The Rabbi

I mean that sounds funny but think about it. Gas operated, like a mower or leaf blower or something.

But then they wouldnt be helping Officer Friendly do his job.

Truly the smallest minded selfish petty chickensh** reason I've seen in a long time. I would feel safer in Opry Mills knowing Voldemort couldn't carry a gun there.

Gene, if you have further questions about the rifle, ask R1100R on here, since it was his. I hope the gun shoots well and you're enjoying it.

I'm not sure what that clip as to do with guns. I'm not saying Obama is any friend of gun owners. But he isn't vindictive about it and would be pushing uphill to do any harm. Hillary would expend the necessary political capital just because she wanted to. As for limiting gun shops, that isn't a Federal issue. So he can want gun shop owners castrated but it wont happen. No, Obama is a weak radical untested candidate. If the GOP had any credibility left they would be walking all over him. The only reason Obama will win (and I really think he will) is because the GOP screwed the pooch while in office and voters are in a foul mood.

Rice would be a terrible, awful candidate. The fact of her being Black wouldnt help the ticket at all. Bush has appointed more Blacks to high office than any other president. And the Black community still hates him. And she is associated with Iraq, so she's a definite no go. And she doesnt want the job. Rick Perry of Texas, Mark Sanford of S.Carolina, probably a few other good choices. But no one remotely associated with Bush. Maybe Joe Lieberman.

"Quicker 'n' you" was a reference to someone's screen name on here. As far as cover goes, the rule is the deeper the cover the harder to bring into action. I don't know the answer to that one. Everyone has to evaluate his own circumstances and make the decision.

We all did. He just ran a lousy campaign and had a poor record.

Bingo, exactly right. She brings nothing to the ticket except negatives. If he doesn't pick Sam Nunn he's a moron. But we knew that already.

So Obama has clinched the nomination. In some ways I'm glad because Hillary would have been much worse for gun owners. The woman is vindictive if nothing else. Obama is just hapless. Change you can believe in? Here's a cartoon illustrating the change Obama will give us:

Next time notice there is a little raised reeded part on the front of the top where it closes. Try pressing it in and then opening it.

Distance is your friend in a gun fight. First rule of a gunfight: bring a gun. Sounds like you did fine. That sure sounded like a bad situation about to happen to me.

I assume you mean the LE. Nah, that never happens. The friend should have allowed him to search his vehicle anyway. It would make the officer's job easier after all.

Ill concede that anyone reading this with a modicum of sense will see that Abominable's alleged argument has less hope of success than Hillary's presidential campaign. He seems to think that instinct is a substitute for jurisprudence. His proofs consist of spewing garbage. We've probably beaten this as far as it can be beaten. I wouldn't mind seeing it closed.

From your avatar your three dates are over.

That would be a change in character. Besides, the NRA gave us the GCA of 1968, right? They've got to be evil.

Really? But what if I'm quicker 'n' you?

I dont know what for. You are not getting a P6, Mikey. You hate the SIGs. they've never worked for you. I will bring my P7 for you to borrow however.

If you think you're gonna get lucky with me, think again, mister.

Vain hopes, I'm afraid. Just read the threads here. Fortunately an inability to reason is no bar to higher attainment in this country. You'll do just fine. So I am still waiting for someone to offer proof that human rights actually exist independent of society's constructs of them.

You could probably get it cheaper in Memphis. I have 3 more arriving tomorrow.

You keep shifting your argument. So now there is a right to self defense because life is inherently good. But not all life is inherently good. Some actions negate the goodness of life. Where you get all this is beyond me. You sure haven't defended even the first principle. You say life is inherently good because there is a instinct for self preservation. By that token stealing when I need something is good too because it is part of self preservation. Animals do so all the time. So you still have not gotten out of the dilemma that if life is inherently good then you have no right to self defense. If you have a right of self defense then your life takes precedence over someone else's. But you don't explain how you know this to be the case. Does your property take precedence over someone else's life? In TX it does. I personally don't have a problem with that. But on your view that would be unjustifiable. No. If your arguments approached the quality of newbie's we would be having a more productive discussion.

I truly think you have no command of English.Your stated principle is "life is inherently good." Your proof is that animals have a self-preservation instinct. You haven't vindicated it for the simple reason no one has attacked it. Further if life is inherently good then you in fact have NO right of self defense. The BG's life is inherently good, just as yours is. Therefore you are not justified in taking his, unless you know for certain that he will take yours. And you don't. You cannot know what is in his mind or how the situation will turn out. Do you want to argue that some life is inherently good and other life isnt? Let's see you make that argument. Congratulations: you have proven the opposite of what you set out to prove. Since you believe you do not have a right of self defense then please send your guns to me. Wouldn't want you to infringe on some BG's rights.

Toss up between Christians and Chinese.

I'm sorry BKelm. If Obama pulls a martian out of his ass I'm going to vote for him. But not before.