G
Guest
Guest
imported post
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
nofoa
Regular Member
imported post
OMAHGAWD :what: Frosted Hair is so 90's!
OMAHGAWD :what: Frosted Hair is so 90's!
MetalChris
Regular Member
imported post
Where in the article was it stated these two individuals are members of the NRA?
Where in the article was it stated these two individuals are members of the NRA?
Orygunner
Regular Member
imported post
Yeah, I'm very confused. What, if anything, does the NRA have to do with these two meth-heads or their alleged "plot"?
...I know you're not trying to say the NRA has something to do with white supremacy...
...Orygunner...
Yeah, I'm very confused. What, if anything, does the NRA have to do with these two meth-heads or their alleged "plot"?
...I know you're not trying to say the NRA has something to do with white supremacy...
...Orygunner...
Pol Mordreth
Regular Member
imported post
And, now it comes out that this was a little premature... "no credible threat" to Sen. Obama.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/5966093.html
And, of course, they were convicted felons. With firearms. Another point toward the premise that gun control laws only disarm those not inclined to commit crimes, and are not a deterrant to those who would be criminals.
Respectfully,
Pol
And, now it comes out that this was a little premature... "no credible threat" to Sen. Obama.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/5966093.html
And, of course, they were convicted felons. With firearms. Another point toward the premise that gun control laws only disarm those not inclined to commit crimes, and are not a deterrant to those who would be criminals.
Respectfully,
Pol
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
Pol Mordreth wrote:
And that if felons can be disbarred their Rights under color of law then we may all be legally disarmed by sufficiently lowering the bar of felony, even to mere allegations of domestic violence abuse.
Pol Mordreth wrote:
And that if felons can be disbarred their Rights under color of law then we may all be legally disarmed by sufficiently lowering the bar of felony, even to mere allegations of domestic violence abuse.
Orygunner
Regular Member
imported post
Doug Huffman wrote:
My thoughts exactly, Mr Huffman. Am I correct in reading from your statement that you believe if a criminal's debt to society has been paid (through incarceration and/or fines) that their right to keep and bear arms should be allowed by law?
I mean, if they're going to commit a crime with a firearm, they're going to get one regardless of law. I feel it is not right to deny someone the right to carry a firearm for lawful self-defense just because they were previously convicted of a felony, or domestic violence, or because they have a restraining order against them... Do you agree?
...Orygunner...
Doug Huffman wrote:
My thoughts exactly, Mr Huffman. Am I correct in reading from your statement that you believe if a criminal's debt to society has been paid (through incarceration and/or fines) that their right to keep and bear arms should be allowed by law?
I mean, if they're going to commit a crime with a firearm, they're going to get one regardless of law. I feel it is not right to deny someone the right to carry a firearm for lawful self-defense just because they were previously convicted of a felony, or domestic violence, or because they have a restraining order against them... Do you agree?
...Orygunner...
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
Felony is not sufficient (compare 'necessary') to disbar a citizen of his rights.
Felony is not sufficient (compare 'necessary') to disbar a citizen of his rights.
Michigander
Regular Member
imported post
Based on the time I saw Klinton do a speech back in 96, I sincerely doubt a couple of meth heads could pull that off. Secret service agents are crazy good at what they do, and only someone with really, really good cover, a rifle and the skill to be able to take a really long shot, and tons of luck would have any chance of killing someone the secret service is guarding.
And a big +1 to not understanding the NRA affiliation.
Based on the time I saw Klinton do a speech back in 96, I sincerely doubt a couple of meth heads could pull that off. Secret service agents are crazy good at what they do, and only someone with really, really good cover, a rifle and the skill to be able to take a really long shot, and tons of luck would have any chance of killing someone the secret service is guarding.
And a big +1 to not understanding the NRA affiliation.
like_the_roman
Regular Member
imported post
Dukester is just a socialist agitator who thinks that all NRA members are secretly with the Klan and are part of a vast right wing conspiracy to kill Saint Obama.
This is the kind of kookery that belongs on DemocraticUnderground or Alternet, not OCDO.
Dukester is just a socialist agitator who thinks that all NRA members are secretly with the Klan and are part of a vast right wing conspiracy to kill Saint Obama.
This is the kind of kookery that belongs on DemocraticUnderground or Alternet, not OCDO.
Venator
Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
imported post
Michigander wrote:
Michigander wrote:
Really???? Ford, was shot at at close range, Reagan was hit at close range, Pres. Kennedy was shot from less than 70 yards (i think that's about right), Sen. Kennedy was shot at close range. All had SS protection. So in all likelihood, a determined person could get within handgun range and could do a lot of damage. Granted those examples were some time ago, but I'm just saying a determined person could do it today. Of course all this is hypothetical.
yeahYeah
Regular Member
imported post
all media hype to draw more attention to the freakshow orgy going on in Denver right now.
also, a great way to paint gun owners are obama hating assassins.
all media hype to draw more attention to the freakshow orgy going on in Denver right now.
also, a great way to paint gun owners are obama hating assassins.
Michigander
Regular Member
imported post
Venator wrote:
A non metallic shank might have done the trick when he went to shake hands. But still, that was pre 911, and I imagine things are much more serious now.
Venator wrote:
I base my opinion on that on what I saw in 96 with Klinton. They had the most overbearing amount of protection I could imagine with him still being there. They had a hellicopter with a MK19, snipers everywhere, RPG's, plain clothes guys everywhere (some were obvious from some serious printing) and a "sterile zone" reaching about a couple hundred yards in every direction. Knowing what I do about guns now, I think it would take an awful lot of skill and luck to try. There was no way you could have gotten a handgun anywhere near there with the metal detectors, and even if you did get close enough to see him, which wasn't likely with the thick crowd and all the snipers, if you got too close, you might have been shot.
A non metallic shank might have done the trick when he went to shake hands. But still, that was pre 911, and I imagine things are much more serious now.
imported post
We get Felons in the Military, felons flip your burgers, they rent you cars, they leave next door to us, and they check our baggage at the airport, what's the point to this?
The NRA doesn’t do background checks and application interviews?
We get Felons in the Military, felons flip your burgers, they rent you cars, they leave next door to us, and they check our baggage at the airport, what's the point to this?
The NRA doesn’t do background checks and application interviews?
MetalChris
Regular Member
imported post
like_the_roman wrote:
Dukester doesn't belong here.
like_the_roman wrote:
+1 on all counts.
Dukester doesn't belong here.
longwatch
Founder's Club Member - Moderator
imported post
Dukester only discredits himself and his causes with such an absurd statement.
Dukester only discredits himself and his causes with such an absurd statement.
compmanio365
Regular Member
imported post
This guy has been on the WA forums posting this kind of BS for some time now.....he doesn't belong on this board, and it amazes me that Mike or John haven't stepped in to rid us of this troll........
This guy has been on the WA forums posting this kind of BS for some time now.....he doesn't belong on this board, and it amazes me that Mike or John haven't stepped in to rid us of this troll........
AZkopper
Regular Member
imported post
like_the_roman wrote:
Wait, we're not???......you mean all my hard earned dues I paid were in vain????Damn, I need to make sure I read the fine print better.....
like_the_roman wrote:
Wait, we're not???......you mean all my hard earned dues I paid were in vain????Damn, I need to make sure I read the fine print better.....