I looked you up. ...

Was that really necessary?

 

I've been there buddy, want to match 'war' stories about edged weapons?

Still trying to see what your point is. You jumped in with a truckload of misinformation, back-tracked and are about to have four flat tires while reversing.

If you can't see my point you ain't looking hard enough

Back your own jeep up baby

 

Was that really necessary?

No, but it was really fun.
I'll quit now.

 

If you can't see my point you ain't looking hard enough

You're right, there's far too much fog to see it clearly. I'm heading out the rest of the week for a little casino action, time on the beach with the kids and a little target practice, maybe while hitting targets I'll finally see the light on how to use my .45 for self-defense.

 

Yeah I might be a little bit cryptic but no that is not I meant at all Shoot at will. Later we'll exchange war stories.

Gone to sleep anybody on watch...

 

Yeah I might be a little bit cryptic but no that is not I meant at all Shoot at will. Later we'll exchange war stories.

Gone to sleep anybody on watch...

I had a chance to serve at NAVCOMMSTA Keflavik (we got sea duty for serving at Keflavik) in the 70's but I decided a tropical location would be better. All the stories of wild Icelandic women in the land of frost and fire just couldn't top a nice warm beach in sunny winter San Diego on a ship.

http://www.navy-radio.com/commsta/iceland.htm

 

What does semi-automatic have to do with self-defense?

Multiple criminals dictates multiple responses. A semi-automatic shotgun is good for pheasants AND those that wish to B&E. The news recently has shown robberies where multiple criminals were involved in the single act.

If the shop owner confronts multiple's each criminal deserves their own round. The semi allows the shop or home owner to act expeditiously against multiple criminals.

 

I've been there buddy, want to match 'war' stories about edged weapons?

Shouldn't at least three of those be outlawed? Two because they're so big and one because it looks evil? After all, that's the basis for the assault rifle bans -- that they look like military machine guns.

 

So you REALLY have no problem with people having their rights stripped just because somehow, someway, some government bureaucrat put their name on some secret list?

And which side of the isle started the no fly and terrorist watch list? Didn't hear any gnashing of teeth when Bush started making his list and checking it twice.

 

And which side of the isle started the no fly and terrorist watch list? Didn't hear any gnashing of teeth when Bush started making his list and checking it twice.

It doesn't matter to me who started it -- I've been opposed to the way it was set up from the beginning, precisely because it denied due process to those that are on it.

So who are the bigger hypocrits -- those that opposed it from the beginning and now oppose expanding its abuse, or those that opposed it when the other side of the isle proposed it but now embrace it as a way of furthering their agenda?

 

@wayneh Bad form in an election year.

The problem with that poll is that most of the people polled are not on the NFL and have no personal experience with it. They assume it is correctly administered, fair and generally "right". That only people that belong on the list are on the list. Kind of like how people arrested by the feds tend to be found guilty. They are expressing blind faith in their government.

Like the majority in that poll, I agree with the premise that someone suspected of being a terrorist – to the level that they appear on such a list – should not have the same access to arms that our fellow citizens do.

The problem is the NFL is NOT properly administered for such a purpose. Our representatives are better-informed about the problems with using the NFL and are right to resist expanding its range of application to something as important as a constitutionally protected right. (Its usefulness and legality for the intended application is another discussion, but you have no constitutional right to get on an airplane.)

If these silly politicians would actually get to work on an acceptable process for stripping a citizen of their constitutional rights (voting, 2nd amendment, free speech, etc.), then the list of those unlucky souls could be used. The NFL is not that list.

 

Shouldn't at least three of those be outlawed? Two because they're so big and one because it looks evil? After all, that's the basis for the assault rifle bans -- that they look like military machine guns.

If you want to see evil just watch my wife handle one of those bolo knives while chopping a 20lb halibut. She can be a killer with just two sticks.

 

My wife would carve a roast with a paring knife. I can't get her to pick up anything larger. Drives me crazy. Who slices a cabbage with a 2" knife?

 

My wife would carve a roast with a paring knife. I can't get her to pick up anything larger. Drives me crazy. Who slices a cabbage with a 2" knife?

It's a cultural thing and the fact she's good with knives makes me a better husband.

 

I'm sufficiently afraid of the 2" knife.

 

The problem with that poll is that most of the people polled are not on the NFL and have no personal experience with it. They assume it is correctly administered, fair and generally "right". That only people that belong on the list are on the list. Kind of like how people arrested by the feds tend to be found guilty. They are expressing blind faith in their government.

I think the public is a little better informed than that. But from a political point of view it doesn't matter.

Like the majority in that poll, I agree with the premise that someone suspected of being a terrorist – to the level that they appear on such a list – should not have the same access to arms that our fellow citizens do.

This is a start.

The problem is the NFL is NOT properly administered for such a purpose. Our representatives are better-informed about the problems with using the NFL and are right to resist expanding its range of application to something as important as a constitutionally protected right. (Its usefulness and legality for the intended application is another discussion, but you have no constitutional right to get on an airplane.)

If these silly politicians would actually get to work on an acceptable process for stripping a citizen of their constitutional rights (voting, 2nd amendment, free speech, etc.), then the list of those unlucky souls could be used. The NFL is not that list.

I think the public would be happy with any list that keeps potential terrorist from buying a gun. So if they don't like this list they can make a new one. But I stand by my statement. It is bad form in an election year not to do something when in a couple of cases it "might" have helped.

 

But I stand by my statement. It is bad form in an election year not to do something when in a couple of cases it "might" have helped.

What case 'might' that be?

 

What case 'might' that be?

The last one and I think Fort Hood.
Keep in mind there have been some changes proposed to the list for it's use in gun control.
Don't get wrapped around the axle in the details. Think about the optics to the public. Even before the last shooting the public thought it was a bad idea for potential terrorists to by guns. It make it a good issue to stand - sorry sit - for. Silly but a good idea if your a pol.

 

The Federal Bureau of Investigation added Omar Mateen to its terrorist watch list twice, in 2013 and 2014, then removed him after closing its investigations after it was determined he had broken no laws. So no case there. A gun dealer actually called the FBI to report that POS when he tried to buy body armor before the murders.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/orlando-shooter-turned-gun-store-suspicious/story?id=39901107

Ft. Hood? The official line from the government.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/09/us/at-fort-hood-wrestling-with-label-of-terrorism.html

“We have not found any links to terrorism, or any international or domestic extremist groups at this time,” Chris Grey, a spokesman for the United States Army Criminal Investigation Command, told reporters.
...
The official, Lt. Gen. Dana K. Chipman, at the time the Army’s senior uniformed lawyer, described the attack as “the alleged criminal act of a single individual.”

 

Notice the "look back".
http://www.guns.com/2016/06/28/house-no-flyno-buy-bill-introduced-to-bipartisan-support-video/
They also had this guy.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/08/nidal-hasan-anwar-awlaki-emails-fbi-fort-hood