And the NRA does none of that! The NRA is for the Preservation of the Second Amendment of the constitution. And an AR-15 is not a bad choice for most hunting where I live. A groundhog, a coyote, or even a Wild Boar is awesome hunting with the AR. How about you get your facts about why I shouldn't use an AR for hunting? That would be wonderful
Whilst the NRA are principally a lobying group they at least purport to teach good gun use and gun control. thus I supect that whilst the organisation might not offer guidelines, it's members certainly would have something to say about choices of hunting weapons.
Ha! You said an AR Style rifle is ridiculous for hunting! Maybe you should step out of the city and see what happens in the country side.
You know nothing about hunting............
Hmm. most "pro" and "good" hunters tend to use and recommend regular bolt riffles.
I can't see why you believe you need a semi automatic weapon for simple hunting tasks?
I mean the same calibre bullet should have the same stopping power regardless of the gun it's fired from (in principal, barrel length and riffling etc asside)
you seem to think that you need unlimitted shots in order to hit a target? -it seems that you are the one who doesn't know a lot about hunting?
after all...
Gun control is hitting what you aim at.
I can't help but agree with that.
your
need for unlimitted shots whilst hunting just makes me think that you
need more time at the range before going out. not that people who can't hit a target need large magazines and semi auto weapons.
Katrina “Gun Confiscationâ€￾ – My Experience | The Bang Switch
seems a marine who was there had a different experience. anyway I'm done with this thread now.
All that article says is that:
just as everyone else said some sort of "Marshal law" was put in place. -badly
and that the guy saw questionable things and did nothing
and that he knew that there were gun confiscations happenning and did nothing.
nobody ever suggestted that everyone was taking guns. just that guns were taken.
by unknown agencies (i.e not local people) and that the administration of the act of the taking of guns was very poor -i.e serial numbers were not recorded and thus some guns were impossible to return.
This guy saw people breaking the law, and did nothing to try to uphold either the law or constitution.
(has any kind of charge ever been brought to anyone over these actions?)
Obama would go to any extent to try and get bans on certain guns just for him to be able to say he did it and be a hero to the other liberals to come. Obama is a menace and he is tearing our country apart everyday he is in office. His contribution to the national debt is more than all the other presidents combined......
why do you think he wants to be a hero?
he's the first black president, and whatever YOU think of him, he IS going in history books.
your kids will learn about him, and their kids, and grand kids so on and so fourth.
he doesn't need to be a hero, he's nearly half way through his second term, there is essentially nothing left to prove or do, in a year or so he'll wind down and be effectivly replaced by whoever want's to be it next.
So far as debt goes, he had a HUGE hand in that from the previous government who over spend, massed up debt and added a deficite and committed to spending, such that the pile of debt could only grow. couple that with a global recession where just about every single country ended up in a worse place than they started seven years ago and I'm not sure what you think could have been done better?
a better question is to ask is how in the near decade of unprecidented world growth that happened before how the republican party managed to turn around a trend of falling debt to GDP ratios (i.e running a surplus) and turn that into a running a budget that ran a deficite, with very little improvement to liveing standards?
I assume that you are in favour of higher taxes?
or lower public services in order to reduce the debt -and I mean accross the board, you don't get to cherry pick what ones! because that's the scale of the problem that we're talking here!
no, thought not. but it makes a great sound bite for the rest of all the uneducated masses who make their voting decisions based on soundbites. right?
(also does that contribution to debt include inflation.?)
but...
History of the United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
even wikipedia shows that Obama's not all that bad.
first it proves what I'd said about the previous republican admin taking a suprless (clintons admin ended in less debt so the budget ran surpluss meaning that they were able to pay off some debt) Bush's budget rand a deficite - i.e he spent money that he did not have.
anyway, regards budgets...
firstly, "total debt" is not specifically terrible when expressed as a dollar amount.
For example, I imagine you to be around the age of 14, therefore with your only income being based on that of delivering papers etc, owning a $500 on a credit card would be a terribly bad thing. -
Fristly you're earning like $20 a week, so it's half a years money there (like ALL your money), so by the time you've also got the stuff you need to buy, and paid off a small amount, added interest etc, it's going to take you perhaps 5 years to pay off that...
Whilst for a person in work... well, a $500 loan is pretty easy to pay off, it might mean cutting back for a bit, not going out drinking for a month. -in other words it's easily do able.
the point isn't that the loan amounts are different, they are the same.
but the loan amount compared to income (or produce) are different.
to your paper round salary $500 is loads, to a working person with a real job, it's not that much.
File:US Federal Debt as Percent of GDP by President.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thus yes, in Dollars as a cold hard number it's the biggest debt.
but given that GDP is also growing it's not that bad.
Bush's increase debt to GDP percentage was 20% Obamas is 18% i.e spending increases ARE flattenning out.
long story short, Obama may have the biggest number of dollars debt added (is that added for inflation as well?) but it's not a terrible thing for two reasons.
1, the ability to pay is greater, coming out of a recession with controlled spending is actually a pretty good thing.
2, the value of money has decreased due to inflation.
i.e 30 years ago my parents bought a house for £19,000, that same house is worth £210,000 now. (though they don't live there any more)
at the time they bought that £19k house they did so with a 25 year mortgage, right now you'd pay about £1k per month to live there in rent (based on simillar houses in the area).
the same is true of most things, having gone up in value.
thus if you allow for inflation then the 1.4 trillion that bush (snr) added to national debt in the 80's adjusted for today would actually be something like 14 - 16 trillion.
I suspect that nobody read this far down.