapon (the real ones) but I believe that every citizen has the right to make that choice. For some it is a double barrel shotgun (ala Joe Biden), for others it could be the Colt Peace Maker (Wyatt Earp), and for some it could be a military style rifle with multiple magazines that hold 30 rounds a piece. Let the people decide.

Unfortunately, the average citizen at many times is as incompetent as the politicians you despise in making decisions. We have a system in place that does let the people decide. We elect people who are responsible for making such decisions. If they don't live up to our expectations we can try to get them out of office in the next election.

As far as my mentioning weapons beyond handguns and rifles, the only times I have done so is when I remind people who define 2nd Amendment rights as the right for anyone to carry any weapon at any time in any place, then a bazooka, machine gun, or rocket launcher would fall under "any weapon". Scary thought to me but that is what they support.

I don't know of anyone (if you really ask them to be specific) that advocates rocket launchers, bazookas (those went out of style 40 years ago), or most machine guns. Many people talk in general terms but they don't really support those things. Of course some on your side try to advance their arguments by lying about what people support.

Here is the terminology you used in your poll question:

I harken back to the original thoughts of the founders. Any able bodied man (or woman) between the ages of 18 and 80 should be able to own any firearm that they can afford and be able to carry the same without restriction at any time or in any place.

The final tally on your poll had 6 out of 36 respondents agreeing with that statement. To me "any firearm" means exactly that. M-16. AK-47. M-50. No restrictions means no restrictions.

[RALPHEY BOY]

So destroying other peoples hard work in your own community will solve the issue of bad cops...

now that is some logic there...

[SweetAsian]

I am in St Louis, MO touring since Sunday, when this started to happened. Then, heard it in National TV immediately. Now, this morning.... they say that Black Gangs and Cops Haters are in town for this riots, that's why they are not releasing the name of that police that did the shooting for safety purposes. Folks this is not going to be better soon! I heard this thru their local news (Fox 2) this morning. There was another police shootings this morning at 1am! I wished everyone can just get along! This is getting worst...

[JD Barleycorn]

I don't want to get any deeper into the weeds as it is obvious that you really don't know the subject matter but the democratic party has a long history of INTENTIONALLY misdefining weapons, bullets, and capabilites in order to pass restrictive (never less restrictive) legislation. In Maryland they wanted to ban "cop killer" bullets but never told anyone that KTW bullets were only available to the military and police departments. Further, they definition hidden in the legislation had the effect of banning almost 90% of hunting rounds. That was done on purpose! Further more, on the of the election the Maryland State Police raided the headquarters of the pro-gun forces and occupied them most of the day with no one allowed to come or go. That is how your side fights in a democracy; dirty, underhanded, tyrannical...

What is a M50? If you want to say a .50 caliber rifle "Machine gun" then say M2 or Ma Deuce. A firearm is a firearm, not a rocket launcher, not a tank, not a flame thrower (though it could come in handy for crowd control). A 50 caliber machine gun is a weapon fired by a team whereas the .50 caliber rifle is fired by an individual.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I may have said something like an assault weapon is a weapon that fires continuously while you have your finger on the trigger.

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

M-50.

U.S. Army M50A3 Truck, Tank, 2 1/2-ton, 6x6, Water, 1000 gal


And the really disconcerting thing is you actually vote on issues about which you have no understanding, Speedy, and the people you vote for are as equally brain dead as you.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I don't want to get any deeper into the weeds as it is obvious that you really don't know the subject matter but the democratic party has a long history of INTENTIONALLY misdefining weapons, bullets, and capabilites in order to pass restrictive (never less restrictive) legislation. In Maryland they wanted to ban "cop killer" bullets but never told anyone that KTW bullets were only available to the military and police departments. Further, they definition hidden in the legislation had the effect of banning almost 90% of hunting rounds. That was done on purpose! Further more, on the of the election the Maryland State Police raided the headquarters of the pro-gun forces and occupied them most of the day with no one allowed to come or go. That is how your side fights in a democracy; dirty, underhanded, tyrannical...

What is a M50? If you want to say a .50 caliber rifle "Machine gun" then say M2 or Ma Deuce. A firearm is a firearm, not a rocket launcher, not a tank, not a flame thrower (though it could come in handy for crowd control). A 50 caliber machine gun is a weapon fired by a team whereas the .50 caliber rifle is fired by an individual.

I am NOT a member of the Democratic party. Voted for Obama twice, the ONLY Democrat I've ever voted for in either a national or statewide election, for reasons I've given several times, none of which had anything to do with his position on gun control. So please don't automatically put me into the category of people who are mis-defining assault weapons. If you blame me, then you are blaming the Republicans who I have consistently voted for.

I meant M60 rather than M50. My mistake. I was also incorrect in stating that weapons like the M60 were firearms. The M-16 and AK-47 are but the M60 is not. But let's get down to the nitty-gritty. The 2nd Amendment uses the word "arms" as in "right to bear arms". The word "arms" is defined as:

arms
ärmz/


noun


plural noun: arms


1.
weapons and ammunition; armaments.
"they were subjugated by force of arms"
synonyms:weapons, weaponry, firearms, guns, ordnance, artillery, armaments, munitions, matériel
Therefore, some, if not many, gun rights advocates have argued that the 2nd Amendment gives them the right to own pretty much anything in order to protect themselves. I certainly believe you when you say you are not one of these people.

[JD Barleycorn]

Well the M60 is kind of two man weapon. One carries and fires, the other has to lug ammo. It takes a really big man to do both (that means carrying enough ammo to make it worthwhile). The M60 is also out of fashion. The M60 is also a MBT. That stands for main battle tank.



Voting for Obama twice kind of qualifies you as either a democrat or insane. I can see voting for the first time, historical importance and everything, but the second time? That requires some dedication to the party or some organic brain damage.

[boardman]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I am NOT a member of the Democratic party. Voted for Obama twice, the ONLY Democrat I've ever voted for in either a national or statewide election, for reasons I've given several times, none of which had anything to do with his position on gun control.

Was it to prove you aren't a racist?

If that's the case please put some meaningful consideration into your next ballot to prove you aren't an idiot.

[cptjohnstone]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

some organic brain damage.

you are going po Eva again

[Cpalmson]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Though I was loathe to say it I would also advocate firing on the rock throwers. What they're doing is not only illegal but potentially lethal.

Don't loathe saying something that is complete common sense. If a thug is chucking bricks off an overpass onto unsuspecting cars doing 60+ MPH, can you imagine the carnage that could create? Shooting these miscreants is allowed under the rational of "defense of others". Additionally, it REMOVES these idiots from the gene/breeding pool.

BTW, I'm all for summary execution by anyone who witnesses a violent crime being committed. It saves the cost of a trial

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by cptjohnstone

you are going po Eva again

You are a simple fuck no stones, I have not made a comment on this thread till now. Your stupidity is showing again

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Well the M60 is kind of two man weapon. One carries and fires, the other has to lug ammo. It takes a really big man to do both (that means carrying enough ammo to make it worthwhile). The M60 is also out of fashion. The M60 is also a MBT. That stands for main battle tank.



Voting for Obama twice kind of qualifies you as either a democrat or insane. I can see voting for the first time, historical importance and everything, but the second time? That requires some dedication to the party or some organic brain damage.

The M60 was the machine gun in use when I was in the service. Admittedly a long time ago. Just after muskets were replaced.

I've said it before but I will reiterate. I voted for Obama in 2008 because retirement was impending in the near future and the financial collapse in Bush's last year, whether you can fully blame him or not, put a huge dent in my savings. Couple that with the Republican ticket of McCain/Palin and, although I wavered virtually until the last moment, I opted for Obama. In Obama's 4 years in office, the DJIA went from under 7,000 to close to 14,000. A wise investor would have doubled his money in just 4 years. I wasn't that wise but I did well. In 2012 I was even closer to retirement and once again the economy was #1 on my list of priorities. Obama had done me well in that regard n his first 4 years so I voted for him again. The DJIA now stands at 16,651, up 20% since Obama took office for his second term. Not too shabby an ROI.

Would the economy improve the same under Republicans as it did under Obama? Possibly, but I'm happy to live with that unknown.

[JD Barleycorn]

So who are you going to blame when the Dow crashes again? It usually has an adjustment about every 10 years give or take a couple. The stockmarket has gone up because the Obama regime has put 85 billion dollars of taxpayer money into the market every month. It is called QE I, II, and I think even III. Understand? They are taking money from you and me and transferring it into the market so people like Warren Buffet can make millions more dollars on us. Does that make you happy? Do you still give Obama credit for stealing your money? Think of your retirement account and then deduct the extra money you spend for groceries, gas, insurance, healthcare, and payroll taxes. How much are you left with?

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

So who are you going to blame when the Dow crashes again? It usually has an adjustment about every 10 years give or take a couple. The stockmarket has gone up because the Obama regime has put 85 billion dollars of taxpayer money into the market every month. It is called QE I, II, and I think even III. Understand? They are taking money from you and me and transferring it into the market so people like Warren Buffet can make millions more dollars on us. Does that make you happy? Do you still give Obama credit for stealing your money? Think of your retirement account and then deduct the extra money you spend for groceries, gas, insurance, healthcare, and payroll taxes. How much are you left with?

Healthcare -- I'm paying less than when I worked for a huge corporation, with at least equal coverage. New plan doesn't pay for viagra. Damn! Payroll taxes -- I have none now that I'm semi-retired. Groceries -- I don't follow the increases on a day-to-day basis or even year-to-year basis. The one place you are totally correct is gas. Risen from the $2.58 range to $3.50 range today. Not good.

Let's do a little math. In Obama's first year in office, the DJIA went up 25%. Assuming an individual had $100,000 in his 401k, and his investments were simply "average", he made $25,000. Do you think that covered the possible additional costs that were incurred in that year?

I really don't care WHY the stock market went up. It went up incredibly and smart investors made out big time. Warren Buffet made millions and I made thousands. The stock market crash of 2008 was not an "adjustment". There were warning signs as early as 2007 of an impending failure and many economists sent up signal flares.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/Financ...Crash-2008.htm

Look, I explained why I voted for Obama. Twice. I gave you my explanation to try to keep you from stereotyping individuals. I really don't care if you accept my reason or not. If you want to believe I am foolish for thinking I am better off financially today than when Obama first took office, fine by me. Simply not worth the argument.