Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin

[Ultimatewingchun]

As usual, ibad, you're both disengenuous and clueless - just like the Karl Rove lie-through-your-teeth-to-get-what-you-want spin machine that you obviously try to emulate on any and all political theads you participate in.

Washington, Jefferson, and the like would have vomited all over the the headcase on youtube with the assault rifle he loves more than life itself...his "baby".

[1bad65]

As usual, ibad, you're both disengenuous and clueless - just like the Karl Rove lie-through-your-teeth-to-get-what-you-want spin machine that you obviously try to emulate on any and all political theads you participate in.

Name just one thing I have said that is untrue. One.

Washington, Jefferson, and the like would have vomited all over the the headcase on youtube with the assault rifle he loves more than life itself...his "baby".

I'm not so sure. But I'm fairly certain they would have tarred-and-feathered people like Nancy Pelosi, Obama, Joe Biden, and Bill Clinton.

The Founding Fathers were outraged at the high taxes the government levied on people. Back then the average taxes a family paid was around 2%. Now its around 50%.

[rogue]

The terrorist camps were inside of the no-fly zone. If we knew they were training there, we could have bombed them at will with no threat to our airplanes.

Bomb are less effective for that kind of thing then you would think. You really want a head count, see who you got and pick up intel. Can't to that with a B-1.

So does Saudi Arabia. Why no war there?

Oil, they don't project military power (we help them with that) and they are smart enough not to threaten those who help guarantee their existence.

GW has made the region MORE unstable. As bad as Hussein was, he was hated by the Islamic Fundamentalists as much as we are. He kept them in check - how many suicide bombings happened in Iraq while he was in power? Now it is a calling for all of these idiots to come blow themselves up for Allah or whatever. We should have finished the job in Afghanistan and probably Pakistan, and gotten the hell home. Our armed forces are not trained to be, and aren't meant to be policemen.

How did Bush make the area more unstable as the place has been a basket case for at least 5 or 6 decades? It also doesn't matter to anyone but an Iraqi how many suicide bombings happened on their soil, what matters is how many suicide bombings did he help happen elsewhere.

[quote]Assault Rifles and Home Defense:

Let's look at the qualities of the AR and compare it to the needs of home defense counterbalanced to risk to bystanders:

1) Penetration of shots: Assault rifles propel projectiles forcefully. The bullets are shaped to penetrate. That means they don't lodge and bounce around inside a body or bounce off of a wooden beam in the frame of your house. They punch through.[quote]

That depends on the cartridge...
The 5.56x45mm NATO cartridge with the standard military ball bullet (NATO: SS109; U.S.: M855) will penetrate approximately 15 to 20 inches (38 to 50 cm) into soft tissue in ideal circumstances. As with all spitzer shaped projectiles it is prone to yaw in soft tissue. However, at impact velocities above roughly 2,700 ft/s (820 m/s), it may yaw and then fragment at the cannelure (the groove around the cylinder of the bullet). These fragments can disperse through flesh and bone, inflicting additional internal injuries.[1] Fragmentation, if and when it occurs, seems to impart much greater damage to tissue than bullet dimensions and velocities would suggest. This fragmentation effect is highly dependent on velocity, and therefore barrel length: short-barreled rifles generate less muzzle velocity and therefore rounds lose effectiveness at much shorter ranges than longer-barreled rifles.

There has been much criticism of the poor performance of the round, especially the first-round kill rate when using firearms that don't achieve the velocity to cause fragmentation. This typically becomes an issue at longer ranges (over 100 m) or when penetrating heavy clothing, but this problem is compounded in shorter-barreled weapons. The 14.5-inch (37 cm) barrel of the U.S. military's M4 Carbine can be particularly prone to this problem. At short ranges, the round is reported to be mostly effective, and its tendency to fragment reduces the risk of "overpenetration" when used at close range. However, if the round is moving too slowly to reliably fragment on impact, the wound size and potential to incapacitate a person is greatly reduced. Several alternate cartridges have been developed in an attempt to address the perceived shortcomings of 5.56 mm ammunition including the 6.5 Grendel and the 6.8 SPC.

