|
H Krause please comment
"Boater" wrote in message ... Canuck57 wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... D.Duck wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... The concept of individual citizens armed with small arms holding off a huge invading army is an NRA wet dream. Americans aren't as tough as Afghanis. Based on what? Your left wing, elitist opinion that you present as a "fact"? History proves you wrong. Eisboch Based upon the fact that this isn't the 18th or 19th century, and that any huge invading army is going to be equipped and organized as a huge invading army. It's going to be up to our military to protect the homeland. Hell, as far as I can tell, there are only a couple of "regulars" in this newsgroup who regularly practice with firearms. Maybe a lot of us don't brag about it. And maybe you are full of schitt. Doubtful. Many have been in the armed forces, it might surprise you how many can just pick on up, load it and shot straight. Last I checked basic training thought everyone even the cook. I doubt that many of those who haven't fired a firearm in years can just pick one up, load it and shoot straight, unless the firearm is a shotgun. I further doubt that many of those who fired a firearm years ago even own a *serviceable* firearm. Like I said, I don't currently own one, haven't for many years. But would bet if you put a standard hunting rifle in front of me I would find the safety before the perp could blink. 60 seconds tops to load and prep. Now if what you meant was to hit someone at 250 yards....well I would be cooked as the eyes and skills are not that good any more. But unless the perp is a sniper, I wouldn't have to defend myself if they were 250 yards away. Pretty hard to miss a perp in your own home at perhaps 4 yards. But good point, "... hey officer, sorry, I was aiming for the legs and got right in the middle of the forehead instead." LOL. I would have no hesitation in protecting my home and family from an intruder by any force I could muster. If they die because of it, so sad too bad. |
H Krause please comment
Boater wrote:
Canuck57 wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... The concept of individual citizens armed with small arms holding off a huge invading army is an NRA wet dream. Americans aren't as tough as Afghanis. Based on what? Your left wing, elitist opinion that you present as a "fact"? History proves you wrong. Eisboch Based upon the fact that this isn't the 18th or 19th century, and that any huge invading army is going to be equipped and organized as a huge invading army. It's going to be up to our military to protect the homeland. Hell, as far as I can tell, there are only a couple of "regulars" in this newsgroup who regularly practice with firearms. I don't own one, does not mean I don't know how too. I have had some training, and have in earlier years gone hunting. If I ever had to pick one up to use it to protect life, property or freedom bet I could beat most Canadians and would at least check the barrel for being pinned so I wouldn't blow my face off. Responsible owners should be allowed to keep their firearms. Take Canada as proof you can pass any law you like and spend whatever you like but the criminals still have them. It's only possible redemption is that it does deter the irresponsible owner, but leaves the rest without. Taking guns from responsible people addresses nothing of the problem it is pandered to solve. Just lets liberal control freaks control more of your life. I haven't seen anything from Obama in his two year campaign that indicates to me he plans to go after my firearms. I don't accept the prognostications of the NRA. Nice cherry picking Krause. |
H Krause please comment
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote: Canuck57 wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... The concept of individual citizens armed with small arms holding off a huge invading army is an NRA wet dream. Americans aren't as tough as Afghanis. Based on what? Your left wing, elitist opinion that you present as a "fact"? History proves you wrong. Eisboch Based upon the fact that this isn't the 18th or 19th century, and that any huge invading army is going to be equipped and organized as a huge invading army. It's going to be up to our military to protect the homeland. Hell, as far as I can tell, there are only a couple of "regulars" in this newsgroup who regularly practice with firearms. I don't own one, does not mean I don't know how too. I have had some training, and have in earlier years gone hunting. If I ever had to pick one up to use it to protect life, property or freedom bet I could beat most Canadians and would at least check the barrel for being pinned so I wouldn't blow my face off. Responsible owners should be allowed to keep their firearms. Take Canada as proof you can pass any law you like and spend whatever you like but the criminals still have them. It's only possible redemption is that it does deter the irresponsible owner, but leaves the rest without. Taking guns from responsible people addresses nothing of the problem it is pandered to solve. Just lets liberal control freaks control more of your life. I haven't seen anything from Obama in his two year campaign that indicates to me he plans to go after my firearms. I don't accept the prognostications of the NRA. Nice cherry picking Krause. Well, I'm not driven or influenced by right-wing paranoia. |
H Krause please comment
Boater wrote:
Canuck57 wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... D.Duck wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... The concept of individual citizens armed with small arms holding off a huge invading army is an NRA wet dream. Americans aren't as tough as Afghanis. Based on what? Your left wing, elitist opinion that you present as a "fact"? History proves you wrong. Eisboch Based upon the fact that this isn't the 18th or 19th century, and that any huge invading army is going to be equipped and organized as a huge invading army. It's going to be up to our military to protect the homeland. Hell, as far as I can tell, there are only a couple of "regulars" in this newsgroup who regularly practice with firearms. Maybe a lot of us don't brag about it. And maybe you are full of schitt. Doubtful. Many have been in the armed forces, it might surprise you how many can just pick on up, load it and shot straight. Last I checked basic training thought everyone even the cook. I doubt that many of those who haven't fired a firearm in years can just pick one up, load it and shoot straight, unless the firearm is a shotgun. I further doubt that many of those who fired a firearm years ago even own a *serviceable* firearm. Ask anyone who went through Army or Marine boot camp if they could still field strip the weapon they were trained to field strip and shoot 30, 40 or 50 years ago. Ask them if they could still load and fire said weapon. And, ask them if they could still hit targets at the 200 and 300 yard lines with said weapon. Sight alignment, sight picture... |
H Krause please comment
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote: Canuck57 wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... D.Duck wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... The concept of individual citizens armed with small arms holding off a huge invading army is an NRA wet dream. Americans aren't as tough as Afghanis. Based on what? Your left wing, elitist opinion that you present as a "fact"? History proves you wrong. Eisboch Based upon the fact that this isn't the 18th or 19th century, and that any huge invading army is going to be equipped and organized as a huge invading army. It's going to be up to our military to protect the homeland. Hell, as far as I can tell, there are only a couple of "regulars" in this newsgroup who regularly practice with firearms. Maybe a lot of us don't brag about it. And maybe you are full of schitt. Doubtful. Many have been in the armed forces, it might surprise you how many can just pick on up, load it and shot straight. Last I checked basic training thought everyone even the cook. I doubt that many of those who haven't fired a firearm in years can just pick one up, load it and shoot straight, unless the firearm is a shotgun. I further doubt that many of those who fired a firearm years ago even own a *serviceable* firearm. Ask anyone who went through Army or Marine boot camp if they could still field strip the weapon they were trained to field strip and shoot 30, 40 or 50 years ago. Ask them if they could still load and fire said weapon. And, ask them if they could still hit targets at the 200 and 300 yard lines with said weapon. Sight alignment, sight picture... Drone on, drone. If you haven't practiced with firearms in many years, it is unlikely you'll be able to shoot well. Shooting well is not the same as loading and firing a weapon. Guys who haven't shot an issue rifle since Vietnam aren't going to be able to hit small targets at 200-300 yards, if they could even do it when they were young and in practice. |
H Krause please comment
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote: Boater wrote: Canuck57 wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... D.Duck wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... The concept of individual citizens armed with small arms holding off a huge invading army is an NRA wet dream. Americans aren't as tough as Afghanis. Based on what? Your left wing, elitist opinion that you present as a "fact"? History proves you wrong. Eisboch Based upon the fact that this isn't the 18th or 19th century, and that any huge invading army is going to be equipped and organized as a huge invading army. It's going to be up to our military to protect the homeland. Hell, as far as I can tell, there are only a couple of "regulars" in this newsgroup who regularly practice with firearms. Maybe a lot of us don't brag about it. And maybe you are full of schitt. Doubtful. Many have been in the armed forces, it might surprise you how many can just pick on up, load it and shot straight. Last I checked basic training thought everyone even the cook. I doubt that many of those who haven't fired a firearm in years can just pick one up, load it and shoot straight, unless the firearm is a shotgun. I further doubt that many of those who fired a firearm years ago even own a *serviceable* firearm. Ask anyone who went through Army or Marine boot camp if they could still field strip the weapon they were trained to field strip and shoot 30, 40 or 50 years ago. Ask them if they could still load and fire said weapon. And, ask them if they could still hit targets at the 200 and 300 yard lines with said weapon. Sight alignment, sight picture... Drone on, drone. If you haven't practiced with firearms in many years, it is unlikely you'll be able to shoot well. Shooting well is not the same as loading and firing a weapon. Guys who haven't shot an issue rifle since Vietnam aren't going to be able to hit small targets at 200-300 yards, if they could even do it when they were young and in practice. Sure they are. I'd put up an former USMC expert marksman against you with at 300 yards any day of the week. |
H Krause please comment
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote: BAR wrote: Boater wrote: Canuck57 wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... D.Duck wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... The concept of individual citizens armed with small arms holding off a huge invading army is an NRA wet dream. Americans aren't as tough as Afghanis. Based on what? Your left wing, elitist opinion that you present as a "fact"? History proves you wrong. Eisboch Based upon the fact that this isn't the 18th or 19th century, and that any huge invading army is going to be equipped and organized as a huge invading army. It's going to be up to our military to protect the homeland. Hell, as far as I can tell, there are only a couple of "regulars" in this newsgroup who regularly practice with firearms. Maybe a lot of us don't brag about it. And maybe you are full of schitt. Doubtful. Many have been in the armed forces, it might surprise you how many can just pick on up, load it and shot straight. Last I checked basic training thought everyone even the cook. I doubt that many of those who haven't fired a firearm in years can just pick one up, load it and shoot straight, unless the firearm is a shotgun. I further doubt that many of those who fired a firearm years ago even own a *serviceable* firearm. Ask anyone who went through Army or Marine boot camp if they could still field strip the weapon they were trained to field strip and shoot 30, 40 or 50 years ago. Ask them if they could still load and fire said weapon. And, ask them if they could still hit targets at the 200 and 300 yard lines with said weapon. Sight alignment, sight picture... Drone on, drone. If you haven't practiced with firearms in many years, it is unlikely you'll be able to shoot well. Shooting well is not the same as loading and firing a weapon. Guys who haven't shot an issue rifle since Vietnam aren't going to be able to hit small targets at 200-300 yards, if they could even do it when they were young and in practice. Sure they are. I'd put up an former USMC expert marksman against you with at 300 yards any day of the week. Your previous statement "Ask anyone who went through boot camp...still hit targets at 200 and 300 yard lines..." "Anyone" is not an expert marksman, present or former. Further, I don't shoot at 200 or 300 yards. I shoot pistols and can offhand a full magazine from my 9 mm SIG into a very very small circle at 25 yards, the "standard" pistol distance. I shoot pretty good groups with a rifle at 100 yards, but I don't shoot any further than that. Remember, I shoot targets, not people or animals. Try to be a bit consistent, eh? |
H Krause please comment
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote: Boater wrote: BAR wrote: Boater wrote: Canuck57 wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... D.Duck wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... The concept of individual citizens armed with small arms holding off a huge invading army is an NRA wet dream. Americans aren't as tough as Afghanis. Based on what? Your left wing, elitist opinion that you present as a "fact"? History proves you wrong. Eisboch Based upon the fact that this isn't the 18th or 19th century, and that any huge invading army is going to be equipped and organized as a huge invading army. It's going to be up to our military to protect the homeland. Hell, as far as I can tell, there are only a couple of "regulars" in this newsgroup who regularly practice with firearms. Maybe a lot of us don't brag about it. And maybe you are full of schitt. Doubtful. Many have been in the armed forces, it might surprise you how many can just pick on up, load it and shot straight. Last I checked basic training thought everyone even the cook. I doubt that many of those who haven't fired a firearm in years can just pick one up, load it and shoot straight, unless the firearm is a shotgun. I further doubt that many of those who fired a firearm years ago even own a *serviceable* firearm. Ask anyone who went through Army or Marine boot camp if they could still field strip the weapon they were trained to field strip and shoot 30, 40 or 50 years ago. Ask them if they could still load and fire said weapon. And, ask them if they could still hit targets at the 200 and 300 yard lines with said weapon. Sight alignment, sight picture... Drone on, drone. If you haven't practiced with firearms in many years, it is unlikely you'll be able to shoot well. Shooting well is not the same as loading and firing a weapon. Guys who haven't shot an issue rifle since Vietnam aren't going to be able to hit small targets at 200-300 yards, if they could even do it when they were young and in practice. Sure they are. I'd put up an former USMC expert marksman against you with at 300 yards any day of the week. Your previous statement "Ask anyone who went through boot camp...still hit targets at 200 and 300 yard lines..." "Anyone" is not an expert marksman, present or former. All I did is revise and extend my remarks. Why do you have a problem with that? Further, I don't shoot at 200 or 300 yards. I shoot pistols and can offhand a full magazine from my 9 mm SIG into a very very small circle at 25 yards, the "standard" pistol distance. I shoot pretty good groups with a rifle at 100 yards, but I don't shoot any further than that. Remember, I shoot targets, not people or animals. Try to be a bit consistent, eh? What is a "very very small circle?" A baker target might look like a "people" from the chest up but it is just a target. Why are you wasting your time shooting a rifle at 100 yards? If you are shooting a an air rifle you would be shooting a much shorter distances and if you are shooting anything larger than a .22 you should be shooting at least 200 yards and if you are hunting in open areas you should be practicing for 300 yards. |
H Krause please comment
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote: BAR wrote: Boater wrote: BAR wrote: Boater wrote: Canuck57 wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... D.Duck wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... The concept of individual citizens armed with small arms holding off a huge invading army is an NRA wet dream. Americans aren't as tough as Afghanis. Based on what? Your left wing, elitist opinion that you present as a "fact"? History proves you wrong. Eisboch Based upon the fact that this isn't the 18th or 19th century, and that any huge invading army is going to be equipped and organized as a huge invading army. It's going to be up to our military to protect the homeland. Hell, as far as I can tell, there are only a couple of "regulars" in this newsgroup who regularly practice with firearms. Maybe a lot of us don't brag about it. And maybe you are full of schitt. Doubtful. Many have been in the armed forces, it might surprise you how many can just pick on up, load it and shot straight. Last I checked basic training thought everyone even the cook. I doubt that many of those who haven't fired a firearm in years can just pick one up, load it and shoot straight, unless the firearm is a shotgun. I further doubt that many of those who fired a firearm years ago even own a *serviceable* firearm. Ask anyone who went through Army or Marine boot camp if they could still field strip the weapon they were trained to field strip and shoot 30, 40 or 50 years ago. Ask them if they could still load and fire said weapon. And, ask them if they could still hit targets at the 200 and 300 yard lines with said weapon. Sight alignment, sight picture... Drone on, drone. If you haven't practiced with firearms in many years, it is unlikely you'll be able to shoot well. Shooting well is not the same as loading and firing a weapon. Guys who haven't shot an issue rifle since Vietnam aren't going to be able to hit small targets at 200-300 yards, if they could even do it when they were young and in practice. Sure they are. I'd put up an former USMC expert marksman against you with at 300 yards any day of the week. Your previous statement "Ask anyone who went through boot camp...still hit targets at 200 and 300 yard lines..." "Anyone" is not an expert marksman, present or former. All I did is revise and extend my remarks. Why do you have a problem with that? Further, I don't shoot at 200 or 300 yards. I shoot pistols and can offhand a full magazine from my 9 mm SIG into a very very small circle at 25 yards, the "standard" pistol distance. I shoot pretty good groups with a rifle at 100 yards, but I don't shoot any further than that. Remember, I shoot targets, not people or animals. Try to be a bit consistent, eh? What is a "very very small circle?" A baker target might look like a "people" from the chest up but it is just a target. Why are you wasting your time shooting a rifle at 100 yards? If you are shooting a an air rifle you would be shooting a much shorter distances and if you are shooting anything larger than a .22 you should be shooting at least 200 yards and if you are hunting in open areas you should be practicing for 300 yards. A small circle on a well-known target: http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...us/40-0004.jpg 25 yards offhand with a .40 S&W, a pistol I don't often shoot. Good enough to pump a magazine into a perp's chest if I were so inclined. At 25 yards. That's 75 feet for you. I shoot rifles at 100 yards because that is the standard range distance. I don't hunt. A distance of 100 yards is a good test of rifle and shooter. Remember, I shoot offhand. You know what that means, right? |
H Krause please comment
"Boater" wrote in message ... Canuck57 wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... The concept of individual citizens armed with small arms holding off a huge invading army is an NRA wet dream. Americans aren't as tough as Afghanis. Based on what? Your left wing, elitist opinion that you present as a "fact"? History proves you wrong. Eisboch Based upon the fact that this isn't the 18th or 19th century, and that any huge invading army is going to be equipped and organized as a huge invading army. It's going to be up to our military to protect the homeland. Hell, as far as I can tell, there are only a couple of "regulars" in this newsgroup who regularly practice with firearms. I don't own one, does not mean I don't know how too. I have had some training, and have in earlier years gone hunting. If I ever had to pick one up to use it to protect life, property or freedom bet I could beat most Canadians and would at least check the barrel for being pinned so I wouldn't blow my face off. Responsible owners should be allowed to keep their firearms. Take Canada as proof you can pass any law you like and spend whatever you like but the criminals still have them. It's only possible redemption is that it does deter the irresponsible owner, but leaves the rest without. Taking guns from responsible people addresses nothing of the problem it is pandered to solve. Just lets liberal control freaks control more of your life. I haven't seen anything from Obama in his two year campaign that indicates to me he plans to go after my firearms. I don't accept the prognostications of the NRA. Agreed, public record is better: http://www.sportsmenforobama.org/content/view/13/26/ 1 for, 6 against and one neutral. While Obama's mouth moves one way his votes tend to go the other way. |
H Krause please comment
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote: Canuck57 wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... The concept of individual citizens armed with small arms holding off a huge invading army is an NRA wet dream. Americans aren't as tough as Afghanis. Based on what? Your left wing, elitist opinion that you present as a "fact"? History proves you wrong. Eisboch Based upon the fact that this isn't the 18th or 19th century, and that any huge invading army is going to be equipped and organized as a huge invading army. It's going to be up to our military to protect the homeland. Hell, as far as I can tell, there are only a couple of "regulars" in this newsgroup who regularly practice with firearms. I don't own one, does not mean I don't know how too. I have had some training, and have in earlier years gone hunting. If I ever had to pick one up to use it to protect life, property or freedom bet I could beat most Canadians and would at least check the barrel for being pinned so I wouldn't blow my face off. Responsible owners should be allowed to keep their firearms. Take Canada as proof you can pass any law you like and spend whatever you like but the criminals still have them. It's only possible redemption is that it does deter the irresponsible owner, but leaves the rest without. Taking guns from responsible people addresses nothing of the problem it is pandered to solve. Just lets liberal control freaks control more of your life. I haven't seen anything from Obama in his two year campaign that indicates to me he plans to go after my firearms. I don't accept the prognostications of the NRA. Nice cherry picking Krause. I wonder why the NRA fears Nobama. Do they know something that Harry doesn't? |
H Krause please comment
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote: Boater wrote: BAR wrote: Boater wrote: BAR wrote: Boater wrote: Canuck57 wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... D.Duck wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... The concept of individual citizens armed with small arms holding off a huge invading army is an NRA wet dream. Americans aren't as tough as Afghanis. Based on what? Your left wing, elitist opinion that you present as a "fact"? History proves you wrong. Eisboch Based upon the fact that this isn't the 18th or 19th century, and that any huge invading army is going to be equipped and organized as a huge invading army. It's going to be up to our military to protect the homeland. Hell, as far as I can tell, there are only a couple of "regulars" in this newsgroup who regularly practice with firearms. Maybe a lot of us don't brag about it. And maybe you are full of schitt. Doubtful. Many have been in the armed forces, it might surprise you how many can just pick on up, load it and shot straight. Last I checked basic training thought everyone even the cook. I doubt that many of those who haven't fired a firearm in years can just pick one up, load it and shoot straight, unless the firearm is a shotgun. I further doubt that many of those who fired a firearm years ago even own a *serviceable* firearm. Ask anyone who went through Army or Marine boot camp if they could still field strip the weapon they were trained to field strip and shoot 30, 40 or 50 years ago. Ask them if they could still load and fire said weapon. And, ask them if they could still hit targets at the 200 and 300 yard lines with said weapon. Sight alignment, sight picture... Drone on, drone. If you haven't practiced with firearms in many years, it is unlikely you'll be able to shoot well. Shooting well is not the same as loading and firing a weapon. Guys who haven't shot an issue rifle since Vietnam aren't going to be able to hit small targets at 200-300 yards, if they could even do it when they were young and in practice. Sure they are. I'd put up an former USMC expert marksman against you with at 300 yards any day of the week. Your previous statement "Ask anyone who went through boot camp...still hit targets at 200 and 300 yard lines..." "Anyone" is not an expert marksman, present or former. All I did is revise and extend my remarks. Why do you have a problem with that? Further, I don't shoot at 200 or 300 yards. I shoot pistols and can offhand a full magazine from my 9 mm SIG into a very very small circle at 25 yards, the "standard" pistol distance. I shoot pretty good groups with a rifle at 100 yards, but I don't shoot any further than that. Remember, I shoot targets, not people or animals. Try to be a bit consistent, eh? What is a "very very small circle?" A baker target might look like a "people" from the chest up but it is just a target. Why are you wasting your time shooting a rifle at 100 yards? If you are shooting a an air rifle you would be shooting a much shorter distances and if you are shooting anything larger than a .22 you should be shooting at least 200 yards and if you are hunting in open areas you should be practicing for 300 yards. A small circle on a well-known target: http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...us/40-0004.jpg 25 yards offhand with a .40 S&W, a pistol I don't often shoot. Good enough to pump a magazine into a perp's chest if I were so inclined. At 25 yards. That's 75 feet for you. Don't you have confidence in the police force to protect you? I shoot rifles at 100 yards because that is the standard range distance. "Standard range distance", what does that mean? I don't hunt. A distance of 100 yards is a good test of rifle and shooter. Test of what? 100 yards doesn't give the the wind or the trajectory of the projectile a chance affect the flight of the projectile. If you want to watch someone do some plinking 100 yards is ok but, it isn't a test of one's shooting ability. Remember, I shoot offhand. You know what that means, right? What does that have to do with anything? |
H Krause please comment
Canuck57 wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message ... Canuck57 wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... The concept of individual citizens armed with small arms holding off a huge invading army is an NRA wet dream. Americans aren't as tough as Afghanis. Based on what? Your left wing, elitist opinion that you present as a "fact"? History proves you wrong. Eisboch Based upon the fact that this isn't the 18th or 19th century, and that any huge invading army is going to be equipped and organized as a huge invading army. It's going to be up to our military to protect the homeland. Hell, as far as I can tell, there are only a couple of "regulars" in this newsgroup who regularly practice with firearms. I don't own one, does not mean I don't know how too. I have had some training, and have in earlier years gone hunting. If I ever had to pick one up to use it to protect life, property or freedom bet I could beat most Canadians and would at least check the barrel for being pinned so I wouldn't blow my face off. Responsible owners should be allowed to keep their firearms. Take Canada as proof you can pass any law you like and spend whatever you like but the criminals still have them. It's only possible redemption is that it does deter the irresponsible owner, but leaves the rest without. Taking guns from responsible people addresses nothing of the problem it is pandered to solve. Just lets liberal control freaks control more of your life. I haven't seen anything from Obama in his two year campaign that indicates to me he plans to go after my firearms. I don't accept the prognostications of the NRA. Agreed, public record is better: http://www.sportsmenforobama.org/content/view/13/26/ 1 for, 6 against and one neutral. While Obama's mouth moves one way his votes tend to go the other way. I'm familiar with some of those proposals and as a responsible gun owner, I support most of them. None of them interfere with my use or enjoyment of firearms. You'll have to do a little better. Oh...I favor closing the "gun show loophole." |
H Krause please comment
jim wrote:
BAR wrote: Boater wrote: Canuck57 wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... The concept of individual citizens armed with small arms holding off a huge invading army is an NRA wet dream. Americans aren't as tough as Afghanis. Based on what? Your left wing, elitist opinion that you present as a "fact"? History proves you wrong. Eisboch Based upon the fact that this isn't the 18th or 19th century, and that any huge invading army is going to be equipped and organized as a huge invading army. It's going to be up to our military to protect the homeland. Hell, as far as I can tell, there are only a couple of "regulars" in this newsgroup who regularly practice with firearms. I don't own one, does not mean I don't know how too. I have had some training, and have in earlier years gone hunting. If I ever had to pick one up to use it to protect life, property or freedom bet I could beat most Canadians and would at least check the barrel for being pinned so I wouldn't blow my face off. Responsible owners should be allowed to keep their firearms. Take Canada as proof you can pass any law you like and spend whatever you like but the criminals still have them. It's only possible redemption is that it does deter the irresponsible owner, but leaves the rest without. Taking guns from responsible people addresses nothing of the problem it is pandered to solve. Just lets liberal control freaks control more of your life. I haven't seen anything from Obama in his two year campaign that indicates to me he plans to go after my firearms. I don't accept the prognostications of the NRA. Nice cherry picking Krause. I wonder why the NRA fears Nobama. Do they know something that Harry doesn't? D'oh...without on-going fear-mongering, the NRA's funds and "influence" dry up. |
H Krause please comment
jim wrote:
BAR wrote: Boater wrote: Canuck57 wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... The concept of individual citizens armed with small arms holding off a huge invading army is an NRA wet dream. Americans aren't as tough as Afghanis. Based on what? Your left wing, elitist opinion that you present as a "fact"? History proves you wrong. Eisboch Based upon the fact that this isn't the 18th or 19th century, and that any huge invading army is going to be equipped and organized as a huge invading army. It's going to be up to our military to protect the homeland. Hell, as far as I can tell, there are only a couple of "regulars" in this newsgroup who regularly practice with firearms. I don't own one, does not mean I don't know how too. I have had some training, and have in earlier years gone hunting. If I ever had to pick one up to use it to protect life, property or freedom bet I could beat most Canadians and would at least check the barrel for being pinned so I wouldn't blow my face off. Responsible owners should be allowed to keep their firearms. Take Canada as proof you can pass any law you like and spend whatever you like but the criminals still have them. It's only possible redemption is that it does deter the irresponsible owner, but leaves the rest without. Taking guns from responsible people addresses nothing of the problem it is pandered to solve. Just lets liberal control freaks control more of your life. I haven't seen anything from Obama in his two year campaign that indicates to me he plans to go after my firearms. I don't accept the prognostications of the NRA. Nice cherry picking Krause. I wonder why the NRA fears Nobama. Do they know something that Harry doesn't? Harry opens his eyes but he fails to see, he opens his ears but fails to hear. |
H Krause please comment
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote: BAR wrote: Boater wrote: BAR wrote: Boater wrote: BAR wrote: Boater wrote: Canuck57 wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... D.Duck wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... The concept of individual citizens armed with small arms holding off a huge invading army is an NRA wet dream. Americans aren't as tough as Afghanis. Based on what? Your left wing, elitist opinion that you present as a "fact"? History proves you wrong. Eisboch Based upon the fact that this isn't the 18th or 19th century, and that any huge invading army is going to be equipped and organized as a huge invading army. It's going to be up to our military to protect the homeland. Hell, as far as I can tell, there are only a couple of "regulars" in this newsgroup who regularly practice with firearms. Maybe a lot of us don't brag about it. And maybe you are full of schitt. Doubtful. Many have been in the armed forces, it might surprise you how many can just pick on up, load it and shot straight. Last I checked basic training thought everyone even the cook. I doubt that many of those who haven't fired a firearm in years can just pick one up, load it and shoot straight, unless the firearm is a shotgun. I further doubt that many of those who fired a firearm years ago even own a *serviceable* firearm. Ask anyone who went through Army or Marine boot camp if they could still field strip the weapon they were trained to field strip and shoot 30, 40 or 50 years ago. Ask them if they could still load and fire said weapon. And, ask them if they could still hit targets at the 200 and 300 yard lines with said weapon. Sight alignment, sight picture... Drone on, drone. If you haven't practiced with firearms in many years, it is unlikely you'll be able to shoot well. Shooting well is not the same as loading and firing a weapon. Guys who haven't shot an issue rifle since Vietnam aren't going to be able to hit small targets at 200-300 yards, if they could even do it when they were young and in practice. Sure they are. I'd put up an former USMC expert marksman against you with at 300 yards any day of the week. Your previous statement "Ask anyone who went through boot camp...still hit targets at 200 and 300 yard lines..." "Anyone" is not an expert marksman, present or former. All I did is revise and extend my remarks. Why do you have a problem with that? Further, I don't shoot at 200 or 300 yards. I shoot pistols and can offhand a full magazine from my 9 mm SIG into a very very small circle at 25 yards, the "standard" pistol distance. I shoot pretty good groups with a rifle at 100 yards, but I don't shoot any further than that. Remember, I shoot targets, not people or animals. Try to be a bit consistent, eh? What is a "very very small circle?" A baker target might look like a "people" from the chest up but it is just a target. Why are you wasting your time shooting a rifle at 100 yards? If you are shooting a an air rifle you would be shooting a much shorter distances and if you are shooting anything larger than a .22 you should be shooting at least 200 yards and if you are hunting in open areas you should be practicing for 300 yards. A small circle on a well-known target: http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...us/40-0004.jpg 25 yards offhand with a .40 S&W, a pistol I don't often shoot. Good enough to pump a magazine into a perp's chest if I were so inclined. At 25 yards. That's 75 feet for you. Don't you have confidence in the police force to protect you? I shoot rifles at 100 yards because that is the standard range distance. "Standard range distance", what does that mean? I don't hunt. A distance of 100 yards is a good test of rifle and shooter. Test of what? 100 yards doesn't give the the wind or the trajectory of the projectile a chance affect the flight of the projectile. If you want to watch someone do some plinking 100 yards is ok but, it isn't a test of one's shooting ability. Remember, I shoot offhand. You know what that means, right? What does that have to do with anything? Your ignorance of shooting skills is noted. |
H Krause please comment
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote: BAR wrote: Boater wrote: BAR wrote: Boater wrote: BAR wrote: Boater wrote: Canuck57 wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... D.Duck wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... The concept of individual citizens armed with small arms holding off a huge invading army is an NRA wet dream. Americans aren't as tough as Afghanis. Based on what? Your left wing, elitist opinion that you present as a "fact"? History proves you wrong. Eisboch Based upon the fact that this isn't the 18th or 19th century, and that any huge invading army is going to be equipped and organized as a huge invading army. It's going to be up to our military to protect the homeland. Hell, as far as I can tell, there are only a couple of "regulars" in this newsgroup who regularly practice with firearms. Maybe a lot of us don't brag about it. And maybe you are full of schitt. Doubtful. Many have been in the armed forces, it might surprise you how many can just pick on up, load it and shot straight. Last I checked basic training thought everyone even the cook. I doubt that many of those who haven't fired a firearm in years can just pick one up, load it and shoot straight, unless the firearm is a shotgun. I further doubt that many of those who fired a firearm years ago even own a *serviceable* firearm. Ask anyone who went through Army or Marine boot camp if they could still field strip the weapon they were trained to field strip and shoot 30, 40 or 50 years ago. Ask them if they could still load and fire said weapon. And, ask them if they could still hit targets at the 200 and 300 yard lines with said weapon. Sight alignment, sight picture... Drone on, drone. If you haven't practiced with firearms in many years, it is unlikely you'll be able to shoot well. Shooting well is not the same as loading and firing a weapon. Guys who haven't shot an issue rifle since Vietnam aren't going to be able to hit small targets at 200-300 yards, if they could even do it when they were young and in practice. Sure they are. I'd put up an former USMC expert marksman against you with at 300 yards any day of the week. Your previous statement "Ask anyone who went through boot camp...still hit targets at 200 and 300 yard lines..." "Anyone" is not an expert marksman, present or former. All I did is revise and extend my remarks. Why do you have a problem with that? Further, I don't shoot at 200 or 300 yards. I shoot pistols and can offhand a full magazine from my 9 mm SIG into a very very small circle at 25 yards, the "standard" pistol distance. I shoot pretty good groups with a rifle at 100 yards, but I don't shoot any further than that. Remember, I shoot targets, not people or animals. Try to be a bit consistent, eh? What is a "very very small circle?" A baker target might look like a "people" from the chest up but it is just a target. Why are you wasting your time shooting a rifle at 100 yards? If you are shooting a an air rifle you would be shooting a much shorter distances and if you are shooting anything larger than a .22 you should be shooting at least 200 yards and if you are hunting in open areas you should be practicing for 300 yards. A small circle on a well-known target: http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...us/40-0004.jpg 25 yards offhand with a .40 S&W, a pistol I don't often shoot. Good enough to pump a magazine into a perp's chest if I were so inclined. At 25 yards. That's 75 feet for you. Don't you have confidence in the police force to protect you? I shoot rifles at 100 yards because that is the standard range distance. "Standard range distance", what does that mean? I don't hunt. A distance of 100 yards is a good test of rifle and shooter. Test of what? 100 yards doesn't give the the wind or the trajectory of the projectile a chance affect the flight of the projectile. If you want to watch someone do some plinking 100 yards is ok but, it isn't a test of one's shooting ability. Remember, I shoot offhand. You know what that means, right? What does that have to do with anything? Offhand shooting for the terminally ignorant: http://sargesrollcall.blogspot.com/2...s-offhand.html |
H Krause please comment
"Boater" wrote in message ... Canuck57 wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... The concept of individual citizens armed with small arms holding off a huge invading army is an NRA wet dream. Americans aren't as tough as Afghanis. Based on what? Your left wing, elitist opinion that you present as a "fact"? History proves you wrong. Eisboch Based upon the fact that this isn't the 18th or 19th century, and that any huge invading army is going to be equipped and organized as a huge invading army. It's going to be up to our military to protect the homeland. Hell, as far as I can tell, there are only a couple of "regulars" in this newsgroup who regularly practice with firearms. I don't own one, does not mean I don't know how too. I have had some training, and have in earlier years gone hunting. If I ever had to pick one up to use it to protect life, property or freedom bet I could beat most Canadians and would at least check the barrel for being pinned so I wouldn't blow my face off. Responsible owners should be allowed to keep their firearms. Take Canada as proof you can pass any law you like and spend whatever you like but the criminals still have them. It's only possible redemption is that it does deter the irresponsible owner, but leaves the rest without. Taking guns from responsible people addresses nothing of the problem it is pandered to solve. Just lets liberal control freaks control more of your life. I haven't seen anything from Obama in his two year campaign that indicates to me he plans to go after my firearms. I don't accept the prognostications of the NRA. Mo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhL8a...eature=related By his argument, we should ban cars because cars kill people: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eB4ew09eoeQ&NR=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pk9GwXJNM2c&NR=1 Whatever you do, keep the right to defend your home and property. If you blow a home thief or robber out the window, I don't what the color is of his ass is let them bleed on the grass. It isn't about protecting Ghetto criminals, it is about the right to safety in your own home. Loss of personal freedom starts in earnest by taking away guns from responsible people. Maybe he has it backwards. Take away guns from the criminals first. Or better yet, toss the criminals in jail for longer times before they graduate to killing. Maybe ask, how many are criminals before they get busted for firearms offences? Canada has a long running gun control policy, and the criminals are still better armed than the police. |
H Krause please comment
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote: Boater wrote: BAR wrote: Boater wrote: BAR wrote: Boater wrote: BAR wrote: Boater wrote: Canuck57 wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... D.Duck wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... The concept of individual citizens armed with small arms holding off a huge invading army is an NRA wet dream. Americans aren't as tough as Afghanis. Based on what? Your left wing, elitist opinion that you present as a "fact"? History proves you wrong. Eisboch Based upon the fact that this isn't the 18th or 19th century, and that any huge invading army is going to be equipped and organized as a huge invading army. It's going to be up to our military to protect the homeland. Hell, as far as I can tell, there are only a couple of "regulars" in this newsgroup who regularly practice with firearms. Maybe a lot of us don't brag about it. And maybe you are full of schitt. Doubtful. Many have been in the armed forces, it might surprise you how many can just pick on up, load it and shot straight. Last I checked basic training thought everyone even the cook. I doubt that many of those who haven't fired a firearm in years can just pick one up, load it and shoot straight, unless the firearm is a shotgun. I further doubt that many of those who fired a firearm years ago even own a *serviceable* firearm. Ask anyone who went through Army or Marine boot camp if they could still field strip the weapon they were trained to field strip and shoot 30, 40 or 50 years ago. Ask them if they could still load and fire said weapon. And, ask them if they could still hit targets at the 200 and 300 yard lines with said weapon. Sight alignment, sight picture... Drone on, drone. If you haven't practiced with firearms in many years, it is unlikely you'll be able to shoot well. Shooting well is not the same as loading and firing a weapon. Guys who haven't shot an issue rifle since Vietnam aren't going to be able to hit small targets at 200-300 yards, if they could even do it when they were young and in practice. Sure they are. I'd put up an former USMC expert marksman against you with at 300 yards any day of the week. Your previous statement "Ask anyone who went through boot camp...still hit targets at 200 and 300 yard lines..." "Anyone" is not an expert marksman, present or former. All I did is revise and extend my remarks. Why do you have a problem with that? Further, I don't shoot at 200 or 300 yards. I shoot pistols and can offhand a full magazine from my 9 mm SIG into a very very small circle at 25 yards, the "standard" pistol distance. I shoot pretty good groups with a rifle at 100 yards, but I don't shoot any further than that. Remember, I shoot targets, not people or animals. Try to be a bit consistent, eh? What is a "very very small circle?" A baker target might look like a "people" from the chest up but it is just a target. Why are you wasting your time shooting a rifle at 100 yards? If you are shooting a an air rifle you would be shooting a much shorter distances and if you are shooting anything larger than a .22 you should be shooting at least 200 yards and if you are hunting in open areas you should be practicing for 300 yards. A small circle on a well-known target: http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...us/40-0004.jpg 25 yards offhand with a .40 S&W, a pistol I don't often shoot. Good enough to pump a magazine into a perp's chest if I were so inclined. At 25 yards. That's 75 feet for you. Don't you have confidence in the police force to protect you? I shoot rifles at 100 yards because that is the standard range distance. "Standard range distance", what does that mean? I don't hunt. A distance of 100 yards is a good test of rifle and shooter. Test of what? 100 yards doesn't give the the wind or the trajectory of the projectile a chance affect the flight of the projectile. If you want to watch someone do some plinking 100 yards is ok but, it isn't a test of one's shooting ability. Remember, I shoot offhand. You know what that means, right? What does that have to do with anything? Your ignorance of shooting skills is noted. What competitive shooting shoots at 100 yards? |
H Krause please comment
"Boater" wrote in message ... Canuck57 wrote: "BAR" wrote in message ... Boater wrote: jim wrote: Boater wrote: Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... The concept of individual citizens armed with small arms holding off a huge invading army is an NRA wet dream. Americans aren't as tough as Afghanis. Based on what? Your left wing, elitist opinion that you present as a "fact"? History proves you wrong. Eisboch Based upon the fact that this isn't the 18th or 19th century, and that any huge invading army is going to be equipped and organized as a huge invading army. It's going to be up to our military to protect the homeland. Hell, as far as I can tell, there are only a couple of "regulars" in this newsgroup who regularly practice with firearms. Back in the day when you were needed in "our military" you didn't want any part in it. Now you figure it's up to "our military" to watch out for your sorry ass. WAFA You are so far out in La La land it isn't funny. We have an all-volunteer military. Its members signed up to defend the homeland. It's their job. I help pay for it. Got it? Yes, you are a coward. When it was your turn to defend the homeland you pussied out and when and hid behind a college deferment. Boater was likely a coward. When I was "of age" for the military, there was nothing happening that required the homeland to be defended. There was that mess in Vietnam, but that was a war we perpetuated by taking over from the French, who got their butts kicked there and left. Ho Chi Minh had no designs on U.S. territory. He did work as a baker here, though. And he did seek the help of the United States in evicting the French from his country, but we paid no attention to him. Who knows...had we really been a champion of democracy around the world, we might have helped the Vietnamese after WW II achieve it. But we didn't. So you never did join up. Figures, nothing happening is your excuse. What is Obama's? Yep, while busy with Vietnam were you smoking dope in protest? |
H Krause please comment
"jim" wrote in message ... BAR wrote: Boater wrote: Canuck57 wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... The concept of individual citizens armed with small arms holding off a huge invading army is an NRA wet dream. Americans aren't as tough as Afghanis. Based on what? Your left wing, elitist opinion that you present as a "fact"? History proves you wrong. Eisboch Based upon the fact that this isn't the 18th or 19th century, and that any huge invading army is going to be equipped and organized as a huge invading army. It's going to be up to our military to protect the homeland. Hell, as far as I can tell, there are only a couple of "regulars" in this newsgroup who regularly practice with firearms. I don't own one, does not mean I don't know how too. I have had some training, and have in earlier years gone hunting. If I ever had to pick one up to use it to protect life, property or freedom bet I could beat most Canadians and would at least check the barrel for being pinned so I wouldn't blow my face off. Responsible owners should be allowed to keep their firearms. Take Canada as proof you can pass any law you like and spend whatever you like but the criminals still have them. It's only possible redemption is that it does deter the irresponsible owner, but leaves the rest without. Taking guns from responsible people addresses nothing of the problem it is pandered to solve. Just lets liberal control freaks control more of your life. I haven't seen anything from Obama in his two year campaign that indicates to me he plans to go after my firearms. I don't accept the prognostications of the NRA. Nice cherry picking Krause. I wonder why the NRA fears Nobama. Do they know something that Harry doesn't? Yes, his previous voting record. Mostly against people owning guns for any reason. |
H Krause please comment
"Boater" wrote in message ... Canuck57 wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Canuck57 wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... The concept of individual citizens armed with small arms holding off a huge invading army is an NRA wet dream. Americans aren't as tough as Afghanis. Based on what? Your left wing, elitist opinion that you present as a "fact"? History proves you wrong. Eisboch Based upon the fact that this isn't the 18th or 19th century, and that any huge invading army is going to be equipped and organized as a huge invading army. It's going to be up to our military to protect the homeland. Hell, as far as I can tell, there are only a couple of "regulars" in this newsgroup who regularly practice with firearms. I don't own one, does not mean I don't know how too. I have had some training, and have in earlier years gone hunting. If I ever had to pick one up to use it to protect life, property or freedom bet I could beat most Canadians and would at least check the barrel for being pinned so I wouldn't blow my face off. Responsible owners should be allowed to keep their firearms. Take Canada as proof you can pass any law you like and spend whatever you like but the criminals still have them. It's only possible redemption is that it does deter the irresponsible owner, but leaves the rest without. Taking guns from responsible people addresses nothing of the problem it is pandered to solve. Just lets liberal control freaks control more of your life. I haven't seen anything from Obama in his two year campaign that indicates to me he plans to go after my firearms. I don't accept the prognostications of the NRA. Agreed, public record is better: http://www.sportsmenforobama.org/content/view/13/26/ 1 for, 6 against and one neutral. While Obama's mouth moves one way his votes tend to go the other way. I'm familiar with some of those proposals and as a responsible gun owner, I support most of them. None of them interfere with my use or enjoyment of firearms. You'll have to do a little better. Oh...I favor closing the "gun show loophole." If the gun shop loophole is something like: - must show drivers license and verify identity - must have a clean record, no violent wilful crimes - must wait 72 hours to obtain Yep. But I think if you look deeper you will find it goes much further than that. |
H Krause please comment
Canuck57 wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message ... When I was "of age" for the military, there was nothing happening that required the homeland to be defended. There was that mess in Vietnam, but that was a war we perpetuated by taking over from the French, who got their butts kicked there and left. Ho Chi Minh had no designs on U.S. territory. He did work as a baker here, though. And he did seek the help of the United States in evicting the French from his country, but we paid no attention to him. Who knows...had we really been a champion of democracy around the world, we might have helped the Vietnamese after WW II achieve it. But we didn't. So you never did join up. Figures, nothing happening is your excuse. What is Obama's? Yep, while busy with Vietnam were you smoking dope in protest? Sign up for what? Killing people that were no threat to the United States? Supporting a right-wing dictatorship? No thanks. |
H Krause please comment
"Boater" wrote in message ... Hey, it isn't my fault you were too stupid to succeed in college and hid out in the Marines. This is why the USA will be in deep doo-doo under obamaship. Eisboch |
H Krause please comment
"Boater" wrote in message ... When I was "of age" for the military, there was nothing happening that required the homeland to be defended. There was that mess in Vietnam, but that was a war we perpetuated by taking over from the French, who got their butts kicked there and left. Had nothing to do with the USSR, huh? Eisboch |
H Krause please comment
"jim" wrote in message ... Harry reads from a DNC supplied script. Any time he tries to ad-lib he makes a fool of himself Yep. Most of Harry's political posts are nothing more than the latest DNC official "positions" that we hear otherwise via the media constantly, day by day, hour by hour. I suspect he's on the mailing list. It would really be refreshing to hear some personal, real time opinions, supported by facts. Eisboch |
H Krause please comment
"BAR" wrote in message ... jim wrote: BAR wrote: Boater wrote: Canuck57 wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... The concept of individual citizens armed with small arms holding off a huge invading army is an NRA wet dream. Americans aren't as tough as Afghanis. Based on what? Your left wing, elitist opinion that you present as a "fact"? History proves you wrong. Eisboch Based upon the fact that this isn't the 18th or 19th century, and that any huge invading army is going to be equipped and organized as a huge invading army. It's going to be up to our military to protect the homeland. Hell, as far as I can tell, there are only a couple of "regulars" in this newsgroup who regularly practice with firearms. I don't own one, does not mean I don't know how too. I have had some training, and have in earlier years gone hunting. If I ever had to pick one up to use it to protect life, property or freedom bet I could beat most Canadians and would at least check the barrel for being pinned so I wouldn't blow my face off. Responsible owners should be allowed to keep their firearms. Take Canada as proof you can pass any law you like and spend whatever you like but the criminals still have them. It's only possible redemption is that it does deter the irresponsible owner, but leaves the rest without. Taking guns from responsible people addresses nothing of the problem it is pandered to solve. Just lets liberal control freaks control more of your life. I haven't seen anything from Obama in his two year campaign that indicates to me he plans to go after my firearms. I don't accept the prognostications of the NRA. Nice cherry picking Krause. I wonder why the NRA fears Nobama. Do they know something that Harry doesn't? Harry opens his eyes but he fails to see, he opens his ears but fails to hear. Harry will be one of the first to cry, "It wasn't my idea ... take care of me!" Eisboch |
H Krause please comment
"Boater" wrote in message ... I doubt that many of those who haven't fired a firearm in years can just pick one up, load it and shoot straight, unless the firearm is a shotgun. I further doubt that many of those who fired a firearm years ago even own a *serviceable* firearm. And I could prove you wrong. And I am just a hack. Eisboch |
H Krause please comment
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message ... Hey, it isn't my fault you were too stupid to succeed in college and hid out in the Marines. This is why the USA will be in deep doo-doo under obamaship. Eisboch I hope Nobama has more balls than Krause. His metel will be tested on several international fronts and if he turns out to be a marshmallow we are screwed. I don't have confidence in congress to act swiftly and decisively to remove him when it becomes necessary for our national defense. You're right deep doo-doo. Harry's ESAD takes on a whole new large scale meaning. |
H Krause please comment
"Boater" wrote in message ... Drone on, drone. If you haven't practiced with firearms in many years, it is unlikely you'll be able to shoot well. Shooting well is not the same as loading and firing a weapon. Guys who haven't shot an issue rifle since Vietnam aren't going to be able to hit small targets at 200-300 yards, if they could even do it when they were young and in practice. You're out of your league here to be offering expert opinions. Eisboch |
H Krause please comment
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message ... When I was "of age" for the military, there was nothing happening that required the homeland to be defended. There was that mess in Vietnam, but that was a war we perpetuated by taking over from the French, who got their butts kicked there and left. Had nothing to do with the USSR, huh? Eisboch Any way he spinns it he still ends up a COWARD. |
H Krause please comment
Eisboch wrote:
"jim" wrote in message ... Harry reads from a DNC supplied script. Any time he tries to ad-lib he makes a fool of himself Yep. Most of Harry's political posts are nothing more than the latest DNC official "positions" that we hear otherwise via the media constantly, day by day, hour by hour. I suspect he's on the mailing list. It would really be refreshing to hear some personal, real time opinions, supported by facts. Eisboch I don't think he has an opinion he owns. |
H Krause please comment
"Boater" wrote in message ... Further, I don't shoot at 200 or 300 yards. I shoot pistols and can offhand a full magazine from my 9 mm SIG into a very very small circle at 25 yards, the "standard" pistol distance. So can I, and I did it several times in a row at the Marines target practice facility in Norfolk a couple of years ago. First time ever for me. What's the big deal? Eisboch |
H Krause please comment
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message ... When I was "of age" for the military, there was nothing happening that required the homeland to be defended. There was that mess in Vietnam, but that was a war we perpetuated by taking over from the French, who got their butts kicked there and left. Had nothing to do with the USSR, huh? Eisboch The Soviet Union was a minor player in the Vietnam War. It supplied a significant amount of armament and materiel to the North Vietnamese, but it had a small number of troops in that country. The PRC was a major player, of course. Our insistence on propping up right-wing dictators didn't serve us well in Cuba, Vietnam, Iran, Panama, Nicaragua or Iraq. The only major fighting war we've had in a long, long time that made sense was George H.W. Bush's Gulf War, and only because he had most of the world behind us. And even that war had unintended bad consequences for us. |
H Krause please comment
"Boater" wrote in message ... Your ignorance of shooting skills is noted. Your ignorance of how you shoot in a war is noted. Eisboch |
H Krause please comment
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message ... Further, I don't shoot at 200 or 300 yards. I shoot pistols and can offhand a full magazine from my 9 mm SIG into a very very small circle at 25 yards, the "standard" pistol distance. So can I, and I did it several times in a row at the Marines target practice facility in Norfolk a couple of years ago. First time ever for me. What's the big deal? Eisboch Do you know what offhand shooting is? |
H Krause please comment
Boater wrote:
Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Further, I don't shoot at 200 or 300 yards. I shoot pistols and can offhand a full magazine from my 9 mm SIG into a very very small circle at 25 yards, the "standard" pistol distance. So can I, and I did it several times in a row at the Marines target practice facility in Norfolk a couple of years ago. First time ever for me. What's the big deal? Eisboch Do you know what offhand shooting is? This is my pistol This is my gun This is for shooting This is for fun. Wah Ha Ha Ha. Go play with your gun off-hand. WAFA |
H Krause please comment
jim wrote:
Boater wrote: Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Further, I don't shoot at 200 or 300 yards. I shoot pistols and can offhand a full magazine from my 9 mm SIG into a very very small circle at 25 yards, the "standard" pistol distance. So can I, and I did it several times in a row at the Marines target practice facility in Norfolk a couple of years ago. First time ever for me. What's the big deal? Eisboch Do you know what offhand shooting is? This is my pistol This is my gun This is for shooting This is for fun. Wah Ha Ha Ha. Go play with your gun off-hand. WAFA Yeah, I figured you were clueless. What else is new? |
H Krause please comment
"jim" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Hey, it isn't my fault you were too stupid to succeed in college and hid out in the Marines. This is why the USA will be in deep doo-doo under obamaship. Eisboch I hope Nobama has more balls than Krause. His metel will be tested on several international fronts and if he turns out to be a marshmallow we are screwed. I don't have confidence in congress to act swiftly and decisively to remove him when it becomes necessary for our national defense. You're right deep doo-doo. Harry's ESAD takes on a whole new large scale meaning. Obama, due to his limited, liberal based, academia experience, will want to hold meetings to "discuss" our differences while the adversary is kicking in our back door. Nice guys finish last. Eisboch |
H Krause please comment
"Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Further, I don't shoot at 200 or 300 yards. I shoot pistols and can offhand a full magazine from my 9 mm SIG into a very very small circle at 25 yards, the "standard" pistol distance. So can I, and I did it several times in a row at the Marines target practice facility in Norfolk a couple of years ago. First time ever for me. What's the big deal? Eisboch Do you know what offhand shooting is? Nope. Not a clue. All I know is that they gave me a Glock 9 mm that holds what, 14 or 15 rounds or something like that? We programmed the target holder for the standard 25 yards, and I fired away. I don't aim. The first three or four rounds are wasted walking "up" to the target, but after that, I was consistently within three rings. I don't know how I can do it, but I do. We went back several times over the course of a week and the results were always the same. Even the Grunts were impressed. Eisboch |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:39 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com