Barack H. Obama and your Second Amendment Rights !

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Independent

To be honest, once all is said and done, I really believe Gingrich would have the best shot of beating Obama. Everyone else is leaning either too far one way, or the other....

Just my $.02

Indy

Naw. Gingrich has more baggage than Samsonite. Romney has the best chance of the Republicans if he can secure the nomination. He can get a fair share of the independent and women's vote. Neither Santorum nor Gingrich would get any from these all-important demographics.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by Independent

I agree 100%!

But that will be their undoing.

As mentioned on some talk show I watched last night, once the republican party does have a clear-cut presidential representative, there is absolutely no way that person can keep ALL of the different factions of the republican party happy, no matter who it is.

Santorum = Far right wingnut.
Gingrich = Somewhere between Santorum & Romney.
Romney = Top 1% and Mormon with political leanings more towards the middle.
Paul = Libertarian and will never win the nomination.

To be honest, once all is said and done, I really believe Gingrich would have the best shot of beating Obama. Everyone else is leaning either too far one way, or the other....

Just my $.02




Indy

In a way, I still think Romney has the best chance at beating Obama. My reasoning is that he is the standard issue stuffed shirt, plain vanilla, comforting as a moth eaten pair of house shoes candidate...with the least amount of baggage, that the Pubbies currently have.

In times of turmoil, people lean towards a Capo who appears to be a steady at the helm kind of guy who isn't prone to abrupt maneuvers. And that's the way Romney appears to me...hell, you about need to drive a stake beside him to see if he's moved or not. If he were fat, had white hair and a goatee, he could almost pass for one of those cardboard cutouts of Colonel Sanders.

Then again, I may be allowing the media to influence my perception on who is electable or not.

Believe it or not, I'm finding this to be the most boring election cycle that I've experienced. Of course, I figure that we're so far up shit creek that it almost doesn't matter who has the paddle.

Still, I'll turn out and vote for my choice of the lesser of two evils...being a good American and all.

Chas

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by bhunter

I agree with you in some nebulous general sense; however, wouldn't your argument also hold for law enforcement, thus precluding them from even drawing their firearm prior to percieving a firearm threat to themselves?

Law enforcement isn't supposed to draw a firearm prior to perceiving potential lethal threat to themselves. In most situations, once a gun is drawn you've lost the tactical upper hand. ("What? You gonna SHOOT me now, mother fucker? For talking to my own wife?")

Originally Posted by bhunter

In your view, can a law enforcement officer threatened by a knife use a firearm to remove that threat?

It depends upon both the officer and the knife as to whether there is a threat.

A six-foot and enraged man who is not in his right mind whilst holding a butcher's knife? That's a serious situation.

A despondent and suicidal pre-teen with a 2" blade lockback who has just had his heart broken for the first time? I'm not drawing on that kid.

Originally Posted by Charles

I would think that three men approaching someone else in a threatening manner could easily be defined as an exhibition of lethal force.

Or, they could just want directions and be as scared as you (colloquial "you") are at approach?

At the hearing? "Joe walked over to find whether we turn right or left on Main, reached in his pocket to light a cigarette, and before the Zippo reached his lips this guy had shot him!"

See the problem?

Folks like Big Bill would have us say, "Yeah! He shouldn't have approached me."

BULLSHIT.

[Big_Bill]

Originally Posted by Zeke

Of course you would.

It's been well documented here, many times. I've been trained by the best and worked in the (Kansas and Missouri) worst.

I would guess, by your hesitation to mention your trainers name, that you were trained in a prison system, as that is the only place that I have ever heard your quote; (If you don't control the environment, you do not control the confrontation.) Anyone that has ever been in combat or on the streets will tell you that you never can control the environment unless your in a controlled environment like a prison. And likewise controlling the confrontation, as confrontations are fluid, and constantly changing. So your training did not teach you how to work or fight on the streets, only in the prisons. And prison control requires 5- 6 guards handling any one uncooperative prisoner at a time, now that shouldn't be too hard at all.


But here's the rub: that doesn't really matter.

Your correct, it doesn't matter at all, because your prison training is worthless on the street and Jungles. Your training is even worthless during a small prison riot, because ounce you have lost control of that environment, you don't know what to do, just run for the gates and hope you make it. Then you can call in the State Police to regain control in your environment for you.

You're trying to create an ad hominem argument (and failing).

Not at all Zeke, I'm just pointing out the fallacy of your training and opinions.

Bottom line is that if you introduce lethal force, that it occurs is YOUR responsibility.

Actually, Robbery is the crime of taking or attempting to take something of value by force or threat of force or by putting the victim in fear. At common law, robbery is defined as taking the property of another, with the intent to permanently deprive the person of that property, by means of force or fear.

During this crime, a person has the right defend themselves by using all the reasonable force necessary to protect your life, and the life of any others.

Factually, the criminal created the situation were lethal force was required, so the responsibility is theirs, the criminals.


If you're a moron -- as I'd surmise that you could be -- it's still the truth.

Zeke, If I were you, I would keep your cowardly advice to yourself, as many victims of crime have been killed or injured even after complying with their criminal attackers. We survived because I did what was necessary, when it was necessary. If you wish to place the safety of your family and/or yourself in the hands of criminals, be my guest. But I would suggest you grow a pair, and get some training for when your outside the prison, you need it.

Bill

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by Big_Bill

Zeke, If I were you, I would keep your cowardly advice to yourself...

Do you mean "thinking?"

Do you see the difference, here? I've already got credibility. Folks already know my story. (It's not necessary for me to compile a list of names on multiple certificates in a manila file I haven't accessed in five years to evidence my credentials: as if you'd even know who such people are.)

You, however, possess very little credibility and continue to frag what remains.

I find it to be hilarious.

[CarlV]

Originally Posted by merrylander

"I do not belong to any organized political party - I am a Democrat" Will Rogers.

Carl

[Independent]

Originally Posted by Charles

In a way, I still think Romney has the best chance at beating Obama. My reasoning is that he is the standard issue stuffed shirt, plain vanilla, comforting as a moth eaten pair of house shoes candidate...with the least amount of baggage, that the Pubbies currently have.

In times of turmoil, people lean towards a Capo who appears to be a steady at the helm kind of guy who isn't prone to abrupt maneuvers. And that's the way Romney appears to me...hell, you about need to drive a stake beside him to see if he's moved or not. If he were fat, had white hair and a goatee, he could almost pass for one of those cardboard cutouts of Colonel Sanders.

Then again, I may be allowing the media to influence my perception on who is electable or not.

Believe it or not, I'm finding this to be the most boring election cycle that I've experienced. Of course, I figure that we're so far up shit creek that it almost doesn't matter who has the paddle.

Still, I'll turn out and vote for my choice of the lesser of two evils...being a good American and all.

Chas

From my point of view, and what I've seen over the last several months, Romney and Santorum have just supplied the dems with way more negative ad ammunition than Gingrich has. Sure Gingrich has a lot of past garbage that everyone has already known about for years, but he really doesn't have anything negatively new to speak of, except maybe colonizing the moon?

The other huge problem with Romney, and not the other candidates, is his flip-flopping on several major republican positions he's taken over the years. I'm sure the dems have plenty of video of that too.

IMHO, this republican primary has given the dems all the negative ad commercials they'll need to make the repubs look even more stupid than anyone can immagine. They're just sitting there with a billion in the bank waiting to see who wins the primary before they strike.



Indy

[merrylander]

The biggest problem with Gingrich is that Stepford Wife.

[Big_Bill]

Originally Posted by Zeke

Do you mean "thinking?"

Do you see the difference, here? I've already got credibility. Folks already know my story. (It's not necessary for me to compile a list of names on multiple certificates in a manila file I haven't accessed in five years to evidence my credentials: as if you'd even know who such people are.)

You, however, possess very little credibility and continue to frag what little remains.

I find it to be hilarious.

Well Zeke,

If your credibility here has anything to do with your "STORY", your credibility stinks, just like the bull shit you espouse as knowledge.

I have meet males like you before, they call them toxic males. These are males that have so much doubt about their masculinity that the attack any one, or any idea that presents a masculine ideal that they feel that they can not obtain themselves . Like your quote: "And that's the biggest load of John Wayne bullshit I've ever seen on this site." you could never live up to the masculine example of John Wayne, so you berate him so that you might feel that you are more a man then he was. But you can not even separate the fictional Character from the actor ? John Wayne was fictional example of male masculinity, and that even threatens you.

But your "STORY" is still pure BULLSHIT !

Bill

[Independent]

Originally Posted by Zeke

Do you mean "thinking?"

Do you see the difference, here? I've already got credibility. Folks already know my story. (It's not necessary for me to compile a list of names on multiple certificates in a manila file I haven't accessed in five years to evidence my credentials: as if you'd even know who such people are.)

You, however, possess very little credibility and continue to frag what remains.

I find it to be hilarious.

Come on Zeke, BB is a "MAN" among boys here (just ask him), so we should quit picking on him.



Indy