Recently, advances have been made in 5.56 mm ammunition. The US military has adopted for limited issue a 77-grain (5.0 g) "Match" bullet, type classified as the Mk 262. The heavy, lightly constructed bullet fragments more violently at short range and also has a longer fragmentation range.[citation needed] Originally designed for use in the Mk 12 SPR, the ammunition has found favor with special forces[citation needed] units who were seeking a more effective round to fire from their M4A1 carbines.

2) Range of fire: Assault rifles tend to be very long range weapons, especially compared to handguns and shotguns. They can effectively hit people from much ****her away than the opposite side of the living room... in fact that is what they were designed for.

ARs are not very long range weapons but more for short to medium range. Barrel length is usually a clue to what a weapons range is.

3) Rate of fire: What differentiates bolt-action rifles from assault rifles is that an assault rifle can potentially fire much quicker than bolt action weapons.

Well duh. A double action revolver can fire much faster than a bolt action weapon. What differentiates a bolt action from an assault weapon is that one is manual and the other isn't.

[Oso]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/...eat/index.html

just saying...that I said something a couple days ago

[1bad65]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/...eat/index.html

just saying...that I said something a couple days ago

Some have said that Obama picking Biden is a form of life insurance. See, if Obama wins and is assassinated, that idot becomes President.

[1bad65]

Bomb are less effective for that kind of thing then you would think. You really want a head count, see who you got and pick up intel. Can't to that with a B-1.

Correct. Bill Clinton tried the 'just lob a few Tomahawk missiles their way' strategy. And we all saw what a deterrent to terrorism that was.

[CLFLPstudent]

Bomb are less effective for that kind of thing then you would think. You really want a head count, see who you got and pick up intel. Can't to that with a B-1.

So the 1000's of sorties we flew over Iraq/Kuwait in Gulf War I had little effect? Better we risk the lives of our servicemen/women for this crap? How much less cost in lives and dollars would this action have cost us if we stuck to bombings and cruise missile strikes?

Oil, they don't project military power (we help them with that) and they are smart enough not to threaten those who help guarantee their existence.

Are you saying Iraq's military power had the strength to hit us on US soil? Are you agreeing that Saudi Arabia is not as innocent as most would like to believe?

How did Bush make the area more unstable as the place has been a basket case for at least 5 or 6 decades? It also doesn't matter to anyone but an Iraqi how many suicide bombings happened on their soil, what matters is how many suicide bombings did he help happen elsewhere.

By removing a leader who was as AS HATED BY THE FUNDAMENTALIST AS WE ARE. Yeah he was an asshat but he didn't trust the fundamentalists either and kept them in check. Now you have jihadist asshats running all over the country blowing themselves up to kill americans - many of these asshats are Saudi as was stated above. By giving the poor, uneducated and misguided people who are brainwashed into believing there will be 1000 virgins waiting for them when they ignite their bomb belts ( who are taught this in, among other places, Saudi Arabia) a place to kill americans, GW made the area more unstable than it was before.

[Black Jack II]

The guy was a f u c k i n g sicko who needed to be called out - and Joe Biden had the guts to do it.

The guy was not a sicko you total lunatic. He was showcasing his natural Freedom granted to us by our very sacred 2nd. Binden was tested and failed. Their is a reason he has the lowest score from the NRA.

Washington, Jefferson, and the like would have vomited all over the the headcase on youtube with the assault rifle he loves more than life itself...his "baby".

It was not an assault rifle. Get educated you head case. Washington and Jefferson would of totally understood the concept he was imparting.

Penetration of shots: Assault rifles propel projectiles forcefully. The bullets are shaped to penetrate. That means they don't lodge and bounce around inside a body or bounce off of a wooden beam in the frame of your house. They punch through.

Dead Wrong. Where the hell did you learn terminal ballistics??

BTW- All rifles fire projectiles forcefully

The 5.56 nato round actually is made to bounce around and lodge inside the targets body to create a more deadly wound channel. It is the main reason the soviets made some transformations on the AK-47's much larger grain 7.62 to the AK-74's 5.45 after seeing what the M-16 was capable of doing in Nam.

Listen, it is all about the bullet, different rounds are constructed to behave in different ways, depending on the intended target. What are you talking about, copper jacketed steel core's, frangible rounds, long range rounds with very low drag...........get a context.

It's all about the rounds and muzzle energy. Compare it to the engine under the hood of the car.

Their is so much science involved in shooting you need a math degree. If you don't know what you are talking about take a seat.

Range of fire: Assault rifles tend to be very long range weapons, especially compared to handguns and shotguns. They can effectively hit people from much ****her away than the opposite side of the living room... in fact that is what they were designed for.

What you are not getting and I doubt you ever will is that they tie the scare tactic buzzword of Assault Rifle, of which I own more than one btw under the now defunct 1994 ban, and really class it in with any rifle.

What you just said above, besides being a uneducated sounding statement, goes for any high powered hunting rifle or carbine for that matter.

Do you even know their is a difference between a Battle Rifle and a Assault Rifle?

Rate of fire: What differentiates bolt-action rifles from assault rifles is that an assault rifle can potentially fire much quicker than bolt action weapons.

A assault rifle is selective fire. None of the weapons under the now defunct Assault weapons band were selective fire. They were not automatic weapons. It was a bullcrap law made to scare sheeple.

Go with a hand gun or, better yet, a bladed or thrusting melee weapon (or even better a baseball bat). After all self defense is based on the precept of minimum necessary force. In a worst case scenario, a home invasion by a group of violent armed assailants, you are probably screwed just as much with an assault rifle as with any "lesser" weapon. You just might take another one or two people down with you. So really it's not significantly enhancing your safety to have military grade weapons.

This has to be one of the most uneducated statements I have seen on this board in a LONG time. Please tell me you don't teach self defense.

These people may not even be around if not for there use of firearms.

http://www.khou.com/news/local/stori....28b59d49.html

http://www.sunherald.com/pageone/story/711027.html

http://www.ocala.com/article/2008072...35810/0/News01

LMAO at suggesting a knife or bat is better...**** I need to get drunk now.

[1bad65]

So the 1000's of sorties we flew over Iraq/Kuwait in Gulf War I had little effect? Better we risk the lives of our servicemen/women for this crap? How much less cost in lives and dollars would this action have cost us if we stuck to bombings and cruise missile strikes?

The Gulf War was a conventional war. What we have now in Iraq is a guerilla/insurgent war. They are completely different, and thus require different tactics.

[CLFLPstudent]

The Gulf War was a conventional war. What we have now in Iraq is a guerilla/insurgent war. They are completely different, and thus require different tactics.

No, we are talking about terrorist camps in the north of Iraq. We knew about them. They were in the Iraq no-fly zone. We controlled the airspace completely. We could have bombed and fired cruise missiles at will, non-stop. Are you telling me that would not have had an effect?


-David

[bakxierboxer]

.... deluded conservatives who believe Obama is too far to the left......

Actually, there are some who'll swear that he's too far to the right.... but that was pretty obviously based on the video clip of his tossing a gutter-ball when he attempted to show that he's "just folks" at a local bowling alley......

[1bad65]

No, we are talking about terrorist camps in the north of Iraq. We knew about them. They were in the Iraq no-fly zone. We controlled the airspace completely. We could have bombed and fired cruise missiles at will, non-stop. Are you telling me that would not have had an effect?

Remember, we got a UN resolution to invade Iraq and remove Saddam. Are you saying Bush should have just bombed these supposed camps on his own valition?

[1bad65]

but that was pretty obviously based on the video clip of his tossing a gutter-ball when he attempted to show that he's "just folks" at a local bowling alley......

Was it anything like John Kerry trying to eat that Philly Cheesesteak and looking like a fool?

I love how these elitist liberals always go to county fairs, bowling alleys, and eat fast food just to try and connect with the 'common man'.

[NJM]

Remember, we got a UN resolution to invade Iraq and remove Saddam.

Dude, what the ****?

I just told you, McCain explained that.

There ARE no invasions in the 21st century. Stop making stuff up.

[bakxierboxer]

Was it anything like John Kerry trying to eat that Philly Cheesesteak and looking like a fool?

I don't recall that Kerry actually got around to trying to eat the dang thing.... I do remember that they quickly left the fast-food joint and went looking for "proper food" (preferably something French?)

I love how these elitist liberals always go to county fairs, bowling alleys, and eat fast food just to try and connect with the 'common man'.

Yeah... it usually ends up looking "wrong" one way or another.

In any case, the "event" is thoroughly documented on Google, although the actual "money shot" is nowhere to be seen....