Hillary Clinton's new math [Archive]

N2RJ

04-24-2008, 04:01 PM

I keep hearing about Hillary's "double digit win" in PA as revitalizing her campaign.

Let's take a look, shall we?

99% of precincts reporting

Hillary Clinton: 1,238,351 votes - 54.6%
Barack Obama: 1,030,805 votes - 45.4%

54.6% - 45.4% = 9.2% lead for Clinton.

Source: Pennsylvania Department of State (http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/)

So how exactly is that a double digit lead?

We could say we're rounding numbers, but I was taught that for 0.5 and above we round up, below that we round down.

So it looks like her "double digit lead" is only 9%!

Is this the new Hillary Clinton math?

WB2WIK

04-24-2008, 04:46 PM

Come on.

Hold up two fingers from either hand. Count 'em (two).

That's a "double digit" lead. Anything more than two.

KV1M

04-24-2008, 05:05 PM

Won't last.

KD6NIG

04-24-2008, 05:10 PM

Sounds like shes got more work to do on government math. Most people in government know that she actually won by about 20 percent :)

At least if you use the infamous "middle class tax" math :)

n5xm

04-24-2008, 08:48 PM

If you think it was bad when the Dems screamed about losing an election because of hanging chads, wait until Billary gets the nomination because of superdelegates. Frankly, I would not be surprised to see race riots resembling the '68 riots in Detroit and Watts. This is just one more way the party mechanism takes the vote out American hands. You ever wonder why they even bother with the popular vote in the first place?

N4VGB

04-24-2008, 08:56 PM

Congratulations. One of the most ridiculous threads that I've ever seen. 9% or 10%, who gives a !@#$. :rolleyes:

ac4r

04-24-2008, 10:23 PM

AE6IP

04-24-2008, 10:38 PM

Sharpton has already said there will be riots if Obama doesn't get the nomination. Would this surprise anyone ?

Anyone, regardless or race or religion, who takes Sharpton seriously, is a surprise.

n2ize

04-24-2008, 10:47 PM

Sharpton has already said there will be riots if Obama doesn't get the nomination. Would this surprise anyone ?

No more than if Rush Limbaugh were to say there would be riots if McCain doesn't get elected. On second thought, the brainwashed obediant neocon dittoheads probably would riot of Rush tells them to.

ac4r

04-24-2008, 10:52 PM

n2ize

04-24-2008, 10:59 PM

I guess you have to look at which culture has a history of rioting .

You tell me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_riots

KU0DM

04-24-2008, 10:59 PM

9.2

I see 2 digits, how about you?

:p:D;)

ac4r

04-24-2008, 11:02 PM

You tell me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_riots

I could care less about the rest of the world. Guess you were not around for the riots during the 60's.

n2ize

04-24-2008, 11:23 PM

I could care less about the rest of the world. Guess you were not around for the riots during the 60's.

You asked what culture has a history of rioting. To answer that question we need to examine all riots and the people who engaged in them. From what I see it appears that lots of cultures have rioted throughout history.

ac4r

04-24-2008, 11:56 PM

You asked what culture has a history of rioting. To answer that question we need to examine all riots and the people who engaged in them. From what I see it appears that lots of cultures have rioted throughout history.

That is true. In the past citizens had to stand by and watch their homes and vehicles destroyed because they could not legally use deadly force to protect their property. That is no longer the case in 15 states . It is a new day . Stock up on ammo.

N4VGB

04-25-2008, 12:06 AM

That is true. In the past citizens had to stand by and watch their homes and vehicles destroyed because they could not legally use deadly force to protect their property. That is no longer the case in 15 states . It is a new day . Stock up on ammo.

Well now, I'm not so sure on that statement. Protection of property alone is seldom viewed as justification for deadly force any longer, may be some states that do endorse it? I have to remember what my local law enforcement teaches citizens and that is to constantly chant like a mindless boob to every question ask after deadly force is used that "I was in fear for my life". :eek:

ac4r

04-25-2008, 12:16 AM

Well now, I'm not so sure on that statement. Protection of property alone is seldom viewed as justification for deadly force any longer, may be some states that do endorse it? I have to remember what my local law enforcement teaches citizens and that is to constantly chant like a mindless boob to every question ask after deadly force is used that "I was in fear for my life". :eek:

It worked for the ww2 vet in Augusta , GA. who shot and critically wounded a druggie who had broken into his out building as she came out wit a bottle of bleach. He had sat on the porch for 4 hours waiting on the people who had been steeling his property to return. The police wrote it up as covered under the stand your ground law, and no charges were filed.

N4VGB

04-25-2008, 12:24 AM

It worked for the ww2 vet in Augusta , GA. who shot and critically wounded a druggie who had broken into his out building as she came out wit a bottle of bleach. He had sat on the porch for 4 hours waiting on the people who had been steeling his property to return. The police wrote it up as covered under the stand your ground law, and no charges were filed.

I'm personally all for the legal use of deadly force to protect property only. But I don't get ask by my legislators much about the issue. I'll just remember the line taught to me for now. ;)

ac4r

04-25-2008, 12:25 AM

I'm personally all for the legal use of deadly force to protect property only. But I don't get ask by my legislators much about the issue. I'll just remember the line taught to me for now. ;)

RR, I dont think TN. has the stand your ground law yet.

n2ize

04-25-2008, 12:32 AM

That is true. In the past citizens had to stand by and watch their homes and vehicles destroyed because they could not legally use deadly force to protect their property. That is no longer the case in 15 states . It is a new day . Stock up on ammo.

Uh oh... The Angel of Death has spoken. I'll bet you are hoping and praying that their are riots close to home just so you can have that excuse to take a few people out.. I should have known that's where you were headed with this. It fits your usual mantra. Hey, maybe one day you'll get lucky and you'll have someone to shoot.

ka0gkt

04-25-2008, 12:33 AM

I would rather be judged by twelve good men than carried by six!

...then again, there have been those who would suggest that I would be carried by two, since the typicval garbage can only has two handles!:eek:

ac4r

04-25-2008, 12:44 AM

Uh oh... The Angel of Death has spoken. I'll bet you are hoping and praying that their are riots close to home just so you can have that excuse to take a few people out.. I should have known that's where you were headed with this. It fits your usual mantra. Hey, maybe one day you'll get lucky and you'll have someone to shoot.

So sorry to disapoint you , it only becomes my problem to deal with when they are on my property . The infared cameras and dvd recorder with alarm never sleep.

ad4mg

04-25-2008, 12:55 AM

So sorry to disapoint you , it only becomes my problem to deal with when they are on my property . The infared cameras and dvd recorder with alarm never sleep.

Do you have a motion detector under your bed?

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Monsters. They're everywhere.

I have two infrared motion detectors. One is 105 lbs, mixed, and the other is the shepherd, 85 lbs. I feel damn sorry for anyone who sets the 85 lb motion detector off.

The guns here are for personal protection only. I refuse to shoot somebody for simply stealing property. If they need it that damn bad, and can get away from the dogs, fine. It's senseless to shoot a human being for a frickin' piece of property.

NL7W

04-25-2008, 01:00 AM

N4VGB

04-25-2008, 01:15 AM

Uh oh... The Angel of Death has spoken. I'll bet you are hoping and praying that their are riots close to home just so you can have that excuse to take a few people out.. I should have known that's where you were headed with this. It fits your usual mantra. Hey, maybe one day you'll get lucky and you'll have someone to shoot.

For someone that is supposedly well educated, you are very capable of exuding stupidity in copious volume. :p

N4VGB

04-25-2008, 01:21 AM

The guns here are for personal protection only. I refuse to shoot somebody for simply stealing property. If they need it that damn bad, and can get away from the dogs, fine. It's senseless to shoot a human being for a frickin' piece of property.

Obviously someone who has never gone to get in their valuable vehicle and found it missing, then discovered that the professional practioner of grand theft auto that has stolen their vehicle already has 3 previous convictions for grand theft auto!? You know they only keep those convicted of "violent crimes" very long these days. :)

N4VGB

04-25-2008, 01:23 AM

More elRushbo fixation... ;):D:D

If the liberal left ever stops listening to Limbaugh, his career is over. :D

n2ize

04-25-2008, 01:33 AM

If the liberal left ever stops listening to Limbaugh, his career is over. :D

Actually I never listen to the dude. But I must admit, he does manage to get his face into the news an awful lot, if not for some gossip or for violation of the drug laws. Well, I got to go now, I have some other things to do but I'm sure you'll be around these parts if I decide to check in around 3:00am or so.

N4VGB

04-25-2008, 01:37 AM

Actually I never listen to the dude. But I must admit, he does manage to get his face into the news an awful lot, if not for some gossip or for violation of the drug laws. Well, I got to go now, I have some other things to do but I'm sure you'll be around these parts if I decide to check in around 3:00am or so.

That seems to be the modern "name of the game" in the entertainment business. Doesn't matter what your story is about, good or bad, as long as it keeps your name on the air, it's good for your numbers. :rolleyes:

ac4r

04-25-2008, 01:37 AM

Obviously someone who has never gone to get in their valuable vehicle and found it missing, then discovered that the professional practioner of grand theft auto that has stolen their vehicle already has 3 previous convictions for grand theft auto!? You know they only keep those convicted of "violent crimes" very long these days. :)
They continue to do crime until someone drops them.

If the law cannot deal with these thugs no one should be surprised when citizens take care of the problem

n2ize

04-25-2008, 01:43 AM

So sorry to disapoint you , it only becomes my problem to deal with when they are on my property . The infared cameras and dvd recorder with alarm never sleep.

No disappointment. I'm not the one who's overjoyed with the idea of taking someone out for a nonviolent larceny, you are.

N4VGB

04-25-2008, 01:51 AM

No disappointment. I'm not the one who's overjoyed with the idea of taking someone out for a nonviolent larceny, you are.

AH now I see. You're a believer in the largest and strongest ruling with impunity! I am the biggest and baddest dude around with Dan Wesson in hand, bow to me and offer up your cash and any belongings of yours that I might desire! :D:D:D

N5NPO

04-25-2008, 02:25 AM

No more than if Rush Limbaugh were to say there would be riots if McCain doesn't get elected. On second thought, the brainwashed obediant neocon dittoheads probably would riot of Rush tells them to.

What? You got to be kiddin' me... This man must be stopped. If he tells those mind numbed ditto-head skulls full of mush to riot, they will do it. When hillary is elected the fairness doctrine well be re-enacted via executive order if need be and we will be safe from his insane rants...
NEO-CONS are dangerous sick people and we should protected from them.

N2RJ

04-25-2008, 02:58 AM

Congratulations. One of the most ridiculous threads that I've ever seen. 9% or 10%, who gives a !@#$. :rolleyes:

Apparently you do! Because not only did you read it, but you posted in it.

N2RJ

04-25-2008, 03:00 AM

I guess you have to look at which culture has a history of rioting .

The Irish? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Institution)

ac4r

04-25-2008, 03:01 AM

N2RJ

04-25-2008, 03:02 AM

Obviously someone who has never gone to get in their valuable vehicle and found it missing, then discovered that the professional practioner of grand theft auto that has stolen their vehicle already has 3 previous convictions for grand theft auto!? You know they only keep those convicted of "violent crimes" very long these days. :)

Man, are you that dense?

How can you get into a vehicle that someone stole already? Are you going to do a mime act in the empty space?

Also, if they stole my car, they can have it. That's what insurance is for!

n0ov

04-25-2008, 03:04 AM

N4VGB

04-25-2008, 03:05 AM

Also, if they stole my car, they can have it. That's what insurance is for!

Another sucker that thinks he's covered fully by insurance!!! :D:D:D

ac4r

04-25-2008, 03:05 AM

No disappointment. I'm not the one who's overjoyed with the idea of taking someone out for a nonviolent larceny, you are.

Yes it is plain to see you are more concerned with why the thugs commit crime. Maybe they went astray, got in with the wrong crowd, or were simply hungry and needed a piece of bread. Lefty logic.

n2ize

04-25-2008, 04:54 AM

Yes it is plain to see you are more concerned with why the thugs commit crime. Maybe they went astray, got in with the wrong crowd, or were simply hungry and needed a piece of bread. Lefty logic.

No, I just don't have an obsession with the idea of taking the law into my own hands and blowing someone away for a nonviolent theft. If someone is entering my house and I sense they may be capable of doing me harm or if they are confronting me or a family member then I shoot. If someone is running off with a lawn chair from my yard I don't shoot.

Maybe they went astray, got in with the wrong crowd, or were simply hungry and needed a piece of bread. Lefty logic.

Yes, that's right. Thank you for the complement. I do have the ability to discern between different types of crime and that there are different reasons why people committ crimes. No, I don't condone crime just because someone might have gone astray or got mixed in with thre wrong crowd. However, I might forgive a starving person for stealing a slice of bread. However, I do recognize that not everyone is a criminal for life and that some people can change depending on circumstance. I also recognize that there are different levels of severity with regards to crimes. Shoplifting and nonviolent petty larceny is not as serious as armed robbery, rape, or murder. Apparently most lawmakers and judges agree with me, that is why we have differentl levels of punishment for different crimes. There is a reason why a judge doesn't send a person to the electric chair for merely smoking a joint. There is a reason why a judge doesn't sentence a person to death for shoplifting a loaf of bread. And there is a reason why a judge doesn't give a person a couple hours of community service for mass murder. You see as a society and over many centuries intelligent men came to realize that different crimes vary in severity and the degree of punishment is determined by the nature of the crime committed.

I find it amusing that I have to explain this to adults but apparently some people are incapable of understanding this. Of course it's often easier not to understand. After all, it's far easier not to think than to think. Isn't it ?

KP3FT

04-25-2008, 05:53 AM

Yes it is plain to see you are more concerned with why the thugs commit crime. Maybe they went astray, got in with the wrong crowd, or were simply hungry and needed a piece of bread. Lefty logic.

No, just balanced logic. I think he's concerned over people who appear to relish the opportunity to legally kill someone. I'm all for gun-rights, etc., but reading some of the threads makes me wonder why some people seem to get excited over plugging lead into other people. And yes, people do go astray, get in the wrong crowd, etc. I did myself, and I'm glad some trigger-happy maverick didn't put me in a grave before I came to my senses.

N4VGB

04-25-2008, 06:27 AM

No, just balanced logic. I think he's concerned over people who appear to relish the opportunity to legally kill someone. I'm all for gun-rights, etc., but reading some of the threads makes me wonder why some people seem to get excited over plugging lead into other people. And yes, people do go astray, get in the wrong crowd, etc. I did myself, and I'm glad some trigger-happy maverick didn't put me in a grave before I came to my senses.

Nobodies excited or relishes the idea of killing, just sick of being told I should play dead when some useless piece of crap decides I'm his next victim. Glad you've convinced yourself that the "wrong crowd" made you commit your sins, you can throw that Bible away now and feel sin free. :rolleyes:

The "wrong crowd" just makes you feel better about yourself, you chose the "wrong crowd" and committed all your sins yourself. Read more, quote less. :eek:

ac4r

04-25-2008, 10:56 AM

The "wrong crowd" just makes you feel better about yourself, you chose the "wrong crowd" and committed all your sins yourself. Read more, quote less. :eek:

Remember it's never their fault, society is to blame. LOL

ad4mg

04-25-2008, 11:12 AM

Thank God for stereotypes. Without them, you neoninnies would have nada.

ac4r

04-25-2008, 11:13 AM

If someone is entering my house and I sense they may be capable of doing me harm or if they are confronting me or a family member then I shoot.

I guess you would like to have a discussion with the person who enters your house to determine what drove him to do this. He may only want some money for drugs, or maybe want a bite to eat .

AE6IP

04-25-2008, 07:32 PM

AH now I see. You're a believer in the largest and strongest ruling with impunity! I am the biggest and baddest dude around with Dan Wesson in hand, bow to me and offer up your cash and any belongings of yours that I might desire!

Three times, so far, in this life, I've taken "Dan Wesson" away from people who thought that. Twice by talking them out of the gun, once by taking it away from them.

Do not confuse a preference for peaceful means with weakness, nor ownership of weapons with strength.

N4VGB

04-25-2008, 07:43 PM

W5GA

04-25-2008, 07:51 PM

Three times, so far, in this life, I've taken "Dan Wesson" away from people who thought that. Twice by talking them out of the gun, once by taking it away from them.

Do not confuse a preference for peaceful means with weakness, nor ownership of weapons with strength.

You are quite lucky to be here posting.

If some malcreant comes into my house, I'm going to assume he intends me ill will and react accordingly. If he was "in with the wrong crowd", his problem - not mine. I'll deal with the remorse I'll feel for him after the fact, when my family and I are safe.

K3UD

04-25-2008, 07:58 PM

Sounds like shes got more work to do on government math. Most people in government know that she actually won by about 20 percent :)

At least if you use the infamous "middle class tax" math :)

When Bill Clinton ran against George Bush and Ross Perot in 1992, his victory was heralded as nothing less than a "Landslide" by many in the media, especially USA Today who had the the word Landslide covering the top of the front page in about 100 point type.

How much of a landslide was it Bill? a margin of 5.6%.

When I think about landslides I think about Nixon In 72 with an 23.2% margin and Regan in 84 with an 18.2% margin.

Of course, the recent elections we have had were very close, and I guess if you think about it a 5.6% margin might be called a mini slide. :)

On the other hand, you can make numbers say anything.

73
George
K3UD

N2RJ

04-25-2008, 08:06 PM

Another sucker that thinks he's covered fully by insurance!!! :D:D:D

There's no such thing as complete coverage, but I am reasonably sure that I'll be covered in the event of a loss.

But a dummy like you who doesn't know th difference between LPG and natural gas will probably burn down his house and end up homeless.

n2ize

04-25-2008, 08:09 PM

I guess you would like to have a discussion with the person who enters your house to determine what drove him to do this. He may only want some money for drugs, or maybe want a bite to eat .

What is it about the English langauge and reading that you cannot seem to comprehend ?

I can recognize that there is a difference betweem someone running off with my lawn sprinkler versus an armed person smashing in my door ready to confront me. You seem to have a comprehension barrier. Do they teach English down there in Four land ? It doesn't seem so,

You seem to have a great deal of difficulty comprehending the idea that just because someone recognizes that there are different types of crime and that not everyone who breaks a law is a hardened psycopathic criminal does not mean that the same person does not defend themselves.

Because I understand that there is a difference between a person smoking a reefer versus a person committing rape or murder does not mean that I don't defend myself against a killer.

Just because I understand that a person who steals a slice of bread when they are starving doesn't automatically make them into a violent carreer criminal doesn't mean that I don;t shoot someone who is threatening my family.

Just because I am not enthusiastic about the idea of blowing away every nonviolent trespasser or perry nonviolent theif does not mean I don't defend myself against dangertous criminals. The lack of a lust for blood and the application of common sense does not mean I automatically give criminals a green light to do whatever.

Understanding that there is often a reason behind someones actions does not mean one automatically accepts the action. Not a hard concept to understand. Think about it some time .

K3UD

04-25-2008, 08:12 PM

No, I just don't have an obsession with the idea of taking the law into my own hands and blowing someone away for a nonviolent theft. If someone is entering my house and I sense they may be capable of doing me harm or if they are confronting me or a family member then I shoot. If someone is running off with a lawn chair from my yard I don't shoot.

I think something like that actually happened to a liberal columnist. I think his name was Carl Rowan and he was an avid proponent of outlawing handguns. He hated hand guns until one night when a few teenagers got into his yard and started to mess around with his pool and deck chairs. He felt threatened, pulled his illegal hand gun, and started firing. (this was in DC). He ended up writing a few columns attempting to justify his possessing and using a hand guns. I can understand why he might have felt threatened, especially in DC.

Disclaimer,
I do not own a gun of any kind and probably never will, but I also support your right to own a legal and probably licensed gun under your 2nd Amendment rights.

73
George
K3UD

ac4r

04-26-2008, 12:53 PM

ac4r

04-26-2008, 12:56 PM

What is it about the English langauge and reading that you cannot seem to comprehend ?

I can recognize that there is a difference betweem someone running off with my lawn sprinkler versus an armed person smashing in my door ready to confront me. You seem to have a comprehension barrier. Do they teach English down there in Four land ? It doesn't seem so,

You seem to have a great deal of difficulty comprehending the idea that just because someone recognizes that there are different types of crime and that not everyone who breaks a law is a hardened psycopathic criminal does not mean that the same person does not defend themselves.

Because I understand that there is a difference between a person smoking a reefer versus a person committing rape or murder does not mean that I don't defend myself against a killer.

Just because I understand that a person who steals a slice of bread when they are starving doesn't automatically make them into a violent carreer criminal doesn't mean that I don;t shoot someone who is threatening my family.

Just because I am not enthusiastic about the idea of blowing away every nonviolent trespasser or perry nonviolent theif does not mean I don't defend myself against dangertous criminals. The lack of a lust for blood and the application of common sense does not mean I automatically give criminals a green light to do whatever.

Understanding that there is often a reason behind someones actions does not mean one automatically accepts the action. Not a hard concept to understand. Think about it some time .

How about some more of your comedic lines about why people do crime. You must be into standup.

W8EJO

04-26-2008, 01:18 PM

Disclaimer,
I do not own a gun of any kind and probably never will, but I also support your right to own a legal and probably licensed gun under your 2nd Amendment rights.

73
George
K3UD

Nothing in the 2nd amendment speaks to "legal and probably licensed gun(s)"
[A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.]

The right to bear arms is a right that was deemed so important by the founding fathers that they insisted it be specified in the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments to our constitution).

Saying that you support a citizen's "right to own a legal and probably licensed gun" is equivalent to saying that you support an individuals right to own a legal & properly licensed printing press.

AE6IP

04-27-2008, 02:35 AM

Seems they did not know about the 20 foot rule.

Doesn't matter how well armed you are. The guy with the .50 and the clear shot is going to take from farther away than you're likely to be able to tell he's there.

20 foot, by the way, is not enough. I know cops who've been knifed by guys who started from more than 20 feet away when the cop had already drawn.

People who've never had a real need to use their handguns typically overestimate the strength of their position by enough to get themselves killed if they really do find themselves in such a position.

There's a reason why cops spend huge amounts of time on the range, huge amounts of time in the simulator, and still get hurt.

You have to prepare yourself for the reasonable possibilities in the environment you live in, and most people who own handguns for protection have both overestimated the risk they are at and the degree of protection the gun gives them.

ac4r

04-27-2008, 03:23 AM

Doesn't matter how well armed you are. The guy with the .50 and the clear shot is going to take from farther away than you're likely to be able to tell he's there.

20 foot, by the way, is not enough. I know cops who've been knifed by guys who started from more than 20 feet away when the cop had already drawn.

The cops probally wasted time trying to talk with the perp. Sounds like they are not receiving proper timed combat training. No hesitation, you draw and shoot instantly to the neturalize the threat . Hesitation will get you killed.

N4VGB

04-27-2008, 03:34 AM

The guy with the .50 and the clear shot is going to take from farther away than you're likely to be able to tell he's there.

Carlos Hathcock is dead and never operated in the U.S. anyway, little worry on the 50 caliber. I think there is a hardcore one mile plus deer hunters club in PA and some of them use 50's but haven't heard of a 50 caliber killer in the U.S. I'm fairly sure anybody you find with a 50 caliber hole in them has been taken by something like a 50AE, 500 Linbaugh, etc. handgun.

n2ize

04-27-2008, 04:04 AM

How about some more of your comedic lines about why people do crime. You must be into standup.

heck, I can't help it if you can't read.

n2ize

04-27-2008, 04:04 AM

Seems they did not know about the 20 foot rule.

That's right cowboy.

AE6IP

04-27-2008, 04:07 AM

n2ize

04-27-2008, 04:08 AM

The cops probally wasted time trying to talk with the perp. Sounds like they are not receiving proper timed combat training. No hesitation, you draw and shoot instantly to the neturalize the threat . Hesitation will get you killed.

I guess you probably feel that cops should shoot people who commit traffic violations. heck, it's a crime. The person who committs the violation is a law breaking perp. The cops don't know what that person might do when they ask for their drivers license. Better for the cops to pulll the violator over blow em away and sort it all out later.

AE6IP

04-27-2008, 04:14 AM

Carlos Hathcock is dead and never operated in the U.S. anyway, little worry on the 50 caliber. I think there is a hardcore one mile plus deer hunters club in PA and some of them use 50's but haven't heard of a 50 caliber killer in the U.S. I'm fairly sure anybody you find with a 50 caliber hole in them has been taken by something like a 50AE, 500 Linbaugh, etc. handgun.

Alas, your certainty has little to do with reality. I know a man who killed a man with a 50 caliber sniper rifle right here in the bay area.

I also have several friends who possess both the ability to use such a gun and bad cases of PTSD.

I don't recall which sniper rifles the FBI used at Ruby Ridge, but the 50 was only meant to be illustrative.

No matter how well armed you are, somebody less well armed will take you unless you train constantly, and there's always somebody better armed around someplace.

Most people who buy handguns for protection don't train and overestimate the edge the gun gives them. That's why so many of them end up, like my wife's ex, shooting themselves, or, more often, a family member, and not a bad guy.

N4VGB

04-27-2008, 04:33 AM

Hey I've heard this one before, gun owners only endanger their families and themselves! Didn't think anyone tried to use that one anymore. :p

AE6IP

04-27-2008, 04:58 AM

Hey I've heard this one before, gun owners only endanger their families and themselves! Didn't think anyone tried to use that one anymore.

Haven't seen anyone in this thread using it.

Let me correct your comment:

untrained gun owners, especially when they are overconfident, mostly endanger their families and themselves!

You're an example of why it's impossible to have a reasoned discussion on guns in this country. More people die in the US than should because of that attitude.

There are reasonable gun safety requirements that should be enacted and should be prerequisite for gun ownership because they would reduce the danger of gun ownership without jeopardizing civil rights.

But you can't get there from here, because the gun-nutters among gun-owners want the rights without the responsibilities they should entail.

N4VGB

04-27-2008, 05:31 AM

But you can't get there from here, because the gun-nutters among gun-owners want the rights without the responsibilities they should entail.

Never met any of those types? Must be something in your area? None of our local ranges entertain cowboys, easy to get tossed from the local club and ranges.

I've seen far more stupidity and pure cowboy crap at the local law enforcement range, not to mention the fact that half the cops around here shouldn't ever pull the trigger at greater than 20 feet, they just can't shoot!

Some of the poor marksmanship started when the wheelguns were removed and the 14 shot autos issued, some of it is from a lack of funding for ammo to practice as often as should be required.

We burn up a lot of $$$ even using of our own reloads. Practice, practice, practice.

AE6IP

04-27-2008, 07:01 AM

Never met any of those types?

You are one of those types, as you've amply demonstrated in this thread.

I've seen far more stupidity and pure cowboy crap at the local law enforcement range, not to mention the fact that half the cops around here shouldn't ever pull the trigger at greater than 20 feet, they just can't shoot!

I'll add that to the list of claims you've made and can't support, shall I?

Or will you surprise us and show some actual evidence that half of your police officers have failed firearms qualification?

K3UD

04-27-2008, 01:23 PM

Nothing in the 2nd amendment speaks to "legal and probably licensed gun(s)"
[A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.]

The right to bear arms is a right that was deemed so important by the founding fathers that they insisted it be specified in the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments to our constitution).

Saying that you support a citizen's "right to own a legal and probably licensed gun" is equivalent to saying that you support an individuals right to own a legal & properly licensed printing press.

We do not regulate or otherwise license printing presses in the US. On the other hand different states do have regulations as it concerns firearms. If I ever thought that I needed a firearm I would make sure that I complied with all of the regulations that the state of Kentucky require in order to buy one.

However, does anyone here remember when there was a movement to license journalists in the US? I think this started in the aftermath of Watergate and and is still discussed today. Nothing ever came of it because of the 1st Amendment guarantees the right to free speech.

Actually, it seems that the 1st Amendment is the one where the power to change or possibly destroy all the other amendments resides.

Right now many on this forum are using their 1st Amendment rights to radically change or possibly repeal the 2nd Amendment. Some also want to curtail some of the guarantees of the 1st Amendment to force things like the so called Fairness Doctrine to become law.

On the other hand there are some regulations associated with the 1st Amendment as regards to libel, slander, and things like yelling fire in a crowded theater where people can be hurt in the stampede or inciting to riot, just as there are regulations in place regarding firearms, depending on the state you are in.

73
George
K3UD

N4VGB

04-27-2008, 09:53 PM

Or will you surprise us and show some actual evidence that half of your police officers have failed firearms qualification?

I'd feel a lot better if they had to qualify on a combat course. Popping a few holes in the right area of a human silhouette at short distance isn't very difficult ya know.

Or is it a shock to you that few areas of the U.S. have the fancy & very expensive combat courses that are seen on TV?

AE6IP

04-27-2008, 11:21 PM

I'd feel a lot better if they had to qualify on a combat course.

I wouldn't. Policing isn't combat.

Or is it a shock to you that few areas of the U.S. have the fancy & very expensive combat courses that are seen on TV?

Nope. Nor is it a shock to me that you'd make the claim that half your police force can't qualify on the range, but be completely unable to back that claim up.

Also, FATS systems aren't particularly expensive; which is why POST in CA requires FATS training for all police officers in the state. They're also not combat simulators.

You'd benefit from some time with FATS.

N4VGB

04-27-2008, 11:29 PM

I wouldn't. Policing isn't combat.

If it isn't combat then no SWAT teams would be needed. Unfortunately it's becoming more & more like combat every day now. Sad but true situation. Several of my friends and acquaintances retired from law enforcement without ever having to even draw their weapon, few can say the same today.

n2ize

04-27-2008, 11:32 PM

Right now many on this forum are using their 1st Amendment rights to radically change or possibly repeal the 2nd Amendment. Some also want to curtail some of the guarantees of the 1st Amendment to force things like the so called Fairness Doctrine to become law.

The idea of the fairness doctrine was to require media outlets to present various important and controversial issues in a manner that'sfair, honest and balanced. It can be argued to be a violation of free speech in that one should be allowed to present issues in an unfair, dishonset and unbalanced manner. Perhaps under past circumstances it didn't matter much. However, with deregulation which resulted in so much of Americas media being bought up and owned by a select few corporate moguls who predomiantly all share in the same overall agenda you're prettymuch going to get the issues presented to you in the manner that they want them presented. Thus if they decide to present an issue in a biased, unfair, unbalanced and dishonest way that is prettymuch what your gonna get across the board these days and that is whats gonna sway the majority of public opinion. Might be valid reason to reincarnate the fairness doctrine.

ac4r

04-27-2008, 11:37 PM

Popping a few holes in the right area of a human silhouette at short distance isn't very difficult ya know.

You are so right. Most can hit a silhouette target at the range. That hardley prepares them for tactical shooting.

AE6IP

04-28-2008, 12:22 AM

If it isn't combat then no SWAT teams would be needed.

Even SWAT isn't combat. The vast majority of situations in which SWAT teams are used would be disasters for the police if they treated them like combat.

N4VGB

04-28-2008, 12:42 AM

Even SWAT isn't combat. The vast majority of situations in which SWAT teams are used would be disasters for the police if they treated them like combat.

There have only been a few instances where the local "negotiator" was successful. Usually when the local SWAT teams are called in it's about to get very deadly.

The most recent event that comes to mind was a local convenience store robbery gone awry. The armed robber was trapped in the store and holding a female clerk as hostage. After a few hours of negotiations failing, the order for the markmen to "take the shot at will" was given. Within minutes this fellow placed himself in a good position for one of the shooters to take him out with one shot through a plate glass window. End of negotiations.

Snipers are snipers, regardless of uniforms worn. SWAT is very effective at ending bad situations and I'm glad they're around. There's very little difference between SWAT training and the training used in the military for urban warfare.

KU0DM

04-28-2008, 12:44 AM

If it isn't combat then no SWAT teams would be needed. Unfortunately it's becoming more & more like combat every day now. Sad but true situation. Several of my friends and acquaintances retired from law enforcement without ever having to even draw their weapon, few can say the same today.

SWAT teams are different from police.

Law enforcement...but not police.

N4VGB

04-28-2008, 12:56 AM

SWAT teams are different from police.

Law enforcement...but not police.

One viewing of the History Channel show called "Gangland" is all that's needed to see how far things are getting out of hand in the U.S. and makes one wonder how human beings can possibly degrade to that level. It amazes me that the law enforcement officers of America can take this nonsense daily.

AE6IP

04-28-2008, 01:13 AM

There have only been a few instances where the local "negotiator" was successful. Usually when the local SWAT teams are called in it's about to get very deadly.

farther and farther we get from the point.

You live in a very unusual locality. SWAT teams across the country have a high rate of success without casualty.

After a few hours of negotiations failing, the order for the markmen to "take the shot at will" was given.

You also watch too much TV. That's not how a SWAT sniper usually works. "Take the shot" is Hollywood B.S.

Snipers are snipers, regardless of uniforms worn. SWAT is very effective at ending bad situations and I'm glad they're around. There's very little difference between SWAT training and the training used in the military for urban warfare.

I'll put that down on the list of things you've not got any experience with, shall I? SWAT training is very different than urban warfare training. Different mission, different weapons, different expected outcome.

AE6IP

04-28-2008, 01:27 AM

One viewing of the History Channel show called "Gangland" is all that's needed to see how far things are getting out of hand in the U.S. and makes one wonder how human beings can possibly degrade to that level. It amazes me that the law enforcement officers of America can take this nonsense daily.

Well, first off, of course, "Gangland"is over sensationalized.

Secondly, "welcome to prohibition". (Which should give you a clue how to fix the majority of the gang problem.)

Thirdly, most law enforcement officers never see gang activity. Most that do never see it that intensely. The ones who see it that intensely tend to burn out.

Now you know.

N4VGB

04-28-2008, 01:31 AM

farther and farther we get from the point.

Well Marty, with you, it's almost impossible to keep track of what point you're aiming at OM. Apparently you suffer with the common dillusion that what you know is the way it is for the whole of America. Never having been dillusional and only knowing what I know from my own personal first hand experience is a great disadvantage for me.

Please direct me to the "knowledge osmosis stone" where you intellectual types touch and all knowledge of all things in all locations instantly flows into your being, must be a thrilling experience. Please don't say college, I can't take that much laughter tonight!!! :p:p:p

ac4r

04-28-2008, 01:41 AM

Well Marty, with you, it's almost impossible to keep track of what point you're aiming at OM. Apparently you suffer with the common dillusion that what you know is the way it is for the whole of America. Never having been dillusional and only knowing what I know from my own personal first hand experience is a great disadvantage for me.

Please direct me to the "knowledge osmosis stone" where you intellectual types touch and all knowledge of all things in all locations instantly flows into your being, must be a thrilling experience. Please don't say college, I can't take that much laughter tonight!!! :p:p:p

You know the liberals have all of the answers.

AE6IP

04-28-2008, 02:33 AM

Well Marty, with you, it's almost impossible to keep track of what point you're aiming at OM.

That gun-control nutters prevent us from having a reasoned discussion on gun control.

Apparently you suffer with the common dillusion that what you know is the way it is for the whole of America.

That's it, when you can't address the point, attack the presenter.

I'm not the one who is claiming that Gangland is representative of the streets of America, or basing their opinion on how SWAT teams operate on bad Hollywood. But thanks for the irony.

Never having been dillusional and only knowing what I know from my own personal first hand experience is a great disadvantage for me.

You won't understand this comment, but yes, indeed, if all you know is what you've learned first hand, you are, indeed, at a great disadvantage in this world.

Please direct me to the "knowledge osmosis stone" where you intellectual types touch and all knowledge of all things in all locations instantly flows into your being, must be a thrilling experience. Please don't say college, I can't take that much laughter tonight!!!

Don't have one of those. Don't have all knowledge of all things. Do have a great deal of personal experience. Do spend a lot of time talking with people from a wide range of walks of life to learn how it is for them. Do read a lot, critically.

My life is very unlike that of most Americans. But that doesn't mean I haven't spent time learning what I can about how the rest of the country differs.

AE6IP

04-28-2008, 02:36 AM

You know the liberals have all of the answers.

Oh, no. We don't have all the answers. Only the important ones. :p

N4VGB

04-28-2008, 03:06 AM

That gun-control nutters prevent us from having a reasoned discussion on gun control.

That's right Marty, only you, Sarah Brady and Handgun Control, Inc. know what's best for Americans. :p

There's some nutters at work in this all right! :rolleyes:

Please enlighten me to a more thoroughly investigated, licensed and watched group in America than firearms owners in general and especially those who possess carry permits and/or collect fully automatic weapons? :)

W4INF

04-28-2008, 03:13 AM

Duck, sniper fire! No, maybe not... but I do *recall* it that way.

Oh no, they dug up the dang video!

:eek:

AE6IP

04-28-2008, 03:17 AM

That's right Marty, only you, Sarah Brady and Handgun Control, Inc. know what's best for Americans.

Your tendency to dramatically distort what someone said is, once again, demonstrating why it's not possible to have a reasoned discussion on the topic.

Please enlighten me to a more thoroughly investigated, licensed and watched group in America than firearms owners in general and especially those who possess carry permits and/or collect fully automatic weapons?

Spooks, DoD employees, DoE employees, anyone with clearance from either the DoD or the DoE, police, firemen, paramedics, teachers, soldiers, er, I'll stop there. It's hard to imagine groups less watched than "firearms owners in general".

But then, it's not the amount of watching that matters, it's the form it takes, and the one form of watching that all firearms owners should be subjected to, but aren't, is a periodic proficiency review, failure of which prevents them from purchasing more, and requires them to put what they have in escrow until they pass again. I'd suggest quarterly, with much more stringent requirements for people with concealed carry permits.

That's not an abridgment of a right, it's merely a determiner of qualification for exercising the right.

N4VGB

04-28-2008, 03:44 AM

Your tendency to dramatically distort what someone said is, once again, demonstrating why it's not possible to have a reasoned discussion on the topic.

Spooks, DoD employees, DoE employees, anyone with clearance from either the DoD or the DoE, police, firemen, paramedics, teachers, soldiers, er, I'll stop there. It's hard to imagine groups less watched than "firearms owners in general".

But then, it's not the amount of watching that matters, it's the form it takes, and the one form of watching that all firearms owners should be subjected to, but aren't, is a periodic proficiency review, failure of which prevents them from purchasing more, and requires them to put what they have in escrow until they pass again. I'd suggest quarterly, with much more stringent requirements for people with concealed carry permits.

That's not an abridgment of a right, it's merely a determiner of qualification for exercising the right.

And I would propose a more thorough drivers license exam and constant review of driving skills would save more lives in America than any other move the gov. could possibly make. Don't hold your breath on that one either.

Relax Marty, your safe in gun control California. Oops forgot, it isn't working out well for you out there, now is it.

Tell ya what Marty, just send those California gangstas to Tennessee, end of problem shortly.

AE6IP

04-28-2008, 03:48 AM

Relax Marty, your safe in gun control California. Oops forgot, it isn't working out well for you out there, now is it.

Somethings are working, some aren't. Nobody's trying the ones that matter.

Tell ya what Marty, just send those California gangstas to Tennessee, end of problem shortly.

I doubt that Tennessee full of ganstas and dead rednecks would qualify in anyone's book as a solved problem.

But then, overconfident gun owners overestimating their skills because they've got a gun is where we started this round.

AE6IP

04-28-2008, 03:50 AM

And I would propose a more thorough drivers license exam and constant review of driving skills would save more lives in America than any other move the gov. could possibly make

Don't know as I'd go that far in asserting its effectiveness, but yes indeed, this country could stand significant improvement in driver's licenses.

But, as you say, on both issues, there ain't a chance, because the relevant nutters prevent the reasoned discussion from ever happening.

AE6IP

04-28-2008, 03:54 AM

Relax Marty, your safe in gun control California. Oops forgot, it isn't working out well for you out there, now is it.

I'm safer here than I was in Montana, where I had pistols pulled on me three times, got shot at by "hunters" twice, and had three different friends killed in stupid fights because a gun was too handy.

Been in the Bay area with its 7 plus million people for almost as long as I lived in MT, and nobody's pulled a gun on me, nobody's shot anybody I know, and nobody's shot at me thinking I was a deer.

N4VGB

04-28-2008, 04:03 AM

I guess you underestimate how well local gun owners and local law enforcement work together here. We don't even have large areas controlled by commomn street thugs here, wonder why your CA types can't say the same.

I'm really fed up with you arrogant types throwing that redneck thing around without even knowing the basis of the word. We're actually quite proud of it here in the South. But since you've never had the balls to take part in an armed revolt against repression and near slavery, just keep throwing that redneck thing around with no idea of what the word even means. You are a real intellectual alright. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

AE6IP

04-28-2008, 04:30 AM

I guess you underestimate how well local gun owners and local law enforcement work together here.

Now you're contradicting yourself. While back you were complaining that half your local cops couldn't even qualify on the range. It's fun to watch you switch your claims about your experience to suit whatever argument you're making at a time.

We don't even have large areas controlled by commomn street thugs here, wonder why your CA types can't say the same.

We can. We don't have "large areas controlled by" common street thugs. We have pockets of problem areas. Unfortunately, when you have 7 million people in an area this small, it's easy for TV to make those pockets look like "large areas."

I'm really fed up with you arrogant types throwing that redneck thing around without even knowing the basis of the word. We're actually quite proud of it here in the South. But since you've never had the balls to take part in an armed revolt against repression and near slavery, just keep throwing that redneck thing around with no idea of what the word even means. You are a real intellectual alright.

So it's OK for you to use gangsta, which I doubt you understand, but it's not OK for me to use 'redneck', which I understand in several of its meanings, in a rejoinder? Talk about politically correct double standards.

Do tell us about your personal experience taking part in an armed revolt against repression and near slavery. I'm sure it's going to be a most fascinating story.

N4VGB

04-28-2008, 04:53 AM

Now you're contradicting yourself. While back you were complaining that half your local cops couldn't even qualify on the range. It's fun to watch you switch your claims about your experience to suit whatever argument you're making at a time.

We can. We don't have "large areas controlled by" common street thugs. We have pockets of problem areas. Unfortunately, when you have 7 million people in an area this small, it's easy for TV to make those pockets look like "large areas."

So it's OK for you to use gangsta, which I doubt you understand, but it's not OK for me to use 'redneck', which I understand in several of its meanings, in a rejoinder? Talk about politically correct double standards.

Do tell us about your personal experience taking part in an armed revolt against repression and near slavery. I'm sure it's going to be a most fascinating story.

I fail to see how personal proficiency with firearms contradicts cooperative efforts between local law enforcement and local gun owners, strange assertion on your part? I made no switch at all? :rolleyes:

Contrary to what you might find on the net on the subject, the most likely origin of the word redneck is from a group of coal miners that revolted against the mine owners and their corrupt politicians. During the course of the armed conflict between the miners and the Pinkertons representing the coal mine owners, the miners started wearing red bandanas around their necks to identify themselves during the shooting wars. Hence rednecks. :)

It could be worse, I could be in the cereal state, what isn't fruits and flakes is just plain nuts! :p

I really hate to say such things but when debating those that run out of ammo and resort to mudslinging, a little tit for tat is OK.

AE6IP

04-28-2008, 05:22 AM

I fail to see how personal proficiency with firearms contradicts cooperative efforts between local law enforcement and local gun owners, strange assertion on your part? I made no switch at all?

You claim the cops are clowns in one post and that you cooperate well with them in another.

Contrary to what you might find on the net on the subject, the most likely origin of the word redneck is from a group of coal miners that revolted against the mine owners and their corrupt politicians. During the course of the armed conflict between the miners and the Pinkertons representing the coal mine owners, the miners started wearing red bandanas around their necks to identify themselves during the shooting wars. Hence rednecks. :)

That's the one I'm most familiar with, yes. When you grow up in hard rock mining country and your granduncle was almost hanged as a union agitator, you learn a bit about Mary Harris and the IWW.

It's not something you'd know anything about personally, of course.

I really hate to say such things but when debating those that run out of ammo and resort to mudslinging, a little tit for tat is OK.

Which is why I threw a 'redneck' at your 'gangsta'. Cracks me up that you tried the moral high ground after throwing the first epitaph.

Still waiting for your thrilling story of having personally risen up and overthrown the chains of near slavery, by the way.

N4VGB

04-28-2008, 05:36 AM

Which is why I threw a 'redneck' at your 'gangsta'. Cracks me up that you tried the moral high ground after throwing the first epitaph.

Still waiting for your thrilling story of having personally risen up and overthrown the chains of near slavery, by the way.

Gangsta is nothing more than the modern illiterate punks version of gangster and I didn't call you one. :)

I must have done so Marty, you called me a redneck? You are such a confusing fellow. :p

N4VGB

04-28-2008, 05:45 AM

I'm safer here than I was in Montana, where I had pistols pulled on me three times, got shot at by "hunters" twice, and had three different friends killed in stupid fights because a gun was too handy.

Been in the Bay area with its 7 plus million people for almost as long as I lived in MT, and nobody's pulled a gun on me, nobody's shot anybody I know, and nobody's shot at me thinking I was a deer.

Wow Marty, you really consorted with some stupid people in Montana!? I'm surprised such an intellectual as yourself consorted with such types!? I've not had 3 friends killed in my whole life in stupid gunfights!? How could that be? :)

http://www.mapreport.com/na/west/ba/news/subtopics/c/s.html#2007 must be a propaganda website because it looks like the hot lead is flying in the Bay Area. But then again since you don't know any of them, they don't count. :p

Perhaps elitist intellectuals should be banned from owning firearms? :cool:

AE6IP

04-28-2008, 02:19 PM

Gangsta is nothing more than the modern illiterate punks version of gangster and I didn't call you one. :)

I must have done so Marty, you called me a redneck? You are such a confusing fellow. :p

I didn't call you a redneck. You need to read more carefully.

AE6IP

04-28-2008, 02:35 PM

http://www.mapreport.com/na/west/ba/news/subtopics/c/s.html#2007 must be a propaganda website because it looks like the hot lead is flying in the Bay Area.

You're not very good at statistics, are you?

Let me see if I can help you out: In 2006, TN had a population of about 6 million and a total of 409 murders, according to this site (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/tncrime.htm) On the other hand, the bay area, with a much larger population, had fewer murders, roughly 300. according to the Rand database (http://ca.rand.org/stats/community/crimes.html), which is, unfortunately, a subscription service.

So, with more people, we have fewer murder, and, as this article (http://bayfeed.wordpress.com/2006/08/07/oakland-leads-bay-area-murder-as-rates-rise/) from 2006 points out, we've had a dramatic increase recently.

So yes, the 'hot lead' is flying in the bay area, and it's a disappointing trend, but compared to places like TN, we're still not particularly murderous.

N4VGB

04-28-2008, 02:45 PM

Must be frustrating for you, not being able to rule the nation with your own views. :p

On the other hand, I suffer no frustration at all and wish to rule none! :D:D

AE6IP

04-28-2008, 03:20 PM

Must be frustrating for you, not being able to rule the nation with your own views.

Not a big fan of ruling. On the other hand, the pleasure I get from seeing you brought up short by reality more than makes up for any frustration I have from dealing with your fantasies. You keep basing your view of the world on the History Channel. I'll keep living in the real one.

N4VGB

04-28-2008, 03:24 PM

Not a big fan of ruling. On the other hand, the pleasure I get from seeing you brought up short by reality more than makes up for any frustration I have from dealing with your fantasies. You keep basing your view of the world on the History Channel. I'll keep living in the real one.

The History Channel has some very good shows. Besides earthquake activity is up lately and CA could become quite irrelevant soon. :p:p:p

n7wr

04-28-2008, 04:12 PM

The riots that were referred to were in 65 not 68.

AE6IP

04-29-2008, 02:13 AM

The History Channel has some very good shows.

Yes it does. Very entertaining. Not particularly well informed, but very entertaining.

N2RJ

04-29-2008, 02:16 AM

The History Channel has some very good shows. Besides earthquake activity is up lately and CA could become quite irrelevant soon. :p:p:p

They'll still be more relevant than you are now.

N4VGB

04-29-2008, 02:45 AM

They'll still be more relevant than you are now.

I have a new devotee! Thanks. :p

n2ize

04-29-2008, 02:55 AM

They'll still be more relevant than you are now.

Let the idiots be stupid Ryan. What else can you do ? Doesn't even pay to respond to them. Let them all agree with each other in one collective stupid.

N4VGB

04-29-2008, 10:16 AM

Let the idiots be stupid Ryan. What else can you do ? Doesn't even pay to respond to them. Let them all agree with each other in one collective stupid.

Another elitist union formed, ain't love grand! :p

N2RJ

04-29-2008, 01:43 PM

plonk

ignore list amended

N4VGB

04-29-2008, 02:54 PM

plonk

ignore list amended

The ultimate expression of failure. :):):)

n2ize

04-29-2008, 03:00 PM

The ultimate expression of failure. :):):)

So, how many hours straight have you been up and running on the ZED ?

N4VGB

04-29-2008, 03:13 PM

So, how many hours straight have you been up and running on the ZED ?

I don't, just hop in & out. :)

KV1M

04-29-2008, 05:28 PM

...But since you've never had the balls to take part in an armed revolt against repression and near slavery, just keep throwing that redneck thing around with no idea of what the word even means. ... :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Hey now Jethro, that would be a miiighty fine story there yessiry bubba!

Why don't you go on and tell it some, we all would just LOVE to hear how you saved the South single handed and all! :rolleyes: