You are not logged in. Login Now
 0-24   25-49   50-74   75-99   100-124   125-149   150-174   175-199   200-224 
 225-249   250-274   271-295   296-320   321-345   346-370   371-395   396-404   
 
Author Message
25 new of 404 responses total.
klg
response 296 of 404: Mark Unseen   Jan 19 17:58 UTC 2006

Condi Rice has some good anecdotes from her life on that theme.
cross
response 297 of 404: Mark Unseen   Jan 19 18:01 UTC 2006

This response has been erased.

twenex
response 298 of 404: Mark Unseen   Jan 19 18:03 UTC 2006

Bruce wants to be a terrorist?
nharmon
response 299 of 404: Mark Unseen   Jan 19 18:28 UTC 2006

I think Dan Cross would be a fun guy to play paintball with...maybe not
against, but with! :)
cross
response 300 of 404: Mark Unseen   Jan 19 21:41 UTC 2006

This response has been erased.

bru
response 301 of 404: Mark Unseen   Jan 20 07:19 UTC 2006

What do you want me to put up cross?  I do not need to join you to know 
you think you know it all, but apparently do not.  Many of the people I 
am working with down here are experienced military, and I was raised by 
people who were experienced military, and most of my friends were in or 
are in teh military, and NONE of them have the attitude you seem to 
have.  NONE.  They all know what would be involved in fighting a civil 
war in the U.S.  None of them think it would be a cakewalk, or even 
winable by our military.  You need to find a unit that specializes in 
something more than putting muscles on both ends of your body.
bru
response 302 of 404: Mark Unseen   Jan 20 11:32 UTC 2006

I am not denegrating his service here, nor his enthusiasm or training.  
But cross really needs to understand the document he is sworn to 
defend, and the limits of his mlitary training.  If you think you are 
invincible in the field, you will let yourself and your teamates down 
when you take a reality check.  

IED's are not the only thing killing and injuring our soldiers, and a 
large caliber hunting rifle has a lot more energy in its bullet than a 
5.56 round carries.  One round from your battle rifle will not stop a 
bull elephant, nor will it penetrate my ballistic vest with the heavy 
trauma plate.

but your face has not trauma plate to protect it either.
nharmon
response 303 of 404: Mark Unseen   Jan 20 13:19 UTC 2006

Is this really a conversation we need to be having?
cross
response 304 of 404: Mark Unseen   Jan 20 14:25 UTC 2006

This response has been erased.

happyboy
response 305 of 404: Mark Unseen   Jan 20 19:10 UTC 2006

i love that bru is giving you training and constitutional
education advise.

he is my hero.  he is the wind beneath my wings.  wait, no...
that may have been some chili repeating on me.


cross
response 306 of 404: Mark Unseen   Jan 20 22:04 UTC 2006

This response has been erased.

mcnally
response 307 of 404: Mark Unseen   Jan 20 23:27 UTC 2006

 Well, I'm glad *someone* is finding this whole discussion amusing.
cross
response 308 of 404: Mark Unseen   Jan 20 23:37 UTC 2006

This response has been erased.

albaugh
response 309 of 404: Mark Unseen   Jan 20 23:45 UTC 2006

> Parades don't intimidate

Hah - rcurl has evidently never been to Northern Ireland during marching
season!
rcurl
response 310 of 404: Mark Unseen   Jan 21 03:50 UTC 2006

It's the threat, not the parade, that intimidates. If they paraded with funny
floats and asked everyone to join in, there need be no threat. It doesn't
matter what form a threat takes to be a threat. 
bru
response 311 of 404: Mark Unseen   Jan 21 06:34 UTC 2006

cross, you wrote, and I quote...

"That said, the second amendment is outdated.  Hunting rifles and 
revolvers are not going to contributed to a well-ordered and equiped 
militia in this day and age.  This sort of thing comes from the days 
where members of the US military supplied their own weapons and 
uniforms (yes, there was such a "time).

This in no way invalidates what the second ammendment was put in for.  
It isn't there to require you be a member of the militia to own a gun.  
It is there to make sure you are able to defend yourself and your 
family from a government gone wild.

"It's like this.  If you're one of those Ruby Ridge whackos with a 
bunch of 9mm handguns and some paramilitary camp in the mountains, and 
they sent me in with my equipment, weapons, and body armor, 
well...shoot at me all you want, but I guarantee that the bullets will 
bounce off of me and stick to you."

What I am pointing out to you is that your armored vest is not going to 
stop a .300 remington, nor is your face shield going to stop a .30-06  
You are not a tank nor an armored vehicle, and people in this country 
carry ammo just as big or bigger than anything you carry, and those 
trained from an early age in how to shoot can probably outshoot most 
marines.  I know I can, because I have done it.

And that Ruby ridge wacko was a veteran Green Beret.  And we won't get 
into why you think it is okay for the FBI to shoot a boys dog, shoot 
the boy in the back killing him, and then have a sharpshooter kill an 
unarmed woman holding a baby.  Houriuchi should have been tried as a 
criminal, as should the managers of that debacle.

nharmon
response 312 of 404: Mark Unseen   Jan 21 13:27 UTC 2006

Come on Bru. You made your point, but the last paragraph there is over
the line. Dan said nothing about the FBI's actions being okay.

cross
response 313 of 404: Mark Unseen   Jan 21 17:48 UTC 2006

This response has been erased.

cross
response 314 of 404: Mark Unseen   Jan 21 17:54 UTC 2006

This response has been erased.

happyboy
response 315 of 404: Mark Unseen   Jan 22 01:35 UTC 2006

they'll make neat and festive sounds when they bounce off the 
tanks just prior to the michigan militia being treaded and 
turned into redneck bisque?
nharmon
response 316 of 404: Mark Unseen   Jan 22 03:39 UTC 2006

If I shot at a tank with my Glock, I might chip the paint, causing the
steel to rust, and putting a hole in the armor!
cross
response 317 of 404: Mark Unseen   Jan 22 03:40 UTC 2006

This response has been erased.

cross
response 318 of 404: Mark Unseen   Jan 22 03:44 UTC 2006

This response has been erased.

nharmon
response 319 of 404: Mark Unseen   Jan 22 05:42 UTC 2006

I do not disagree with you Dan.  The military technology that exists
today could never have been imagined by the framers of our constitution.
That makes the 2nd amendment difficult to apply, as evident by the
contradicting legal opinions in place.

But until the amendment is changed or repealed, its still the law of the
land.
naftee
response 320 of 404: Mark Unseen   Jan 22 06:22 UTC 2006

you guys are talking in a way that makes it seem that the military isn't
composed of 'average citizens'.
 0-24   25-49   50-74   75-99   100-124   125-149   150-174   175-199   200-224 
 225-249   250-274   271-295   296-320   321-345   346-370   371-395   396-404   
Response Not Possible: You are Not Logged In
 

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss