Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: I SURE AS HELL_DON'T BELIEVE_AWB PLAN DROPPED

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Rockingham, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    861

    Post imported post

    Obama and Hillary are blaming our 2nd amendment for Mexico's Drug Lords and Lou Dobbs is telling us all is well .

    Do you believe this propaganda ?

    Do you really think Obama is dropping the AWB ?

    http://video.aol.com/video-detail/gu...IDLRVNWS06-60k-



  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Rockingham, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    861

    Post imported post

    Ifa liberal judge , Kotelly ,can take away our unalienable right of self defense in our national parks by invoking an environment impact study of the effects of lead , what abortion of sanity will Obama's horde serve to destroy our constitution?

    Can I still use LEAD SINKERStrot-lines ?

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hodgenville, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    1,261

    Post imported post

    We are NOT safe from the grabbers. Never trust them. Period.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Nevada, USA
    Posts
    716

    Post imported post

    R a Z o R wrote:
    Ifa liberal judge , Kotelly ,can take away our unalienable right of self defense in our national parks by invoking an environment impact study of the effects of lead , what abortion of sanity will Obama's horde serve to destroy our constitution?

    Can I still use LEAD SINKERStrot-lines ?
    No, the NPS is to ban all lead by 2010.

    http://www.gunsandhunting.com/forum/...?showentry=150

    Lead Ban in National Parks?
    Posted by GuySagi, Mar 12 2009, 07:47 PM

    “Our goal is to eliminate the use of lead ammunition and lead fishing tackle in parks by the end of 2010,” said Acting National Park Service Director Dan Wenk in a press release issued yesterday. “We want to take a leadership role in removing lead from the environment.”

    I’m pretty naïve, but does the second sentence mean NPS is going to start mining for naturally occurring galena? If so, we’ve gotta dig everywhere, and if we hit the mother lode of all veins—at today’s lead prices—the cost of this recurring bailout déj* vu is covered.

    More serious politicos, though, think it’s an indictment of hunting. The fact that the press release broke a cardinal editing rule in this sentence may have been subliminal, but it lends credence to more knowledegable observations: “Rangers and resource managers will use non-lead ammunition to prevent environmental contamination as well as lead poisoning of scavenger species who may eventually feed upon the carcass.” I hate to break it to low-level boilerplate bureaucrats, but animals are not people, therefore the underlined word should have been “that,” unless of course you think animals have human rights.

    If enacted, it would impact hunting on the 20 million acres in 60 different areas managed by the NPS.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    I wonder what in the heck they are going to do about Gettysburg, Manassas, Shiloh, and Antietam National Parks.Petersburg,Chancellorsville, New Market....

    Awful lot of lead laying around in them parks, I bet.

    Oh. That lead is historic, and therefore much less dangerous to the environment.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Gordie wrote:
    “Rangers and resource managers will use non-lead ammunition to prevent environmental contamination as well as lead poisoning of scavenger species who may eventually feed upon the carcass.” I hate to break it to low-level boilerplate bureaucrats, but animals are not people, therefore the underlined word should have been “that,” unless of course you think animals have human rights.

    wtf are you talking about?Substituting "that" inthe sentence makes it sound ridiculous. Using "that" would imply you're refering to a specific carcass, as if pointing at it while speaking. They said "the carcass" because it's a lot more general, meaning any carcass that's been shot as opposed to "THAT" particular carcass over there.

    :quirky

    Oh, and animals should have rights. They're as much of a living thing as you are. Just because they're less intelligent doesn't make them less worthy of ethical treatment.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Rockingham, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    861

    Post imported post

    And beef ribs should not be wasted .



  8. #8
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    Oh, and animals should have rights. They're as much of a living thing as you are.
    Wow... What kind of rights are you advocating specifically, or are you saying that our constitutionally guaranteed rights also apply to animals? Are you a member of PETA?

    Have you ever traveled westward, at least outside ofyour northeasternstate? If you have, you should have a better understanding of the mentality of most of America that disagrees with you.Have you ever hunted down an animal and killed it?


