|
H Krause please comment
Illinois State Rifle Association Executive Director Richard Pearson
Issues Open Letter to Nation's Sportsmen Regarding Obama's History in the Illinois Senate CHICAGO, Oct. 15 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following is the text of an open letter to the nation's hunters and sportsmen issued today by Illinois State Rifle Association Executive Director Richard Pearson: Fellow Sportsman, Hello, my name is Rich Pearson and I have been active in the firearm rights movement for over 40 years. For the past 15 years, I have served in the Illinois state capitol as the chief lobbyist for the Illinois State Rifle Association. I lobbied Barack Obama extensively while he was an Illinois State Senator. As a result of that experience, I know Obama's attitudes toward guns and gun owners better than anyone. The truth be told, in all my years in the Capitol I have never met a legislator who harbors more contempt for the law-abiding firearm owner than does Barack Obama. Although Obama claims to be an advocate for the 2nd Amendment, his voting record in the Illinois Senate paints a very different picture. While a state senator, Obama voted for a bill that would ban nearly every hunting rifle, shotgun and target rifle owned by Illinois citizens. That same bill would authorize the state police to raid homes of gun owners to forcibly confiscate banned guns. Obama supported a bill that would shut down law-abiding firearm manufacturers including Springfield Armory, Armalite, Rock River Arms and Les Baer. Obama also voted for a bill that would prohibit law-abiding citizens from purchasing more than one gun per month. Without a doubt, Barack Obama has proven himself to be an enemy of the law abiding firearm owner. At the same time, Obama has proven himself to be a friend to the hardened criminal. While a state senator, Obama voted 4 times against legislation that would allow a homeowner to use a firearm in defense of home and family. Does Barack Obama still sound to you like a "friend" of the law-abiding gun owner? And speaking of friends, you can always tell a person by the company they keep. Obama counts among his friends the Rev. Michael Pfleger - a renegade Chicago priest who has openly called for the murder of gun shop owners and pro-gun legislators. Then there is his buddy Richard Daley, the mayor of Chicago who has declared that if it were up to him, nobody would be allowed to own a gun. And let's not forget Obama's pal George Soros - the guy who has pumped millions of dollars into the UN's international effort to disarm law-abiding citizens. Obama has shown that he is more than willing to use other people's money to fund his campaign to take your guns away from you. While a board member of the leftist Joyce Foundation, Barack Obama wrote checks for tens of millions of dollars to extremist gun control organizations such as the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence and the Violence Policy Center. Does Barack Obama still sound to you like a "friend" of the law-abiding gun owner? By now, I'm sure that many of you have received mailings from an organization called "American Hunters and Shooters Association(AHSA)" talking about what a swell fellow Obama is and how he honors the 2nd Amendment and how you will never have to worry about Obama coming to take your guns. Let me make it perfectly clear - everything the AHSA says about Obama is pure hogwash. The AHSA is headed by a group of left-wing elitists who subscribe to the British view of hunting and shooting. That is, a state of affairs where hunting and shooting are reserved for the wealthy upper-crust who can afford guided hunts on exclusive private reserves. The AHSA is not your friend, never will be. In closing, I'd like to remind you that I'm a guy who has actually gone nose to nose with Obama on gun rights issues. The Obama I know cannot even begin to identify with this nation's outdoor traditions. The Obama I know sees you, the law abiding gun owner, as nothing but a low-class lummox who is easily swayed by the flash of a smile and a ration of rosy rhetoric. The Obama I know is a stony-faced liar who has honed his skill at getting what he wants - so long as people are willing to give it to him. That's the Barack Obama I know. The ISRA is the state's leading advocate of safe, lawful and responsible firearms ownership. Founded in 1903, the ISRA has represented the interests of millions of law-abiding Illinois firearm owners. WEB SITE: http://www.isra.org SOURCE Illinois State Rifle Association |
H Krause please comment
"jim" wrote in message ... Illinois State Rifle Association Executive Director Richard Pearson Issues Open Letter to Nation's Sportsmen Regarding Obama's History in the Illinois Senate CHICAGO, Oct. 15 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following is the text of an open letter to the nation's hunters and sportsmen issued today by Illinois State Rifle Association Executive Director Richard Pearson: Fellow Sportsman, Hello, my name is Rich Pearson and I have been active in the firearm rights movement for over 40 years. For the past 15 years, I have served in the Illinois state capitol as the chief lobbyist for the Illinois State Rifle Association. I lobbied Barack Obama extensively while he was an Illinois State Senator. As a result of that experience, I know Obama's attitudes toward guns and gun owners better than anyone. The truth be told, in all my years in the Capitol I have never met a legislator who harbors more contempt for the law-abiding firearm owner than does Barack Obama. Although Obama claims to be an advocate for the 2nd Amendment, his voting record in the Illinois Senate paints a very different picture. While a state senator, Obama voted for a bill that would ban nearly every hunting rifle, shotgun and target rifle owned by Illinois citizens. That same bill would authorize the state police to raid homes of gun owners to forcibly confiscate banned guns. Obama supported a bill that would shut down law-abiding firearm manufacturers including Springfield Armory, Armalite, Rock River Arms and Les Baer. Obama also voted for a bill that would prohibit law-abiding citizens from purchasing more than one gun per month. Without a doubt, Barack Obama has proven himself to be an enemy of the law abiding firearm owner. At the same time, Obama has proven himself to be a friend to the hardened criminal. While a state senator, Obama voted 4 times against legislation that would allow a homeowner to use a firearm in defense of home and family. Does Barack Obama still sound to you like a "friend" of the law-abiding gun owner? And speaking of friends, you can always tell a person by the company they keep. Obama counts among his friends the Rev. Michael Pfleger - a renegade Chicago priest who has openly called for the murder of gun shop owners and pro-gun legislators. Then there is his buddy Richard Daley, the mayor of Chicago who has declared that if it were up to him, nobody would be allowed to own a gun. And let's not forget Obama's pal George Soros - the guy who has pumped millions of dollars into the UN's international effort to disarm law-abiding citizens. Obama has shown that he is more than willing to use other people's money to fund his campaign to take your guns away from you. While a board member of the leftist Joyce Foundation, Barack Obama wrote checks for tens of millions of dollars to extremist gun control organizations such as the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence and the Violence Policy Center. Does Barack Obama still sound to you like a "friend" of the law-abiding gun owner? By now, I'm sure that many of you have received mailings from an organization called "American Hunters and Shooters Association(AHSA)" talking about what a swell fellow Obama is and how he honors the 2nd Amendment and how you will never have to worry about Obama coming to take your guns. Let me make it perfectly clear - everything the AHSA says about Obama is pure hogwash. The AHSA is headed by a group of left-wing elitists who subscribe to the British view of hunting and shooting. That is, a state of affairs where hunting and shooting are reserved for the wealthy upper-crust who can afford guided hunts on exclusive private reserves. The AHSA is not your friend, never will be. In closing, I'd like to remind you that I'm a guy who has actually gone nose to nose with Obama on gun rights issues. The Obama I know cannot even begin to identify with this nation's outdoor traditions. The Obama I know sees you, the law abiding gun owner, as nothing but a low-class lummox who is easily swayed by the flash of a smile and a ration of rosy rhetoric. The Obama I know is a stony-faced liar who has honed his skill at getting what he wants - so long as people are willing to give it to him. That's the Barack Obama I know. The ISRA is the state's leading advocate of safe, lawful and responsible firearms ownership. Founded in 1903, the ISRA has represented the interests of millions of law-abiding Illinois firearm owners. WEB SITE: http://www.isra.org SOURCE Illinois State Rifle Association Ah, that was a *long* time ago, just his Ayers association. |
H Krause please comment
"D.Duck" wrote in message ... "jim" wrote in message ... Illinois State Rifle Association Executive Director Richard Pearson Issues Open Letter to Nation's Sportsmen Regarding Obama's History in the Illinois Senate CHICAGO, Oct. 15 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following is the text of an open letter to the nation's hunters and sportsmen issued today by Illinois State Rifle Association Executive Director Richard Pearson: Fellow Sportsman, Hello, my name is Rich Pearson and I have been active in the firearm rights movement for over 40 years. For the past 15 years, I have served in the Illinois state capitol as the chief lobbyist for the Illinois State Rifle Association. I lobbied Barack Obama extensively while he was an Illinois State Senator. As a result of that experience, I know Obama's attitudes toward guns and gun owners better than anyone. The truth be told, in all my years in the Capitol I have never met a legislator who harbors more contempt for the law-abiding firearm owner than does Barack Obama. Although Obama claims to be an advocate for the 2nd Amendment, his voting record in the Illinois Senate paints a very different picture. While a state senator, Obama voted for a bill that would ban nearly every hunting rifle, shotgun and target rifle owned by Illinois citizens. That same bill would authorize the state police to raid homes of gun owners to forcibly confiscate banned guns. Obama supported a bill that would shut down law-abiding firearm manufacturers including Springfield Armory, Armalite, Rock River Arms and Les Baer. Obama also voted for a bill that would prohibit law-abiding citizens from purchasing more than one gun per month. Without a doubt, Barack Obama has proven himself to be an enemy of the law abiding firearm owner. At the same time, Obama has proven himself to be a friend to the hardened criminal. While a state senator, Obama voted 4 times against legislation that would allow a homeowner to use a firearm in defense of home and family. Does Barack Obama still sound to you like a "friend" of the law-abiding gun owner? And speaking of friends, you can always tell a person by the company they keep. Obama counts among his friends the Rev. Michael Pfleger - a renegade Chicago priest who has openly called for the murder of gun shop owners and pro-gun legislators. Then there is his buddy Richard Daley, the mayor of Chicago who has declared that if it were up to him, nobody would be allowed to own a gun. And let's not forget Obama's pal George Soros - the guy who has pumped millions of dollars into the UN's international effort to disarm law-abiding citizens. Obama has shown that he is more than willing to use other people's money to fund his campaign to take your guns away from you. While a board member of the leftist Joyce Foundation, Barack Obama wrote checks for tens of millions of dollars to extremist gun control organizations such as the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence and the Violence Policy Center. Does Barack Obama still sound to you like a "friend" of the law-abiding gun owner? By now, I'm sure that many of you have received mailings from an organization called "American Hunters and Shooters Association(AHSA)" talking about what a swell fellow Obama is and how he honors the 2nd Amendment and how you will never have to worry about Obama coming to take your guns. Let me make it perfectly clear - everything the AHSA says about Obama is pure hogwash. The AHSA is headed by a group of left-wing elitists who subscribe to the British view of hunting and shooting. That is, a state of affairs where hunting and shooting are reserved for the wealthy upper-crust who can afford guided hunts on exclusive private reserves. The AHSA is not your friend, never will be. In closing, I'd like to remind you that I'm a guy who has actually gone nose to nose with Obama on gun rights issues. The Obama I know cannot even begin to identify with this nation's outdoor traditions. The Obama I know sees you, the law abiding gun owner, as nothing but a low-class lummox who is easily swayed by the flash of a smile and a ration of rosy rhetoric. The Obama I know is a stony-faced liar who has honed his skill at getting what he wants - so long as people are willing to give it to him. That's the Barack Obama I know. The ISRA is the state's leading advocate of safe, lawful and responsible firearms ownership. Founded in 1903, the ISRA has represented the interests of millions of law-abiding Illinois firearm owners. WEB SITE: http://www.isra.org SOURCE Illinois State Rifle Association Ah, that was a *long* time ago, just his Ayers association. Ooopa. Just *like* his Ayers association. |
H Krause please comment
jim wrote:
Illinois State Rifle Association I think the NRA offers worthwhile firearms safety programs for youngsters and on occasion has been a meaningful proponent of measures to preserve some of nature's amenities. Beyond that, I have no use for the NRA or its over-the-top political posturing. |
H Krause please comment
Boater wrote:
jim wrote: Illinois State Rifle Association I think the NRA offers worthwhile firearms safety programs for youngsters and on occasion has been a meaningful proponent of measures to preserve some of nature's amenities. Beyond that, I have no use for the NRA or its over-the-top political posturing. No comment on the substance of the letter, eh? Damned if you do. Damned if you don't |
H Krause please comment
jim wrote:
Boater wrote: jim wrote: Illinois State Rifle Association I think the NRA offers worthwhile firearms safety programs for youngsters and on occasion has been a meaningful proponent of measures to preserve some of nature's amenities. Beyond that, I have no use for the NRA or its over-the-top political posturing. No comment on the substance of the letter, eh? Damned if you do. Damned if you don't My comment on the NRA's politics is right there for you to see. Are you not able to understand a sentence that says: "Beyond that, I have no use for the NRA or its over-the-top political posturing." |
H Krause please comment
jim wrote:
Boater wrote: jim wrote: Illinois State Rifle Association I think the NRA offers worthwhile firearms safety programs for youngsters and on occasion has been a meaningful proponent of measures to preserve some of nature's amenities. Beyond that, I have no use for the NRA or its over-the-top political posturing. No comment on the substance of the letter, eh? Damned if you do. Damned if you don't Of course not, he can't argue the points. |
H Krause please comment
Boater wrote:
jim wrote: Boater wrote: jim wrote: Illinois State Rifle Association I think the NRA offers worthwhile firearms safety programs for youngsters and on occasion has been a meaningful proponent of measures to preserve some of nature's amenities. Beyond that, I have no use for the NRA or its over-the-top political posturing. No comment on the substance of the letter, eh? Damned if you do. Damned if you don't My comment on the NRA's politics is right there for you to see. Are you not able to understand a sentence that says: "Beyond that, I have no use for the NRA or its over-the-top political posturing." The NRA protects your right to shoot up stumpy. Shooting up stumpy does nothing to feed your family or protect your home. |
H Krause please comment
"BAR" wrote in message ... Boater wrote: jim wrote: Boater wrote: jim wrote: Illinois State Rifle Association I think the NRA offers worthwhile firearms safety programs for youngsters and on occasion has been a meaningful proponent of measures to preserve some of nature's amenities. Beyond that, I have no use for the NRA or its over-the-top political posturing. No comment on the substance of the letter, eh? Damned if you do. Damned if you don't My comment on the NRA's politics is right there for you to see. Are you not able to understand a sentence that says: "Beyond that, I have no use for the NRA or its over-the-top political posturing." The NRA protects your right to shoot up stumpy. Shooting up stumpy does nothing to feed your family or protect your home. Not directly. But if someone comes into you home with intent on raping your wife or daughter you will feel comfortable in using it not on the stump, but the intruder. I don't actually own a firearm, difficult to do legally in Canada. Criminals have them, police have them. But honest people don't. While death of criminals by firearms is down, they refuse to acknowledge death by knives, bats, even 4x4s is higher. Your best national defence is it's honest citizens being trained and possession firearms. If 20,000 Chinese invaded Canada from BC they would find very little resistance in taking Canada. 2,000,000 Chinese were to land in Portland Oregon and would not likely make it past the Rockies if they got that far. A major step in controlling people is to disarm them. |
H Krause please comment
Canuck57 wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message ... Boater wrote: jim wrote: Boater wrote: jim wrote: Illinois State Rifle Association I think the NRA offers worthwhile firearms safety programs for youngsters and on occasion has been a meaningful proponent of measures to preserve some of nature's amenities. Beyond that, I have no use for the NRA or its over-the-top political posturing. No comment on the substance of the letter, eh? Damned if you do. Damned if you don't My comment on the NRA's politics is right there for you to see. Are you not able to understand a sentence that says: "Beyond that, I have no use for the NRA or its over-the-top political posturing." The NRA protects your right to shoot up stumpy. Shooting up stumpy does nothing to feed your family or protect your home. Not directly. But if someone comes into you home with intent on raping your wife or daughter you will feel comfortable in using it not on the stump, but the intruder. I don't actually own a firearm, difficult to do legally in Canada. Criminals have them, police have them. But honest people don't. While death of criminals by firearms is down, they refuse to acknowledge death by knives, bats, even 4x4s is higher. Your best national defence is it's honest citizens being trained and possession firearms. If 20,000 Chinese invaded Canada from BC they would find very little resistance in taking Canada. 2,000,000 Chinese were to land in Portland Oregon and would not likely make it past the Rockies if they got that far. A major step in controlling people is to disarm them. If Krause was allowed to speak freely he would have to agree with you. |
H Krause please comment
jim wrote:
Canuck57 wrote: "BAR" wrote in message ... Boater wrote: jim wrote: Boater wrote: jim wrote: Illinois State Rifle Association I think the NRA offers worthwhile firearms safety programs for youngsters and on occasion has been a meaningful proponent of measures to preserve some of nature's amenities. Beyond that, I have no use for the NRA or its over-the-top political posturing. No comment on the substance of the letter, eh? Damned if you do. Damned if you don't My comment on the NRA's politics is right there for you to see. Are you not able to understand a sentence that says: "Beyond that, I have no use for the NRA or its over-the-top political posturing." The NRA protects your right to shoot up stumpy. Shooting up stumpy does nothing to feed your family or protect your home. Not directly. But if someone comes into you home with intent on raping your wife or daughter you will feel comfortable in using it not on the stump, but the intruder. I don't actually own a firearm, difficult to do legally in Canada. Criminals have them, police have them. But honest people don't. While death of criminals by firearms is down, they refuse to acknowledge death by knives, bats, even 4x4s is higher. Your best national defence is it's honest citizens being trained and possession firearms. If 20,000 Chinese invaded Canada from BC they would find very little resistance in taking Canada. 2,000,000 Chinese were to land in Portland Oregon and would not likely make it past the Rockies if they got that far. A major step in controlling people is to disarm them. If Krause was allowed to speak freely he would have to agree with you. 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. |
H Krause please comment
Boater wrote:
jim wrote: Canuck57 wrote: "BAR" wrote in message ... Boater wrote: jim wrote: Boater wrote: jim wrote: Illinois State Rifle Association I think the NRA offers worthwhile firearms safety programs for youngsters and on occasion has been a meaningful proponent of measures to preserve some of nature's amenities. Beyond that, I have no use for the NRA or its over-the-top political posturing. No comment on the substance of the letter, eh? Damned if you do. Damned if you don't My comment on the NRA's politics is right there for you to see. Are you not able to understand a sentence that says: "Beyond that, I have no use for the NRA or its over-the-top political posturing." The NRA protects your right to shoot up stumpy. Shooting up stumpy does nothing to feed your family or protect your home. Not directly. But if someone comes into you home with intent on raping your wife or daughter you will feel comfortable in using it not on the stump, but the intruder. I don't actually own a firearm, difficult to do legally in Canada. Criminals have them, police have them. But honest people don't. While death of criminals by firearms is down, they refuse to acknowledge death by knives, bats, even 4x4s is higher. Your best national defence is it's honest citizens being trained and possession firearms. If 20,000 Chinese invaded Canada from BC they would find very little resistance in taking Canada. 2,000,000 Chinese were to land in Portland Oregon and would not likely make it past the Rockies if they got that far. A major step in controlling people is to disarm them. If Krause was allowed to speak freely he would have to agree with you. 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. We understand. You are between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand you love your guns but on the other hand you must pretend that it doesn't bother you that Nobama intends to take your guns away. I wouldn't want to be in your ballet slippers right now. |
H Krause please comment
"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 |
H Krause please comment
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. |
H Krause please comment
On Oct 25, 8:38*am, Boater wrote:
jim wrote: Illinois State Rifle Association I think the NRA offers worthwhile firearms safety programs for youngsters and on occasion has been a meaningful proponent of measures to preserve some of nature's amenities. Beyond that, I have no use for the NRA or its over-the-top political posturing. Harry, I suppose you did what the OP requested. you made a comment. Even though your comment had nothing to do with the aforesaid article, nor its content. |
H Krause please comment
"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. |
H Krause please comment
Tim wrote:
On Oct 25, 8:38 am, Boater wrote: jim wrote: Illinois State Rifle Association I think the NRA offers worthwhile firearms safety programs for youngsters and on occasion has been a meaningful proponent of measures to preserve some of nature's amenities. Beyond that, I have no use for the NRA or its over-the-top political posturing. Harry, I suppose you did what the OP requested. you made a comment. Even though your comment had nothing to do with the aforesaid article, nor its content. Well, I don't have any reason to pay attention to the over-the-top political ravings of the NRA. I've seen nothing rational that convinces me Obama has the slightest interest in my firearms, certainly not a poison "letter" from the head of the Illinois NRA. |
H Krause please comment
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. |
H Krause please comment
"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. Just like WWll, it's how many we have, not how good we are with them. Eisboch |
H Krause please comment
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. |
H Krause please comment
Eisboch 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. Just like WWll, it's how many we have, not how good we are with them. Eisboch What an interesting comment. |
H Krause please comment
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? |
H Krause please comment
"Boater" wrote in message ... Just like WWll, it's how many we have, not how good we are with them. Eisboch What an interesting comment. Why, thank you. Eisboch |
H Krause please comment
"Boater" wrote in message ... 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? Why do you pay for something you so much despise? Eisboch |
H Krause please comment
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? I don't think I like your attitude. WAFA |
H Krause please comment
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message ... 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? Why do you pay for something you so much despise? Eisboch I don't "despise" the concept of having a military capable of defending the homeland from foreign invasion, nor have I ever suggested that the military be disbanded. I have very little respect for the *institution* of "the military," and for various reasons I find good. |
H Krause please comment
jim wrote:
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? I don't think I like your attitude. WAFA And that should matter to me? |
H Krause please comment
"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. Could be, but you'll never know. |
H Krause please comment
"WaIIy" wrote in message ... On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 18:25:45 -0400, "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 Let's see them try and take W. Virginia. Just dole out the *shine* and turn 'em lose. 80 |
H Krause please comment
Boater wrote:
jim wrote: Canuck57 wrote: "BAR" wrote in message ... Boater wrote: jim wrote: Boater wrote: jim wrote: Illinois State Rifle Association I think the NRA offers worthwhile firearms safety programs for youngsters and on occasion has been a meaningful proponent of measures to preserve some of nature's amenities. Beyond that, I have no use for the NRA or its over-the-top political posturing. No comment on the substance of the letter, eh? Damned if you do. Damned if you don't My comment on the NRA's politics is right there for you to see. Are you not able to understand a sentence that says: "Beyond that, I have no use for the NRA or its over-the-top political posturing." The NRA protects your right to shoot up stumpy. Shooting up stumpy does nothing to feed your family or protect your home. Not directly. But if someone comes into you home with intent on raping your wife or daughter you will feel comfortable in using it not on the stump, but the intruder. I don't actually own a firearm, difficult to do legally in Canada. Criminals have them, police have them. But honest people don't. While death of criminals by firearms is down, they refuse to acknowledge death by knives, bats, even 4x4s is higher. Your best national defence is it's honest citizens being trained and possession firearms. If 20,000 Chinese invaded Canada from BC they would find very little resistance in taking Canada. 2,000,000 Chinese were to land in Portland Oregon and would not likely make it past the Rockies if they got that far. A major step in controlling people is to disarm them. If Krause was allowed to speak freely he would have to agree with you. 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. You seem to forget that we've done it before. |
H Krause please comment
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. |
H Krause please comment
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote: jim wrote: Canuck57 wrote: "BAR" wrote in message ... Boater wrote: jim wrote: Boater wrote: jim wrote: Illinois State Rifle Association I think the NRA offers worthwhile firearms safety programs for youngsters and on occasion has been a meaningful proponent of measures to preserve some of nature's amenities. Beyond that, I have no use for the NRA or its over-the-top political posturing. No comment on the substance of the letter, eh? Damned if you do. Damned if you don't My comment on the NRA's politics is right there for you to see. Are you not able to understand a sentence that says: "Beyond that, I have no use for the NRA or its over-the-top political posturing." The NRA protects your right to shoot up stumpy. Shooting up stumpy does nothing to feed your family or protect your home. Not directly. But if someone comes into you home with intent on raping your wife or daughter you will feel comfortable in using it not on the stump, but the intruder. I don't actually own a firearm, difficult to do legally in Canada. Criminals have them, police have them. But honest people don't. While death of criminals by firearms is down, they refuse to acknowledge death by knives, bats, even 4x4s is higher. Your best national defence is it's honest citizens being trained and possession firearms. If 20,000 Chinese invaded Canada from BC they would find very little resistance in taking Canada. 2,000,000 Chinese were to land in Portland Oregon and would not likely make it past the Rockies if they got that far. A major step in controlling people is to disarm them. If Krause was allowed to speak freely he would have to agree with you. 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. You seem to forget that we've done it before. Harry reads from a DNC supplied script. Any time he tries to ad-lib he makes a fool of himself |
H Krause please comment
BAR wrote:
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. My turn to "defend" the homeland? From what? The North Vietnamese invading Topeka? Hey, it isn't my fault you were too stupid to succeed in college and hid out in the Marines. |
H Krause please comment
"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. |
H Krause please comment
"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. |
H Krause please comment
"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. |
H Krause please comment
"Boater" wrote in message ... BAR wrote: 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. My turn to "defend" the homeland? From what? The North Vietnamese invading Topeka? Hey, it isn't my fault you were too stupid to succeed in college and hid out in the Marines. Defending your homeland is like this. If you are prepared, no one will even try. When your apathy is at it's worst, you will become a target and lose. |
H Krause please comment
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. |
H Krause please comment
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. |
H Krause please comment
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:51 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com