After all of this -- McCain is in trouble

[oldandslow]

From a very good REPUBLICAN pollster with whom I am aquainted....

In a head-to-head, Obama is beating McCain by a very narrow margin (44% to 40%). As I have said before, I believe that Obama will get a 10-point bounce once he is officially the nominee and Clinton voters “return home.” Having said that, this data is instructional as to where the strengths and weaknesses lie for each candidate:

McCain is not doing well enough among men to bridge the historical gender gap with women. The presidential voting pattern for the last 20 years suggests that the Republican candidate needs to win among men by at least 8-12 points to make up for the party’s usual gender gap with women. The so-called gender gap is not one-sided. McCain wins men by four points but loses women by 10 points. This is a problem.

In fact, the problem is so severe that McCain is losing women by 12-14 points among every age cohort except for women 65+, where he is running even with Obama.

McCain will not win Independents on his reputation alone. Obama is winning among Independents by about 8 points.

[Brock]

I see no reason to think this election is going to be any different than the past couple. i.e. very, very close.

[oldandslow]

I, too, think it will be within 5%

[chiefforlife]

I think when Obama and McCain go toe to toe, the gap will widen in Obamas favor. The gap will grow through November.

[BigCatDaddy]

This year won't be any different then the last two elections. Down to the wire.

[DaKCMan AP]

I think when Obama and McCain go toe to toe, the gap will widen in Obamas favor. The gap will grow through November.

I can picture a debate reminiscent of Kennedy vs Nixon except this time nearly no one will tune in via radio.

[mlyonsd]

From a very good REPUBLICAN pollster with whom I am aquainted....

In a head-to-head, Obama is beating McCain by a very narrow margin (44% to 40%). As I have said before, I believe that Obama will get a 10-point bounce once he is officially the nominee and Clinton voters “return home.” Having said that, this data is instructional as to where the strengths and weaknesses lie for each candidate:

McCain is not doing well enough among men to bridge the historical gender gap with women. The presidential voting pattern for the last 20 years suggests that the Republican candidate needs to win among men by at least 8-12 points to make up for the party’s usual gender gap with women. The so-called gender gap is not one-sided. McCain wins men by four points but loses women by 10 points. This is a problem.

In fact, the problem is so severe that McCain is losing women by 12-14 points among every age cohort except for women 65+, where he is running even with Obama.

McCain will not win Independents on his reputation alone. Obama is winning among Independents by about 8 points.

Aren't you the same guy that started a thread saying Hillary was going to win the dem nomination? :)

[BigCatDaddy]

I can picture a debate reminiscent of Kennedy vs Nixon except this time nearly no one will tune in via radio.

I'm not sure the debates really even make a difference anymore. Kerry won all 3 last year by a convincing margin and it didn't do him any good on election day.

[little jacob]

one or two states will decide it like the last couple of times

[RedNeckRaider]

From a very good REPUBLICAN pollster with whom I am aquainted....

Name? link?

[BIG_DADDY]

Both candidates suck ass. The media's obsession with Osama is disturbing. If America figures out the same wacko's that were behind Dean are behind this guy it will be interesting to see what happens.

[RedNeckRaider]

Both candidates suck ass. The media's obsession with Osama is disturbing. If America figures out the same wacko's that were behind Dean are behind this guy it will be interesting to see what happens.

Sadly this is as bad of choice as I recall

[little jacob]

i dont like either. i just want someone who will respect the second amendment above all else and fix our energy problem.

mccain would be better on the second amendment but hes not that great. at least he didnt say he would like to ban handguns like obama did. he tried to take it back later but sorry, too late.

i dont know if either have any plan to fix the rising cost of energy. we need that too.

[Otter]

I'd vote for Obama if it wasn't for his stand on "illegal" immigration. He wants to give every criminal foreign national that decided they were above the law and came into the country illegally amnesty.

With his famous motto "you can't deport 20 million people" (think about that for a second 20 MILLION).

You don't have to deport them you big dumb dick, enforce laws that already exist and and require SSN, drivers license a verification of the documents before you can vote, receive health care and other government benefits.

Guess how many illegal aliens get to vote for our president each year?

If Obama gets his way they'll be building a wall to keep Americans in because your standard of living is slowly but surely about to go into the shitter.

[jettio]

Sadly this is as bad of choice as I recall

Really?

Obama and McCain are better than B*sh, Kerry, Gore, Bill Clinton, Dole, Bush I and Dukakis.

I know that long term abuse of performance enhancers and exposure to pit bull dog sh*t has clouded Big Daddy's thinking, but what is your excuse?

[patteeu]

Really?

Obama and McCain are better than B*sh, Kerry, Gore, Bill Clinton, Dole, Bush I and Dukakis.

I know that long term abuse of performance enhancers and exposure to pit bull dog sh*t has clouded Big Daddy's thinking, but what is your excuse?

Obama is the best democrat since McGovern! /jettio

[banyon]

i dont like either. i just want someone who will respect the second amendment above all else and fix our energy problem.

mccain would be better on the second amendment but hes not that great. at least he didnt say he would like to ban handguns like obama did. he tried to take it back later but sorry, too late.

i dont know if either have any plan to fix the rising cost of energy. we need that too.

This is the issue you're deciding on? This sort of single issue stuff is downright silly. Who was the last presidential candidate who actually threatened to take your guns away?

[Brock]

This is the issue you're deciding on? This sort of single issue stuff is downright silly. Who was the last presidential candidate who actually threatened to take your guns away?

Bill Clinton illegalized certain types of guns. That's an infringement.

[banyon]

Bill Clinton illegalized certain types of guns. That's an infringement.

Assault weapons?

[Brock]

Assault weapons?

That term really has no meaning.

[little jacob]

look at this:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9269.html

[Chief Faithful]

McCain's biggest advantage is he is viewed by many voters as more of a Democrat in the mold of JFK than a Republican. Thus, Democratic voters have a choice, which could split the vote.

If voters start to view Obama as too liberal or egalitarian many Democratic voters may flock to McCain. In this election there is no choice for Republican voters except McCain so Obama will not receive cross over voters.

[Radar Chief]

Assault weapons?

And exactly what was considered an “assault weapon”?

That term really has no meaning.

Well, other than an excuse to take guns away from law abiding citizens.

[Chief Faithful]

That term really has no meaning.

No definition to Assault Weapons is exactly the kind of bill they wanted to pass. They they could use court precidence and add on legislation to define guns out of existance all together. For example, that is how they got rid of 16+ round clips and many classes of hand guns by saying they are only useful as a military assault weapon and unnecessary for individual ownership.

[Brock]

No definition to Assault Weapons is exactly the kind of bill they wanted to pass. They they could use court precidence and add on legislation to define guns out of existance all together. For example, that is how they got rid of 16+ round clips and many classes of hand guns by saying they are only useful as a military assault weapon and unnecessary for individual ownership.

Insert inane, irrelevant "Do you think you should be able to own nuclear weapons" counterargument here.

[Adept Havelock]

Insert inane, irrelevant "Do you think you should be able to own nuclear weapons" counterargument here.

That is insane.

However, how about private possession of say...an M2, M60, M249 SAW, or an M240? How about privately owned 20mm Bushmasters, 30mm Bushmaster II's, or M134 Miniguns?

At what point do you draw that line? :hmmm:

[Brock]

That is insane.

However, how about private possession of say...an M2, M60, M249 SAW, or an M240? How about privately owned 25mm Bushmasters or M134 Miniguns?

At what point do you draw that line?

Private citizens should able to own whatever weapons are common for the member of a well-regulated militia. i.e. infantry

[Adept Havelock]

Private citizens should able to own whatever weapons are common for the member of a well-regulated militia. i.e. infantry

OK. How about Private Ownership of 60mm Mortars, MILAN/TOW/Javelin anti-tank missiles, or Stinger Anti-Aircraft Missiles? How about military-grade explosives, grenades and grenade lauchers? Claymore and other anti-personnel or anti-tank mines? All of those are common infantry weapons.

At what point do you draw that line?

:hmmm:

[Radar Chief]

That is insane.

However, how about private possession of say...an M2,

.50 Cal. There is already private ownership of weapons shooting that round.

M60

7.62 Nato, same as a .308 Winchester round that has been available to the public for over a century.

M249 SAW

5.56 Nato, same as a .223 cal.

M240?

Another 7.62 Nato round.

How about privately owned 20mm Bushmasters, 30mm Bushmaster II's, or M134 Miniguns?

At what point do you draw that line? :hmmm:

With a record of a felony conviction of the person attempting to purchase a weapon.

[Ultra Peanut]

McCain's problem is that he's a sacrificial lamb, and he doesn't even realize it. He's been awful about getting his message out and controlling the media coverage of the election, and Obama's camp hasn't even been able to focus fully on him yet while Hillary's been clinging to his ankles for the last three months.

Republicans aren't used to dealing with Democrats who have the ability to turn their attacks back on them. This could definitely be close, but there's an outside chance at a bloodbath if McCain's doddering approach so far is any indication.

McCain's biggest advantage is he is viewed by many voters as more of a Democrat in the mold of JFK than a Republican. Thus, Democratic voters have a choice, which could split the vote.By whom? Republicans?

The "Bush and McCain _____" line is not going away, and he's ****ed himself over by running so rapidly to the right after portraying himself as a maverick in 2000.

[Brock]

OK. How about Private Ownership of 60mm Mortars, MILAN/TOW/Javelin anti-tank missiles, or Stinger Anti-Aircraft Missiles? How about military-grade explosives, grenades and grenade lauchers? Claymore and other anti-personnel or anti-tank mines? All of those are common infantry weapons.

At what point do you draw that line?

:hmmm:

You won't find most infantry man carrying those weapons. Let's just stick with the basic weapons of infantry. Rifles and pistols. Although, if we must include all of that in the discussion, we ought to err on the side of freedom.

[little jacob]

my problem with all that is this. i have no criminal record. i've never done anything to give the government cause to say, you can't have this. i am experienced with them. i practice often and keep them in a safe. i dont abuse any substances. i only discharge them places that are legal. i would not use it to protect property. I would only use it as a last resort to protect life from immediate peril of death. so why do people want to tell me i can't buy and use whatever I want? i'm one of the good guys. i should be able to own and carry and use whatever i want to.

i have two items that were banned in 94 and numerous accessories that were. some of these people would make me a felon overnight if they could get the votes and i never hurt anyone in my life. forget about the amendments because if these people could pack the court with people who would redefine it they would do it tomorrow.

[Brock]

McCain's problem is that he's a sacrificial lamb, and he doesn't even realize it. He's been awful about getting his message out and controlling the media coverage of the election, and Obama's camp hasn't even been able to focus fully on him yet while Hillary's been clinging to his ankles for the last three months.


On the other hand, the republicans haven't really even started with Obama yet. I wouldn't underestimate what they can come up with.

[Taco John]

blah, blah blah... Democratic voters may flock to McCain. blah... blah... blah...

Good grief. Where do you people come up with this stuff. Democrats are not going to "flock" to McCain en masse with his views on Iran/Iraq. He's being sold as the third term of George W. Bush, and that's something that's an anchor that's going to stick with him through to November no matter how much he tries to run from it... He's in a political jam, because the more he tries to run from Bush, the more he's going to depress the Republican turnout.

McCain is dead in the water.

[little jacob]

7.62 is like a 30-30 which is the low end of what is suitable for hunting deer according to hunters i know. i am not one. but should we outlaw something that small even? and the .223 is even smaller

[Ultra Peanut]

On the other hand, the republicans haven't really even started with Obama yet. I wouldn't underestimate what they can come up with.Oh, they'll try. God knows they'll try. But if there was anything major left to unearth, it would have been used by now.

Insinuations and outright lies are effective when your opponent's response is a milquetoast, "Well that's just mean, and I don't think you're telling the truth, mister," but when your opponent has a response ready and blasts back while showing exactly why it's a lie and why you yourself are a hypocrite for espousing such a falsehood, it's a lot tougher to gain traction.

His campaign just dismantled the only political machine comparable to Rove's in a matter of months. These guys are ****ing awesome at what they do. I mean, they nailed outcomes of primaries that were months after their prediction sheet was leaked, completely outperformed said machine on the ground, and weathered Bittergate and the Wright shit in total stride. They understand modern technology and the modern media far more than any other campaigns (especially McCain's), and they take full advantage of that at every opportunity. It's really mindblowing, how good they are at this. I'm just grateful that they're on the staff of the one candidate I actually like.

[Ultra Peanut]

i have two items that were banned in 94 and numerous accessories that were. some of these people would make me a felon overnight if they could get the votes and i never hurt anyone in my life. forget about the amendments because if these people could pack the court with people who would redefine it they would do it tomorrow.Not even the most ardent gun grabber wants to make you a felon. And at this point in time, nobody really gives a rat's ass about your guns. Nobody's going to try to force a sweeping gun ban and risk a huge blowup over a complete non-issue, so rest easy in that knowledge.

If you're a single-issue voter and this is your issue, you really need to realize that.

[Radar Chief]

7.62 is like a 30-30 which is the low end of what is suitable for hunting deer according to hunters i know.

You’re thinking of the 7.62X39 which is the round the AK-47 and SKS shoot. It’s similar in ballistics to an old Winchester 30/30.
The 7.62 Nato round is more specifically a 7.62X51 round, which is close in ballistics to the.308 Winchester and 7.62X54 used in Russian rifles like a Dragunov sniper rifle and the WWII vintage Nagant.

[Adept Havelock]

.50 Cal. There is already private ownership of weapons shooting that round.

7.62 Nato, same as a .308 Winchester round that has been available to the public for over a century.

5.56 Nato, same as a .223 cal.

Another 7.62 Nato round.

With a record of a felony conviction of the person attempting to purchase a weapon.

Thank you for that clarification. As you can tell, I'm not terribly familiar with small arms. So you would support private ownership of any caliber of firearm up to and including miniguns, 20-30mm cannon, etc?

You won't find most infantry man carrying those weapons. Let's just stick with the basic weapons of infantry. Rifles and pistols. Although, if we must include all of that in the discussion, we ought to err on the side of freedom.

You laid out the criteria of "common infantry weapons". I'm fine with rifles and pistols, but wanted to point out that can be extended to any number of weapons I can see no resonable reason to allow civilian ownership of. Just like "assault weapons" is a slippery-slope definition.

That said, I'm far from convinced private ownership of infantry anti-tank or anti-aircraft weapons is a good thing, even if done in the name of "erring on the side of freedom". If one wants to take that perspective, that could include any and all weapons up to and including Heavy Artillery, Armored Fighting Vehicles, and even Armed Aircraft as they are all part of a modern milita. :shrug:

Thank you both for a reasoned response.

[Radar Chief]

Thank you for that clarification. So you would support private ownership of any caliber of firearm up to and including miniguns, 20-30mm cannon, etc?

If a person has no criminal record, and in the case of fully automatic weapons can demonstrate a need and acquire a special license, sure.
But that’s pretty much what the law is now.

You laid out the criteria of "common infantry weapons". I'm fine with rifles and pistols, but wanted to point out that can be extended to any number of weapons I can see no reason to allow civilian ownership. Just like "assault weapons" is a slippery-slope definition.

That said, I'm far from convinced private ownership of infantry anti-tank or anti-aircraft weapons is a good thing, even if done in the name of "erring on the side of freedom". :shrug:

So, because you can’t think of a reasonable need to own something it shouldn’t be allowed?
Glad you weren’t around for my motorcycle purchase. Or maybe you should have been. :hmmm:

Thank you both for a reasoned response.

;)

[banyon]

That term really has no meaning.

I'm asking you to say which vital guns were taken away, not to get into this Donger-esque definitional battle.

It was your point. If you don't think it's a big deal (which it probably isn't) then feel free to follow with another deflection or non-sequitur.

[Adept Havelock]

Glad you weren’t around for my motorcycle purchase. Or maybe you should have been. :hmmm:


Color me jealous. :thumb:

I love 'em, but can't bring myself to climb on one since seeing a guy splatter himself all over the road.

[Brock]

I'm asking you to say which vital guns were taken away, not to get into this Donger-esque definitional battle.

It was your point. If you don't think it's a big deal (which it probably isn't) then feel free to follow with another deflection or non-sequitur.

I don't have to prove what guns are "vital". According to the constitution, they all are.

[banyon]

I don't have to prove what guns are "vital". According to the constitution, they all are.

You said Clinton took away certain types of guns, yet I own a gun legally. So some clarification is needed as to what the hell you were wanting to bring up as important.

In other words which "certain types" were you referring to?

[little jacob]

thank you for clearing that up radar chief, i had forgotten

i think a good standard might be that if you have a clean record you should be able to own anything that is designed for one person to carry and operate. it doesnt matter what the government says i need or dont need. you dont need the car you drive. big trucks can be dangerous to little cars and besides most people could get to work in a mini cooper just fine. its your right however to choose whatever you want. i havent broken any laws and there is no reason to believe i intend to so i shouldnt have my right taken away.

[Brock]

You said Clinton took away certain types of guns, yet I own a gun legally. So some clarification is needed as to what the hell you were wanting to bring up as important.

In other words which "certain types" were you referring to?

So you own a gun, therefore your second amendment rights haven't been infringed upon. Brilliant. :rolleyes:

[banyon]

So you own a gun, therefore your second amendment rights haven't been infringed upon. Brilliant. :rolleyes:

I'll assume from your outright refusal to specify which types of guns Clinton banned that the intrusion must have been minimal, warranted, and impacted very few people if it's not worth specifying.

[Brock]

I'll assume from your outright refusal to specify which types of guns Clinton banned that the intrusion must have been minimal, warranted, and impacted very few people if it's not worth specifying.

There were several popular models that were illegalized. Do you want me to list them all? Yeah, I get it, it isn't important to you so nobody else should care about it.

[banyon]

There were several popular models that were illegalized. Do you want me to list them all? Yeah, I get it, it isn't important to you so nobody else should care about it.

I'm curious, because I don't know off the top of my head and don't have the time to look it up. I thought since you'd raised the point, you might be familiar with what happened.

I don't know whether it's important to me or not, since I don't know what happened, but based on your prolific refusal in this thread to answer even the most straightforward questions, I have my suspicions.

[little jacob]

this is from the brady campaign:

he bill bans, by name, the manufacture of 19 different weapons:

* Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
* Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
* Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
* Colt AR-15;
* Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
* SWD M-10; M-11; M-11/9, and M-12;
* Steyr AUG;
* INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9, AND TEC-22;
* revolving cylinder shotguns such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12.

[Brock]

I'm curious, because I don't know off the top of my head and don't have the time to look it up. I thought since you'd raised the point, you might be familiar with what happened.

I don't know whether it's important to me or not, since I don't know what happened, but based on your prolific refusal in this thread to answer even the most straightforward questions, I have my suspicions.

Any derivative of a Colt AR15, any derivative of an AK47, any revolving cylinder shotgun, any ammunition clip specified as "large capacity", any gun with a folding stock, any rifle with a pistol grip, any gun with a barrel shroud, etc. I'm not refusing to answer, I'm just annoyed that a professed gun owner doesn't even understand the parameters of that right or how it's been reduced when it is reduced.

[penguinz]

Any derivative of a Colt AR15, any derivative of an AK47, any revolving cylinder shotgun, any ammunition clip specified as "large capacity", any gun with a folding stock, any rifle with a pistol grip, any gun with a barrel shroud, etc. I'm not refusing to answer, I'm just annoyed that a professed gun owner doesn't even understand the parameters of that right or how it's been reduced when it is reduced.
Because a person can not live without an assault rifle? This is a piss poor argument.

[Brock]

Because a person can not live without an assault rifle? This is a piss poor argument.

That's not a hurdle that a constitutional right has to leap. Looks like somebody's kid is wandering around again.

[penguinz]

That's not a hurdle that a constitutional right has to leap. Looks like somebody's kid is wandering around again.Show me where in the constitution it says you have a right to an assault rifle, revolving cylinder shotgun or pistol grip rifle.

Until you can find me proof that it says you can have those shut your pie-hole.

[Brock]

Show me where in the constitution it says you have a right to an assault rifle, revolving cylinder shotgun or pistol grip rifle.

Until you can find me proof that it says you can have those shut your pie-hole.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

That good enough for you, Corky? Even if it isn't, it's the law of the land, deal with it.

[BIG_DADDY]

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

That good enough for you, Corky? Even if it isn't, it's the law of the land, deal with it.

IMO when the fragmentation of this country reaches the boiling point I hope they go after ever person that has ever supported gun legislation with both barrells.

[banyon]

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

That good enough for you, Corky? Even if it isn't, it's the law of the land, deal with it.

Ha. You might as well take everything out of context and quote it as saying "the right... to bear arms... shall... be infringed"

I support a strong reading of the 2nd Amendment, but that's just not accurate.

[Taco John]

Show me where in the constitution it says you have a right to an assault rifle, revolving cylinder shotgun or pistol grip rifle.

Until you can find me proof that it says you can have those shut your pie-hole.

The second amendment covers them:

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 people are allowed to keep and bear Arms for the purpose of the security of a free State. Pea shooters aren't going to get the job done.

[banyon]

I'm not refusing to answer, I'm just annoyed that a professed gun owner doesn't even understand the parameters of that right or how it's been reduced when it is reduced.

I'm not a "professed" gun owner. I'm an actual gun owner. Here it is below:

I bought it to protect myself from the people that I get to deal with every day. Why should that require me to know the intricacies of what variants of assault rifles i can own?

In any event, it appears your earlier faux protestations over my use of the term "assault rifles" was a distinction without a difference.

If anything, this argument would demonstrate to neutral observers who don't insist that they be able to own assault rifles that nothing very significant would be affected.

[BIG_DADDY]

The second amendment covers them:

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 people are allowed to keep and bear Arms for the purpose of the security of a free State. Pea shooters aren't going to get the job done.

I thought they meant BB guns :shrug:

[banyon]

I thought they meant BB guns :shrug:

They meant Atomic weaponry! :rolleyes:

[BIG_DADDY]

They meant Atomic weaponry! :rolleyes:

With people so willing to give up our basic rights and freedoms this country doesn't deserve to keep either.

[banyon]

With people so willing to give up our basic rights and freedoms this country doesn't deserve to keep either.

I'm not wiling to give up any basic rights. Assault Rifles are not a basic right.

In fact, gun bans go back quite a while. Wyatt Earp's local ban here didn't expire until the 1920's, but the NRA wasn't around yet to throw a fit. I wouldn't suport Wyatt's ban, but it didn't kill our country.

[Brock]

Ha. You might as well take everything out of context and quote it as saying "the right... to bear arms... shall... be infringed"

I support a strong reading of the 2nd Amendment, but that's just not accurate.

Yes, it is. It is completely accurate. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

[banyon]

Yes, it is. It is completely accurate. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

How can only including part of the sentence be accurate? This is particularly questionable when the first letter of your quote is miscapitalized.

[Brock]

How can only including part of the sentence be accurate? This is particularly questionable when the first letter of your quote is miscapitalized.

The first part of the phrase is merely the reason why the right exists, not a limitation of it.

[banyon]

The first part of the phrase is merely the reason why the right exists, not a limitation of it.

Maybe we should just redact that part then.

Are you a literalist about the 1st Amendment too?

[little jacob]

what about the things commonly described as 'assault weapons' makes them not be a basic right in the same way as another weapon is?

and what kind of pistol is that you have?

[Ultra Peanut]

I'm not a "professed" gun owner. I'm an actual gun owner. Here it is below:Elijah Dukes would like a word with you:

[patteeu]

Good grief. Where do you people come up with this stuff. Democrats are not going to "flock" to McCain en masse with his views on Iran/Iraq. He's being sold as the third term of George W. Bush, and that's something that's an anchor that's going to stick with him through to November no matter how much he tries to run from it... He's in a political jam, because the more he tries to run from Bush, the more he's going to depress the Republican turnout.

McCain is dead in the water.

Have you heard the news lately? We're [still] winning in Iraq. Winning is popular. Declaring defeat and having someone shove that declaration down your throat by demonstrating success is unpopular. I won't be surprised if Obama flips on Iraq again before November by tying his withdrawal plan to the security situation on the ground (i.e. essentially the Bush position all along).

[BucEyedPea]

I'd vote for Obama if it wasn't for his stand on "illegal" immigration. He wants to give every criminal foreign national that decided they were above the law and came into the country illegally amnesty.
Hold onto your seat when I tell you this:
That amnesty that was defeated by the grass roots is currently being slipped onto a war appropriations bill—sponsored by one D and one R.

And McCain has Juan Hernandez, Mr. Amnesty Mexican dual-citizen, Mexico Firster working on his campaign.

[penguinz]

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

That good enough for you, Corky? Even if it isn't, it's the law of the land, deal with it.Arms back when it was written meant more than just guns. Also helps to quote the whole sentence and not just part of it.

[BucEyedPea]

I think what may hurt McCain with male conservatives is that Bob Barr and a bunch of conservatives have hijacked the LP. They renouncing the aggression doctrine now but will plan an orderly withdrawal from Iraq. Still kinda hawkish in other FP respects too. Barr even has a NC for a VP choice who disses Paul and the French too. The Ls are really talking about this being a hijack. But it does give a place to go for those disgruntled in the GOP and with McCain as a choice.

[BucEyedPea]

Arms back when it was written meant more than just guns. Also helps to quote the whole sentence and not just part of it.

You mean the word "militia?" Yeah, but militia meant the people back then too.

[RJ]

Anyone watching McCain's speech? He's not very good at this. It's uncomfortable, almost childish. Not an inspiring guy.

[Friendo]

Anyone watching McCain's speech? He's not very good at this. It's uncomfortable, almost childish. Not an inspiring guy.

I'll take your word for it RJ.

[jettio]

I think what may hurt McCain with male conservatives is that Bob Barr and a bunch of conservatives have hijacked the LP. They renouncing the aggression doctrine now but will plan an orderly withdrawal from Iraq. Still kinda hawkish in other FP respects too. Barr even has a NC for a VP choice who disses Paul and the French too. The Ls are really talking about this being a hijack. But it does give a place to go for those disgruntled in the GOP and with McCain as a choice.

I watched some of that convention and did think that was a screw job of the long time Libertarian loyalists.

That VP nominee seems like a complete fool thinking that he made a deal with Barr so that he could be the 2012 presidential nominee.

I doubt that guy gets much support for that, he was just a sucker that got used by the Barr people to take out the last contender.

[Logical]

I don't have to prove what guns are "vital". According to the constitution, they all are.So Brock why would you need a 50 caliber sniper rifle, hunting elephants or target shooting against Hummers?

[Bwana]

Both candidates suck ass.

That's about I feel about it as well. With the number of people that live in this counry, I would think they would be able to come up with two people that are a little better than these two clowns. :shake:

[Radar Chief]

I'm not a "professed" gun owner. I'm an actual gun owner. Here it is below:

What did you wind up buying again? I forget.

I bought it to protect myself from the people that I get to deal with every day. Why should that require me to know the intricacies of what variants of assault rifles i can own?

Well, being a lawyer I’d have assumed you’d be on top of something law related like that, particularly since it has more effect on you, being a gun owner and all.

In any event, it appears your earlier faux protestations over my use of the term "assault rifles" was a distinction without a difference.

It’s enough of a difference that they were banned by Clinton, though Bush allowed that ban to lapse.

If anything, this argument would demonstrate to neutral observers who don't insist that they be able to own assault rifles that nothing very significant would be affected.

Are you shitting me? Did you not see all those guns and manufacturers Mr. little jacob listed? Hell I own an SKS, a rifle that ban made illegal, that I use for almost everything from target plinking to deer hunting to snapping turtle splattering.
Oh btw, you’re welcome Mr. little jacob. ;)

I'm not wiling to give up any basic rights. Assault Rifles are not a basic right.

This is the problem. “Assault rifles” has become a term used to scare those that don’t know any better into believing a plain ole semi-automatic rifle, some with detachable magazines some without, is something more than just a rifle.
We had similar conversations a few years ago around here and when I mentioned deer hunting with an SKS some dip shit asked, “What do you want to do, blow the deer up?”
I laughingly had to inform them that an SKS is a rifle, not a freak’n rocket launcher, but that’s indicative of the ignorance on the subject and how a term has been distorted to scare people into compliance.

[Radar Chief]

So Brock why would you need a 50 caliber sniper rifle, hunting elephants or target shooting against Hummers?

What if he does? What if he’s a got a big chunk of land with a shit ton of old Hummers sitting around he wants to pop softball sized holes in at +1000 yards distance? But that’s not the question, the question is, as long as he’s not breaking, or has broken, any laws what business is it of yours?

[little jacob]

So Brock why would you need a 50 caliber sniper rifle, hunting elephants or target shooting against Hummers?

why should someone with no criminal record and no reason to believe they will do anything wrong with it not be allowed?

[Brock]

It just illustrates the liberal mindset. The government can infringe on the rights of others as long as it's not the rights he deems important, and not brought about by the wrong political party. i.e. the constitution only matters to the extent he wants it to.

[Brock]

So Brock why would you need a 50 caliber sniper rifle, hunting elephants or target shooting against Hummers?

Need isn't a hurdle any constitutional right has to jump over. Use what's left of your brain.

[little jacob]

i think it is funny that some people think the SKS is a street sweeper killing machine. when was that designed, 1940?

i have wanted an old nagant for a little while, i think it would be a fun project especially since they are so cheap. but maybe they are too dangerous since that finnish sniper killed like 500 russians with his 60 odd years ago

[Adept Havelock]

i have wanted an old nagant for a little while, i think it would be a fun project especially since they are so cheap. but maybe they are too dangerous since that finnish sniper killed like 500 russians with his 60 odd years ago

I think that was Zaytsev's preferred weapon as well.

[Radar Chief]

I think that was Zaytsev's preferred weapon as well.

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

Wow, that dude was a stud.
I’ll still take Carlos Hathcock’s long distance accuracy though. First guy, that I’ve heard of at least, with confirmed kills at 1000 meters and beyond. I believe that has been met and exceeded by coalition snipers in Afghanistan but even that wouldn’t have been possible without Carlos. He pioneered the use of a .50 cal as a sniper rifle and actually took a Mah Deuce and put a scope on it.

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

Hathcock generally used the standard sniper rifle: The Winchester Model 70 .30-06 caliber rifle with the standard Unertl scope. On some occasions, however, he used a different weapon: the .50-caliber M2 Browning Machine Gun, on which he mounted the Unertl scope, using a bracket of his own design.[verification needed] This weapon was accurate to 2500 yards when fired one round at a time. At one point, he took careful aim at a courier carrying a load of assault rifles and ammunition on a bicycle. He had second thoughts when he saw a 12-year-old boy in his sights, but after considering the intended use of those weapons, he fired, hitting the bicycle frame. The boy tumbled over the handlebars and grabbed a gun, so Hathcock killed him. (Source Marine Sniper, Chapter 1.)

[Adept Havelock]

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

Wow, that dude was a stud.
I’ll still take Carlos Hathcock’s long distance accuracy though. First guy, that I’ve heard of at least, with confirmed kills at 1000 meters and beyond. I believe that has been met and exceeded by coalition snipers in Afghanistan but even that wouldn’t have been possible without Carlos. He pioneered the use of a .50 cal as a sniper rifle and actually took a Mah Deuce and put a scope on it.

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

Hathcock is certainly a legend, and with very good reason. Henderson's book about him was a pretty damn good read.

The book "Enemy at the Gates" by Craig has a great section on Vasily, and the movie does a decent job. Even if they did totally f*** up the end duel. Hollywood... :shake:

Both personify the old AT&T ad jingle... "Reach out...reach out and touch someone." ;)

[Mr. Kotter]

From a very good REPUBLICAN pollster with whom I am aquainted....

In a head-to-head, Obama is beating McCain by a very narrow margin (44% to 40%). As I have said before, I believe that Obama will get a 10-point bounce once he is officially the nominee and Clinton voters “return home.” Having said that, this data is instructional as to where the strengths and weaknesses lie for each candidate:

McCain is not doing well enough among men to bridge the historical gender gap with women. The presidential voting pattern for the last 20 years suggests that the Republican candidate needs to win among men by at least 8-12 points to make up for the party’s usual gender gap with women. The so-called gender gap is not one-sided. McCain wins men by four points but loses women by 10 points. This is a problem.

In fact, the problem is so severe that McCain is losing women by 12-14 points among every age cohort except for women 65+, where he is running even with Obama.

McCain will not win Independents on his reputation alone. Obama is winning among Independents by about 8 points.

Three words: The Bradley Effect....

McCain's margins among men will widen as November approaches. Obama will need to be up by 6-8 points to overcome the Bradley Effect IMHO.

Aren't you the same guy that started a thread saying Hillary was going to win the dem nomination? :)

Yup. He was. He also assured us she would win in November. :)

[Radar Chief]

Both personify the old AT&T ad jingle... "Reach out...reach out and touch someone." ;)

Indeed.

[StcChief]

as much as the Liberal elite Media want's Obama, the silent majority will weigh in and disappoint them.

[Mr. Kotter]

as much as the Liberal elite Media want's Obama, the silent majority will weigh in and disappoint them.
That's my thought....they've been the decisive factor in every Presidential race since 1968. Many often seem to want to ignore and dismiss their influence....but whether they were part of Nixon's "Southern Strategy," Reagan Democrats, Clinton's Bubba vote, or W's Red State appeal....Obama will not win without them.

Only liberal elites and moronic media mavens believe otherwise. Hell even Hillary understands it. If Obama can neutralize their influence, or even win the support of a 40% or so of 'em....he'll win. If he doesn't, he'll lose.

[oldandslow]

Yup. He was. He also assured us she would win in November. :)[/QUOTE]

And I still think she would have won in November...

Hey, HRC was not my candidate, I am ecstatic that Obama is the nominee. I just thought the Clinton machine would win. Bad on me.

All the wind is blowing to the left at this point in the game. Unless there lies a huge skeleton in Barak's closet that has yet to be vetted, I believe he win the presidency. The repubs are going to lose 3-5 senate seats and 15 house seats. Enough conservatives who hate McCain will stay home to make up for the the "bubba" vote, imo.

Of course as you and mylon noted, I have been wrong in the past.