    Just because they're less intelligent doesn't make them less worthy of ethical treatment.
    I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment. However, I am of the belief that I can hunt down creatures of the earth and still treat them ethically in the process by providing them clean, quick kills. I know you are not a believer, but my religious beliefs tell me that humans have dominion over the animalsand thatweare the top end of the food chain.

    Something to think about before we go handing out copies of the Bill Of Rights to the land mamals.
    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    Animals clearly do not have a natural right to do anything which they are incapable of doing due to lack of human form, and this precludes most of the rights the constitution protects.

    However, while an animal has neither a constitutional nor a self-evident natural right to, say, carry and use firearms (being incapable of doing so), the fact that the animal is alive does evince a natural right to not be killed without some valid reason (this is the same logic by which nature is used philosophically as the source of rights).

    Now, being that animals are not capable of understanding human conceits like society, you are free to treat them accordingly. Thus, if an animal trespasses on your property and eats your crops, you may kill it without asking it to leave first, or having been threatened with potentially deadly bodily harm. Thus may you eat an animal for food without justifying the act as self-defense before a court.

    However, no amount of religion or anthropocentric "logic" will ever make the needless killing of an animal "for fun" (as some people are occasionally inclined to do) anything other than an act of aggression against what I would point out is one of GOD's living beings.

    Then again, I don't believe in God. :P

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    460

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    I wonder what in the heck they are going to do about Gettysburg, Manassas, Shiloh, and Antietam National Parks.Petersburg,Chancellorsville, New Market....

    Awful lot of lead laying around in them parks, I bet.

    Oh. That lead is historic, and therefore much less dangerous to the environment.
    No doubt they will force the re-enactors to use plastic replica guns and yell "BANG!"

  11. #11
    Regular Member david.ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    Gordie wrote:
    unless of course you think animals have human rights.
    Animals have the right to be eaten
    Animals have the right to be skinned
    Animals have the right to be force bred, rape rack (really called a breeding rack), to other animals to force impregnation
    Animals have the right to have their fur worn by humans

    Did I miss anything?

    Oh, animals have the right to be clubbed and their furs ripped away

    There
    Gays are prominent members of firearm rights, we do more via the courts, don't like it? Leave.
    Religious bigots against same sex marriage are not different than white supremacists.
    I expel anti-gay people off my teams. Tolerance is key to team cohesion and team building.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    23

    Post imported post

    people eating tasty animals

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Nevada, USA
    Posts
    716

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    Gordie wrote:
    “Rangers and resource managers will use non-lead ammunition to prevent environmental contamination as well as lead poisoning of scavenger species who may eventually feed upon the carcass.” I hate to break it to low-level boilerplate bureaucrats, but animals are not people, therefore the underlined word should have been “that,” unless of course you think animals have human rights.

    wtf are you talking about?Substituting "that" inthe sentence makes it sound ridiculous. Using "that" would imply you're refering to a specific carcass, as if pointing at it while speaking. They said "the carcass" because it's a lot more general, meaning any carcass that's been shot as opposed to "THAT" particular carcass over there.

    :quirky

    Oh, and animals should have rights. They're as much of a living thing as you are. Just because they're less intelligent doesn't make them less worthy of ethical treatment.
    Once again,AWDstylezstarts to type without engaging his brain. That was inan article that was written by Gordie. It was just one of many articles that talked about the lead ban being proposed to the NPS, it also just happened to be the first one that came up when I Googled it. I didn't realize that I had to get your approval of articles that are linked to.

    insane.kangaroo

    If you are going to quote me, make sure it is me, not the author of an article that I linked to to answer a question that someone asked. I would use a source other than AWDstylezif I were you.






  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Gordie wrote:
    AWDstylez wrote:
    Gordie wrote:
    “Rangers and resource managers will use non-lead ammunition to prevent environmental contamination as well as lead poisoning of scavenger species who may eventually feed upon the carcass.” I hate to break it to low-level boilerplate bureaucrats, but animals are not people, therefore the underlined word should have been “that,” unless of course you think animals have human rights.

    wtf are you talking about?Substituting "that" inthe sentence makes it sound ridiculous. Using "that" would imply you're refering to a specific carcass, as if pointing at it while speaking. They said "the carcass" because it's a lot more general, meaning any carcass that's been shot as opposed to "THAT" particular carcass over there.

    :quirky

    Oh, and animals should have rights. They're as much of a living thing as you are. Just because they're less intelligent doesn't make them less worthy of ethical treatment.
    Once again,AWDstylezstarts to type without engaging his brain. That was inan article that was written by Gordie. It was just one of many articles that talked about the lead ban being proposed to the NPS, it also just happened to be the first one that came up when I Googled it. I didn't realize that I had to get your approval of articles that are linked to.

    insane.kangaroo

    If you are going to quote me, make sure it is me, not the author of an article that I linked to to answer a question that someone asked. I would use a source other than AWDstylezif I were you.






    Well seeing as how the article was written by "Gordie" and you ARE "Gordie," what I said holds and your observation is idiotic, to which you've now added another non-sensical post.

    :quirky

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Flintlock wrote:
    I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment. However, I am of the belief that I can hunt down creatures of the earth and still treat them ethically in the process by providing them clean, quick kills. I know you are not a believer, but my religious beliefs tell me that humans have dominion over the animalsand thatweare the top end of the food chain.

    Something to think about before we go handing out copies of the Bill Of Rights to the land mamals.


    Marshaul explained it just fine. They have the right to ethical treatment, just like any living creature. Hunting for food is fine. Hunting for sport is pointless killing. And I don't give two @#$%s about what your religious beliefs tell you, because religious beliefs have justified everything from rape to genocide. Nordo I give even half a @#$% what the "majority of America" thinks because the majority of Americans are complete air heads.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Nevada, USA
    Posts
    716

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    Gordie wrote:
    AWDstylez wrote:
    Gordie wrote:
    “Rangers and resource managers will use non-lead ammunition to prevent environmental contamination as well as lead poisoning of scavenger species who may eventually feed upon the carcass.” I hate to break it to low-level boilerplate bureaucrats, but animals are not people, therefore the underlined word should have been “that,” unless of course you think animals have human rights.

    wtf are you talking about?Substituting "that" inthe sentence makes it sound ridiculous. Using "that" would imply you're refering to a specific carcass, as if pointing at it while speaking. They said "the carcass" because it's a lot more general, meaning any carcass that's been shot as opposed to "THAT" particular carcass over there.

    :quirky

    Oh, and animals should have rights. They're as much of a living thing as you are. Just because they're less intelligent doesn't make them less worthy of ethical treatment.
    Once again,AWDstylezstarts to type without engaging his brain. That was inan article that was written by Gordie. It was just one of many articles that talked about the lead ban being proposed to the NPS, it also just happened to be the first one that came up when I Googled it. I didn't realize that I had to get your approval of articles that are linked to.

    insane.kangaroo

    If you are going to quote me, make sure it is me, not the author of an article that I linked to to answer a question that someone asked. I would use a source other than AWDstylezif I were you.






    Well seeing as how the article was written by "Gordie" and you ARE "Gordie," what I said holds and your observation is idiotic, to which you've now added another non-sensical post.

    :quirky
    My first post on this thread is as follows:
    No, the NPS is to ban all lead by 2010.

    http://www.gunsandhunting.com/forum/...?showentry=150

    Lead Ban in National Parks?
    Posted by GuySagi, Mar 12 2009, 07:47 PM

    “Our goal is to eliminate the use of lead ammunition and lead fishing tackle in parks by the end of 2010,” said Acting National Park Service Director Dan Wenk in a press release issued yesterday. “We want to take a leadership role in removing lead from the environment.”

    I’m pretty naïve, but does the second sentence mean NPS is going to start mining for naturally occurring galena? If so, we’ve gotta dig everywhere, and if we hit the mother lode of all veins—at today’s lead prices—the cost of this recurring bailout déj* vu is covered.

    More serious politicos, though, think it’s an indictment of hunting. The fact that the press release broke a cardinal editing rule in this sentence may have been subliminal, but it lends credence to more knowledegable observations: “Rangers and resource managers will use non-lead ammunition to prevent environmental contamination as well as lead poisoning of scavenger species who may eventually feed upon the carcass.” I hate to break it to low-level boilerplate bureaucrats, but animals are not people, therefore the underlined word should have been “that,” unless of course you think animals have human rights.

    If enacted, it would impact hunting on the 20 million acres in 60 different areas managed by the NPS.


    There, I made it a little easier for you.:what: Now, can you see it or will I be forced to draw a picture?

    Note, posted by GuySagi, not Gordie. I provided both the link, and the article so that people would not have to worry about going to the link provided, but could still check it out if they wanted to see where the article came from.

    Stylez, who's posting nonsense now?:P



  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Gordie wrote:
    That was inan article that was written byGordie.

    Ok, now I get what you're saying. However, it isn't my problem you suck at quoting articles so it ends up looking like YOU were the one making the comment ON the article, and then go on to say that YOU wrote the article. :quirky

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran T Dubya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Va, ,
    Posts
    892

    Post imported post

    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

    Ben Franklin



    At what point do you think the masses will resist?
    "These are the shock troops (opencarry.org) of the gun lobby. And, they are not going away."
    Ceasefire NJ Director Brian Miller, NJ.com, August 20, 2009

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    T Dubya wrote:
    At what point do you think the masses will resist?
    When they discover all - all - of the lies.

    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin
    Misattributed
    • Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
      • Widely attributed to Franklin on the internet, sometimes without the second sentence. It is not found in any of his known writings, and the word "lunch" is not known to have appeared anywhere in english literature until the 1820s, decades after his death. The phrasing itself has a very modern tone and the second sentence especially might not even be as old as the internet. Some of these observations are made in response to a query at Google Answers.
        A far rarer but somewhat more credible variation also occurs: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner." Web searches on these lines uncovers the earliest definite citations for such a statement credit libertarian author James Bovard with a similar one in the Sacramento Bee (1994):
    "Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner." This statement also definitely occurs in the "Conclusion" (p. 333) of his book Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty (1994) ISBN 0312123337

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Rockingham, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    861

    Post imported post

    ... Doug Huffman ...

    This part of the Carolinas lunch is called dinner . Many do not realize that photography started way back in 1825 . Colocalisms do not travel very well thru the centuries .



  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Nevada, USA
    Posts
    716

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    Gordie wrote:
    That was inan article that was written byGordie.

    Ok, now I get what you're saying. However, it isn't my problem you suck at quoting articles so it ends up looking like YOU were the one making the comment ON the article, and then go on to say that YOU wrote the article. :quirky
    Yeah, like it's my fault that you have comprehension problems.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    324

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    Oh, and animals should have rights.* They're as much of a living thing as you are.* Just because they're less intelligent doesn't make them less worthy of ethical treatment.
    No they don't. They shouldn't be treated inhumanely, but to start giving animals rights is just a step from saying that trees, or dirt, or water has rights as well.

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Spectre wrote:
    AWDstylez wrote:
    Oh, and animals should have rights. They're as much of a living thing as you are. Just because they're less intelligent doesn't make them less worthy of ethical treatment.
    No they don't. They shouldn't be treated inhumanely, but to start giving animals rights is just a step from saying that trees, or dirt, or water has rights as well.
    Trees are living, they have rights. Water and dirt are not aliveand therefore have no rights. If you can't tell the difference between living and non-living things you're a retard.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Gordie wrote:
    Yeah, like it's my fault that you have comprehension problems.
    No, it's your fault you have typing/cognitive problems and substituted your name for the author's name by accident. It's also your fault you can't use the quote function correctly,the feature that was designed specifically to avoid that type of confusion.

  25. #25
    Regular Member compmanio365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,013

    Post imported post

    Trees.....have rights? Well, you better stop living in your house, using paper (of any kind, so wipe yourself with leaves or your hand), and basically living without wood products of any kind, cause you wouldn't want to infringe on the "trees' rights", now would you?

    You go ahead and do that, have fun. The rest of us, outside of the looney bin, will live with the fact that we kill poor, poor trees everyday for our convenience.

    I knew you were a nut, but the depth of your mental retardation wasn't even on the scale I was using. I now know just how totally and completely STUPID you are. :quirky

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •