McCain takes the lead

H

huntindude

Guest
The new polls show McCain as the front runner in the republican primary, we all know the polls can change from week to week but the fact McCain is in the lead at all is amazing. Giuliani,Romney and Huckleberry are all in a close cluster behind him. Thompson and Paul are toast, they'll drop out soon.

I wonder how many people know McCain's as anti gun many dems are, we'll see if they care. he's about as rummy as Bush but at least he's got his age and time in a POW camp for an excuse.
 
Those polls have me dumbfounded. McStain is the worst of the republicans. It is beyond me why the others are not/can not point out that he is for higher taxes, more gun control, against free speech.
I will never vote for Hillary, but if it comes down to Obama and McStain, at least Obama is honest and admits he's a liberal. I'll have to consider voting democratic in a presidential election for the first time in my life. McStain is a liar and a trader to his party.
 
I agree dude, McCain is a anti gun jerk off, so is Rudy. Ole Huck is about the only option for us righties.




If huntin is a sport.....Well your lookin at an athlete!
 
CNN has Mitt well out in front of McCain in national polls. I doubt McCain will fare well in states that don't allow 'independants/democrats' to vote in REPUBLICAN primaries. I laugh when I see how Mitt is 'struggling', correct me iof I am wrong, but he has the MOST delegates as of this morning. He is doing well against McCain in states like N.H. and MIchigan where indy's vote, heck in Michigan even Democrats will be voting today in the REPUBLICAN primary, go figure.

PRO

Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.
 
That was a few weeks ago, current CNN poll is McCain 34%, Huckleberry 21%, Rudy 18% and Mitt at 14%. I can't see McCain winning the nomination myself but he does have some momentum going today. this is a hores race for sure, the changes in peoples opinions are huge from week to week. maybe it's because they're not happy with any of the candidates, that goes for both parties.
 
"the changes in peoples opinions are huge from week to week. maybe it's because they're not happy with any of the candidates, that goes for both parties."

I think this is fairly normal 10 months out from the general election. I also believe it is healthy as it forces the canidates to address more issues they otherwise would be able to avoid/address if they were the only legit canidate.

I see the dem race as a two horse race, and I believe it will end up a three horse race on the republican side, with Mitt/Rudy/Mike being the three. I do NOT see McCain maintaining his so-called momentum once some of the more conservative states come in to play.

PRO

Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.
 
We'll see, the not so conservative states are yet to come also and they're loaded with delegates. I'm a republican in a not so conservative state and if I even vote in the primary it will be for McCain or Rudy. these are national polls so it does reflect the opinions of all voters in all states, question is how many more times will people change their mind.
 
DUDE ! Please don't vote for McStain.

Here are the latest poll numbers I could find.

Republicans in Michigan;

MSNBC/McClatchy, 1-12
Romney 30%
McStain 22%

Detroit News 1-12
McStain 27%
Romney 26%

Detroit Free Press 1-12
Romney 27%
McStain 22%

_______________________________________________

National, Gallop over the weekend

McStain 33%
Huckabee 19%
Rudy 13%
Romney 11%

Nationally, Hillary is back up on Obama 45% to 33%

Looks like Romney has a chance in Michigan.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-15-08 AT 11:17AM (MST)[p]Romney needs to win this one or he's pretty much done, as long as Huckleberry goes down that's the main thing.

I doubt I'd ever vote for McCain when it comes down to the nut cutting, Paul is toast and he won't be on the ballot by the time we vote in May so that leaves Rudy. why not vote for Rudy anyway, you can't figure out what he's all about so at least there's hope. the rest of the bunch I know I don't like.
 
If the polls show Rudy to be a serious contender on 2-5, I'll probably vote for him.
He?s not the best conservative, but I think he has the best chance of beating Hillary in the general.
 
I would agree with that, but the polls show Hillary and Obama both beating him if the election were today.

The economy is now the #1 issue on voters minds, how that plays out in the months to come may be the deciding factor. since Bush is riding the horse down chances are people will have hope for a recovery and times like we saw under Clinton lead by the dems, and who better than a Clinton. I'm not saying it will happen but if Hillary plays her cards right it could elect her, as if she wouldn't win anyway. like all politians she just needs to promise not deliver.
 
> I'm a republican in
>a not so conservative state
>and if I even vote
>in the primary it will
>be for McCain or Rudy.


Those are the two most anti-gun Republicans running. Are you serious?






If huntin is a sport.....Well your lookin at an athlete!
 
They're also the two with the most common sense. I'll take a chance on little assult weapon gun control over a sermon any day.
 
dude, did you just say you would rather give up your 2nd Amendment RIGHTS over having a Mormon/Baptist in the Oval Office? Please tell me it ain't so.

PRO

Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.
 
>They're also the two with the
>most common sense. I'll take
>a chance on little assult
>weapon gun control over a
>sermon any day.


Gun owners like you with your complaicant attitude are the reason I cant buy a Savage Stryker single shot pistol. Dont worry dude, Oregon will soon follow suit. Then you'll be singin a different tune. "A little assult weapon control", probably one of the most hipocritical things a gun owner such as yourself could say. Should change your name to ZUMBODUDE.





If huntin is a sport.....Well your lookin at an athlete!
 
>They're also the two with the
>most common sense. I'll take
>a chance on little assult
>weapon gun control over a
>sermon any day.
I knew that people disliked going to Church, but dang. You'd rather give up your guns?
 
The right to bear arms is protected under the constitution, granted there are different opinions on how it should be interpreted but the fact remains if a president could take you guns they'ld be gone already. sure I prefer a pro gun president but it's not a must.

On the other hand stem cell research, assisted suicide and the other evils I won't mention aren't afforded the same protection at least in quite as clear of English. my concern about anyone too religious is warranted if those issues matter to me. I don't care what religion someone is as long as they don't put their beliefs over the will of the majority. if I'm out numbered then I lose, but when the majority is held back as they have been on some of these issues for the last 7 years I resent it. it's not the religion it's the enforcment of it I take issue with. Romney and Huckleberry are two who would, so I won't vote for them. nothing personal I just don't want their beliefs forced on me, thats why we vote.
 
At the end of the day, I would for just a few years, like to get back to NOT seeing a discussion about my personal rights on the news every night. I get tired of people being mad about what others are doing in their homes. The republican party in the last 10 years really has gravitated away from respect for the rights of the the individual, so long as that's the republican platform, they are the as close to unamerican as they come. I dont want to hear any more about telling woman what to do with their bodies, I dont want to hear that our leader wants to waste the congresses time with who can be who's boyfriend or girlfriend, I dont want the President telling me or the state who gets to live and who dies; It's about time we take back the republican party and throw the current scumbags out on their heads. . .
 
Mitt wins Michigan, even with all the independants/democrats voting for McCain. Mitt's lead in the delegate race has just INCREASED. McCain is in trouble.

PRO

Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.
 
Yup!!!! Mitt & Clinton take Michigan ... where the hell are we going with all this? hmmmmm.

RUS
 
Romney had to win to stay in the game and he did, McCain can't be happy but as long as the polls show him the front runner he'll get the funds to push hard. if Rudy is going to stay in the game he better start looking like a contender, people will write him off with Paul and Thompson before long. this should be a good show for a while, too close to call.
 
>The right to bear arms is
>protected under the constitution, granted
>there are different opinions on
>how it should be interpreted
>but the fact remains if
>a president could take you
>guns they'ld be gone already.


Some of them are already taken away. And they ( anti-gun liberals and democrats) want to take the rest of them! Your so-called accepted " a little assault weapon control" is just another stepping stone for them to ban the rest.

Oh yeah, And there are no Assualt Weapons. Just fireams, AND IT'S MY RIGHT TO OWN ANY OF THEM I CHOOSE! But because of people like you now there are some I cant. Everyone should thank you. Hope nobody bothers you with any preachin, We still cant get our guns back.
 
I own one of those so called assault rifles. It is extremely accurate and one of my favorite coyote rifles. The whole assault rifle thing is a joke. If someone wanted to do real damage they could just load a shotgun with #4 buckshot and be far more deadly. Of course the all knowing, all lying politicians don't see it that way. I think all of them are full of ##### and I just might vote for Ozzy this year.
 
Hardway I didn't say I was for any restrictions on assult weapons but the fact is the anti gunners will get them, when and to what degree we'll have to wait and see. it's no different than the restrictions on fully auto weapons, we have that and we've survived and we'll do the same with an assult weapon restriction. you can jump up and down and scream all you want but anti gunners aren't going away and they out number us. most people can accept sporting guns but don't see the need for high capacity guns designed for killing people.

If you want to save your black rifles go change the public opinion about them, that might be tough when 90% of the time some rat bag freak shoots up a public place killing people he uses a gun people see as a non sporting weapon. I love guns and I don't like seeing any more restrictions than we already have, but we live in a nation where majority rules so you have to be realistic.
 
>Hardway I didn't say I was
>for any restrictions on assult
>weapons but the fact is
>the anti gunners will get
>them, when and to what
>degree we'll have to wait
>and see. it's no different
>than the restrictions on fully
>auto weapons, we have that
>and we've survived and we'll
>do the same with an
>assult weapon restriction. you can
>jump up and down and
>scream all you want but
>anti gunners aren't going away
>and they out number us.
>most people can accept sporting
>guns but don't see the
>need for high capacity guns
>designed for killing people.
>
> If you want to
>save your black rifles go
>change the public opinion about
>them, that might be tough
>when 90% of the time
>some rat bag freak shoots
>up a public place killing
>people he uses a gun
>people see as a non
>sporting weapon. I love guns
>and I don't like seeing
>any more restrictions than we
>already have, but we live
>in a nation where majority
>rules so you have to
>be realistic.

Dude,
Your talkin out of both sides of your mouth. FACT IS, you can be apart of the PROBLEM ,or part of the solution. There are no assualt weapons, but because of guys like you that term has become acceptable and Ok because you dont defend it. In my book, being ok or compaicant with the idea that its "OK" for a little gun control makes you no better than them. The REALITY is that we, us not you. Are losing the gun battle because of gun owners like yourself who dont care untill it affects them. Like I said earlier, Dont worry Dude. Oregon will soon be passing laws and legislation that affects what you can own or buy and then I'm sure you'll be singing a different tune. Thanks in advance
 
Oh CRAP!!!!!

I hate it when any discussion reaches this juncture, where the rabid gun owners meet the equally rabid anti-gun people.............reality is a word that has zero impact!

Get the popcorn...........this ought to be good!
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-16-08 AT 01:23PM (MST)[p]I'm not defending or supporting more rifle or gun laws, but I do have a questions and since the experts seem to be hanging around on this post, he it goes.

What do you call the m16, the uzi, the ar15, the AK series (all of them), the Norinco, the Colt AR15, daewoo's, GALIL, the HK's (all of them), the JR M68, the S.I.G, and the SAR, and what about pistolees, what's a mp9, or an mp45, a tec-9, or a RPB?

Granted you can make a ruger 10/22 carbine look like a m16, well almost, but please, the 10/22 is NOT by any standards an assault rifle. . . however the same can not be said about the others.

In fact, for you gun experts out there, and the particularly the guys arguing about the "assault weapons" panic, what's stamped on the side of the Bushmaster?

Go take a look on the left side of the receiver above the magazine.

It says:

"Bushmaster Assault Rifle"

Now what. . . come on guys, lets be realistic, sure the guys shooting the weapon is the killer, not the gun, but lets not arue over semantics, lets just say it's okay to own whatever you want, and that means when i'm rumbling down the street in my M1 or i'm flying my f16 over your house I'm within my rights as per the constitution. . . so, it's about money or is it about limits. . .

There are many guys out that have enough money to buy into the weapons craze including tanks and jets, is that okay? We bomb other nations who own them because we dont trust them, what's the limits, how far are you willing to go, is it a bushmaster, or is it an assault rifle, is it a tank or is a ORV? Lets get some perspective, becuase I'm not about to agree that's its okay for Bill Gates to own tanks and fully capable f16's!





"Roadless areas, in general, represent some of the best fish and wildlife habitat on public lands. The bad news is that there is nothing positive about a road where fish and wildlife habitat are concerned -- absolutely nothing." (B&C Professor, Jack Ward Thomas, Fair Chase, Fall 2005, p.10).
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-16-08 AT 01:43PM (MST)[p]

These discussions get me fired up. Where on the gun does it say that this is a "human assault rifle"?? Just because some jackasses shoot up a school you think they should all be banned? The reason you see them differently is because you don't own one. All guns are dangerous!! Antis feel the same way about all guns. If you think a 22 isn't in the same league you are up in the night. Most drive by shootings are from .22's. Once you lose your AR next will be your shotgun.


Edit***
Nowhere in the constitution do you have a right to own a tank or jet. That comparison is hardly realistic.
 
Hey mort, please come over any time, preferably unannounced and tell me what I own and what I dont own.

sounds like youre for banning 22's, that's freeking out there bud.

Like I said, go look at a bushmaster and come back and tell me what's stamped on it. . . Please, I cant wait. . .
 
You missed my point if you think I am for banning .22's. But the last ban included many .22 parts. My point is that the antis don't differentiate between guns. Their ultimate goal is to get all guns banned. None of my AR's say "human assault rifle" on them. Your barking up the wrong tree and making assumptions.
 
care to answer any of my questions?

I dont disagree with you, i'm just trying to figure out what we call the guns that really are classified, even by their makers as assault rifles - care to weigh in on the issues, or are you just mad because your stuck in your world?
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-16-08 AT 02:10PM (MST)[p]BTW Mort, would you be willing to help me finance the purchase of a new house?
 
T

I know you didn't direct your comment to me but if I bought this house for you would you promise to go there and live in it?


Ransom


478e71cb33904ffc.jpg
 
Sure and Sure!!

The classification issue doesn't bother me too much. The issue I have is that just because someone shoots up a school with this type of weapon doesn't mean that law abiding citizens shouldn't be able to own it. Hdudes mentality is that the antis are going to win some fights so let's throw in the towel on guns that he doesn't own. Do you honestly think that someone that wants to shoot up a school is going to think twice because he can't buy an AR? This is a general question and not directed just towards you.
 
looks like where I learned to shoot my first ak. . .

"Roadless areas, in general, represent some of the best fish and wildlife habitat on public lands. The bad news is that there is nothing positive about a road where fish and wildlife habitat are concerned -- absolutely nothing." (B&C Professor, Jack Ward Thomas, Fair Chase, Fall 2005, p.10).
 
You need to calm down and look at this clearly, what might you assult with a weapon that says assult rifle on it? are you going to go varmint assulting this afternoon? maybe assult the rifle range? com'on we know what these guns were designed for, why doesn't Rambo carry a Ruger NO.1 ?

Now that doesn't mean in the average gun owners hands they're any worse than a single shot but the image and the pupose is clear. I'll say again I'm not for banning them but I think it's going to happen, if I don't live in a sheltered dream world then so be it. sniveling at me isn't going to help you because I'm not the one wanting your black guns, but the majority of Americans just might.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-16-08 AT 03:27PM (MST)[p]Tfinal;
In your argument about what is described as a "assault rifle" you overlooked some very important points. I believe the majority of sportsman would be willing to allow a ban on weapons like the AR-15, AK-47, FAL, HK-91, HK93 if they could be convinced that the anti gunners would be honest and stop there.
But the truth of the matter, they are not honest and have cloaked sporting rifles into the "assault weapons" class trying to take them as well. I know you like to request facts to back up statements like this. So here is the facts that you can verify at your leasure.
In CA. while under Gov. Gray Davis, the anti gun politicians, same ones who dreamed up the original banning of AK-47s, AR-15s, came up with a new description for what is a assault rifle. That new description was as following. Any center fire weapon with the following features.
Has a detachable magazine.
If a horizontal line is draw at the top of the trigger guard and a 2/3 portion of the pistol grip is below the line it is deemed an assault rifle and be subject to regristration of existing weapons and future sales are banned.
This description took in sporting rifles such as the Remington 740, 7400, Browning semi auto rifle, the sporting one, and any other hunting rifle that was a center fire semi auto and had a detachable magazine. This is because where that horizontal line is drawn, the area that is referred to as the "pistol grip" will have 2/3 or more below that line.
After Gov. Davis signed the bill into law, it was pointed out to him by the NRA and other sportsman groups, that he went back on his word to the citizens that he would never sign any guns laws that interferred with hunting type firearms.
Gov. Davis is rumored to have gotten pissed off for his fellow Democrats deceiving him into signing this bill and breaking his promise made while trying to get elected. That is the one time I voted for a Democrat based on his promise concerning gun rights.
After receiving numerous letters from law enforcement agencies in the state, that were solid in stating the law was a bad one that would not help curb crime, it was removed from the penal code of the state of CA.
Oh! by the way, none of those sporting rifles had the word, "Assault" stamped on them.
Now some more history concerning the deceiving of the people by anti gun politicians. Roberto Roos was the person who authored the original bill concerning banning of "Assault rifles" in CA. after the school shooting. A member of his staff, who was not so indeared with his anti gun deceiving ways sneaked out a copy of a private memo that Roos had sent to a member of the Sara Brady's staff at Guns Inc. In that memo Roos explained that he did not include the Ruger Mini-14 and the Springfield M1A1 on his bill for the reason that a great number of law enforcement officers carried the Ruger Mini 14 in their patrol cars and there was a large amount of in state competition shooters who used the M1A1 in shooting matches. He felt that including these weapons would create such a backlash that he would not be able to pass the bill. He did state that if the bill passed they would later look for changes to be made to include these weapons at a later date. After the fiasco with the new decription of assault weapons,that did take in the Mini-14, M1A1, and some sporting firearms, Roos found himself being a ex-politician and defeated at the next election. Now you may be able to better understand why many sportsmens are taking a hard line stance on their gun rights. They know that certain politicians and anti gunners will lie and deceive in order to achieve their goal of total banning of firearms. You fence riders who feel that your sporting firearms are not next, better take heed and get your heads out of the sand.

RELH
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-16-08 AT 04:08PM (MST)[p]Okay, an I'm not for banning those weapons anyhow. I do believe however that they are "assault" rifles, they were built for one purpose and one purpose only to kill people and be extremely functional, and durable at doing so, they also needed to be light weight, easy to handle but above all, they needed to be durable and fixable in the field of fire. Not all meet these basic measures, in fact I hate the feel of the ak 47 and the ar 15, but would I choose either in a gun battle with another human, yes, espcially under less than ideal environmental conditions.

The guy that said use a shot gun is out of his mind and knows only what he has read. I'll give you this much, shoot a shotgun with #4's a guy coming at you in your home, but you take your shot gun and #4's outside in a real world situation and i'll smoke you up with an ar, as the saying goes, dont bring a knife to a gun fight, a shot gun is good close quarters, but then again most rifles are not made for that kind of combat, that's why we invented the assault rifles and short auto pistols. . .

I get your points, I think this, before california gets much more that it's own soil dirty, the rest of us will kill you guys off (figuratively, I'm not suggesting that I personally will kill, to their death anyone, i'm sorry if it sounded like I was intending to actually kill anyone from california, I only mean that the rest of the gun loving nation wont let you left coasties take our guns . . .)
 
"are you going to go varmint assulting this afternoon? maybe assult the rifle range?"

I dont care who you are, that's some funny stuff right there. . .




"Roadless areas, in general, represent some of the best fish and wildlife habitat on public lands. The bad news is that there is nothing positive about a road where fish and wildlife habitat are concerned -- absolutely nothing." (B&C Professor, Jack Ward Thomas, Fair Chase, Fall 2005, p.10).
 
"I get your points, I think this, before California gets much more that it's own soil dirty, the rest of us will kill you guys off..."
That is the most absurd response I can imagine from a moderator of a hunting site forum. You have declared yourself the enemy of every law abiding firearms owner. May you hide your head in shame.

RELH
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-16-08 AT 04:44PM (MST)[p]
yea, so for once you are willing to believe me, good try friend, good try.

The point is, no mater how hard you try to miss it, I'm not worried about what california or DC or NYC does, if you want my guns you'll have to pry them out of my cold dead hands, and that's no bumper sticker my friend. . . I would love to see what would happen to a tree hugging cali-boy that comes to montana and tries to take our guns away, man, step up and step out, cali likely is a lost state, but the rest of the nation will save us from the wrath of the left coast tree huggers . . .

Looks to me like you left coast boyzzz need to kick it up a notch and help the rest of us americans preserve our rights to keep and bear arms. Not much help out there on the left coast, but i'm not willing to give up on you guys just yet, so the next time you have a chance, go to the next gun rally and support our rights!
 
"I get your points, I think this, before California gets much more that it's own soil dirty, the rest of us will kill you guys off..."


I thought I was reading your post wrong. There is no sense in arguing with someone that wants to "kill off" law abiding gun owners. You must spend too much time on Pelosi and Sheehan websites.
 
Okay Mort "Orielly" and RELH "Hanidy", can you say, "out of context,"

I new you could. . .
 
T, great point if it comes to a fight on American soil - I want an "assault weapon" in my hands at all times.

It could be our own government or an outside force. Hope it never comes to that but I was a Boy Scout.

The 2nd amendment is there for the protection of the citizens.

This is a firm reason why we as gun owners must unite in this fight - NO NEW GUN LAWS - PERIOD.
 
>LAST EDITED ON Jan-16-08
>AT 04:44?PM (MST)
>
>

>
>The point is, no mater how
>hard you try to miss
>it, I'm not worried about
>what california or DC or
>NYC does, if you want
>my guns you'll have to
>pry them out of my
>cold dead hands, and that's
>no bumper sticker my friend.
>. . I would
>love to see what would
>happen to a tree hugging
>cali-boy that comes to montana
>and tries to take our
>guns away, man, step up
>and step out, cali likely
>is a lost state, but
>the rest of the nation
>will save us from the
>wrath of the left coast
>tree huggers . . .
>
>
>Looks to me like you left
>coast boyzzz need to kick
>it up a notch and
>help the rest of us
>americans preserve our rights to
>keep and bear arms.
>Not much help out there
>on the left coast, but
>i'm not willing to give
>up on you guys just
>yet, so the next time
>you have a chance, go
>to the next gun rally
>and support our rights!
>

Are you kidding me? The only lefty liberal opinions stated on this site come from you. Bud your so far out there it's not even funny. You stuck your foot in your mouth on the Co2 deal and your doing it again. I've been a NRA life member for over 15 years and attend every rally I can. Not to mention the time I donate requiting new members and the money that I dont have to begin with. People like you never show up or your too chicken to speak up without the safety of your computer. You dont worry either T-F, like I told dude. You'll be cryin the blues when they outlaw yours. Ya a tough guy like you might be able to hide em in the basement but I'd like to see you use em after they outlaw them.


P.S. Oh yeah by the way, I'm doing everything I can to protect everyone's gun rights in this country not only in my home state. Can you say the same? Probably not. Thank-You



If huntin is a sport.....Well your lookin at an athlete!
 
Some of you guys drink too much coffee, or something anyway. why get all fired up at gun owners who don't want to see any more gun laws passed but conceed there probably will be. if it were up to us you'd be home free but I'm affraid it's not.

The dems are more for gun control no doubt about it, but your public lands are of great importance also and the dems have stood in front of Bush and the right wing protecting them from rape and pillage as well as being sold off. assult rifles aren't the ONLY concern a true hunter has or should have, look for leaders who are the best across the board and make gun control one point of interest. like T says they're not getting my guns anyway so it doesn't get 100% of my attention like some of you guys.
 
Dude - If we don't agree with you we must be drinking something? Maybe the gun issue gets more attention because this is a hunting site? Just a logical guess
 
> The dems are more for
>gun control no doubt about
>it, but your public lands
>are of great importance also
>and the dems have stood
>in front of Bush and
>the right wing protecting them
>from rape and pillage as
>well as being sold off.
>assult rifles aren't the ONLY
>concern a true hunter has
>or should have, look for
>leaders who are the best
>across the board and make
>gun control one point of
>interest. like T says they're
>not getting my guns anyway
>so it doesn't get 100%
>of my attention like some
>of you guys.


I agree with your opinion of how our public lands are being destroyed. But your and T-F's beliefs that they wont get your guns is un-realistic. True you may be able to hide em and keep them forever but the fact is that WHEN THEY DO outlaw them, you being able to use and enjoy them will be over. For myself gun-control is top priority, our government already has too-much power and the second amendment insures us the right to defend and protect ourselves against such government. Some things just have to take second place.





If huntin is a sport.....Well your lookin at an athlete!
 
That's the point we have the second amendment, the anti's challenge it over and over but it still stands. that's not to say they won't gain ground and anti gun politians won't help them but we're a long ways from losing our hunting weapons, a long long ways.

This thread is about politians, so the war in Iraq, the economy, public land protection, health care and a list of other things should play into everyones decision. don't get hung up on just gun control, it's one of the few issues we have right now that has constitutional protection. besides, even if everyone on MM voted for your chosen republican it isn't going to change the fact Hillary or Obama will be your next president.
 
Dude;

I find it very ironic that you made a comment about us guys drinking too much coffee or something else. That comment should have been aimed at someone else who made it sound very much like he may have been drinking "something else" while making several posts that were uncalled for.
On post #40, that person ended his post with this paragraph.
" I get your points, I think this, before california gets much more "that" it's own soil dirty, the rest of us will kill you guys off". Sure sounds like a out right threat to me that a sober person would not make unless he may have a mental problem about making threats on a web site.
Only after I replied in post#42 to his post, did he come back one half hour later and "edit" his post to include everything after the above quoted paragraph. Then also ramble on in his post #43.
Dude will you please direct your comments about drinking too much where it belongs, not at us who are completly sober.

RELH
 
Who said the second amendment had anything to do with hunting? what I was saying is hunting type, or at least what I consider sporting arms are plenty safe for some time. dispite what the NRA tells us the sky hasn't fallen and it's not going to in the near future.

RELH, com'on like you didn't already know what everyone thinks of Californians?
 
Dude;
No I do not know what "everyone thinks of Californians". I do not have a crystal ball like you seem to have. Why don't you tell me what you and everyone else thinks of all of us in California. There is alot of us California boys on here that would like to hear your opinion!!!!

RELH
 
Calm down and learn how to take a joke, sometimes I think your parents should have spaced out your vaccinations.
 
Dude;

I happen to be very calm. Why do I feel that you just avoided the issue again and are back to your normal "beating around the bush" again. Pun most dearly intended!!!

RELH
 
califorina is as liberal as new hampshire and vermont, the people of the state make up the electorate and therefore the voices of the state, you are from california, you tell us about california boyz. . .

It seems that no matter how hard anyone tries to have their own views, they get lumped in with a larger party or group. the right seems to think that if you want limited gun control, youre un american, but the same group is okay with allowing the government to to legislate what individuals can and cant do with their own private lives. Now I hear the ACLU is stepping up to defend Larry Craig, the republican senator accused of solisiting sex in a bathroom. So, is Larry Craig now a secular progressive liberal left-wing wacko?

the point is that we are all individuals with our won views, it should be that way and it should be respected as such.

The banter on this site and others like it is mostly in good taste, some things do go to far, but really this is a good place to hange out and talk to guys with mostly similar beliefs.

Have a good day and dont drink the cool aid, no matter what side your on, we all are americans and we all deserve the respect of our peers. . .
 
Well said, and RELH you're pretty hypocritical to cry about someone being mean to you. half the time you're growling like a badger on acid yourself.
 
dude, did you ever answer my question directly? Or did you just "beat around the Bush"? New question, are you more concerned about losing your gun rights or the ability to KILL an unborn human? Just wondering? Since you say that our 2nd amendment is safe, do you feel the "right" to KILL an unborn human is in jeapordy, or is it safe as well? This is based on Rommeny or Huckabee being the Republican nominee, being that they are "religious fanatics" and according to you they would "impose" their religion on ALL of America.

PRO

Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-17-08 AT 10:01AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jan-17-08 AT 10:00 AM (MST)


Hey PD, its not a zero sum game, we can allow woman to retain their personal rights to live their lives as they see fit (which by the way should be a republican position), while also protecting our gun rights. Hillary aint taking out guns, Obama is not taking our guns, huck and rom, WILL take away individual liberties and that is destructive to our nation. . .

Personally, I'm not worried as much about the gun issues as I am the over reaching government power and religious ideologies of the current new conservative party and particularly the candidates you list.

I very much was a republican, if you look back at what the Republican Party was before Ronald Reagan, you will see the real party at its best. . .

BTW, where in the constitution does it say anything about the government regulating the individual rights of a woman to choose for herself, her destiny in life? Just cite the section and I'll read in my own copy of the constitution which sits on my desk right next to my dictionary. . .


Couple more things for you PD and any others.

1. show us where personally you have had YOUR gun rights taken by a US President. If I recall, Bush pushed a constitutional amendment to make illegal marriage between the same sex, I dont recall in my lifetime any president attempting to take a run and a constitutional amendment banning gun ownership. However a run at the constitution that will limit personal freedom, that is NOT a traditional republican platform, is it?

2. I also believe that the laws are made by congress and the therefore I'm afraid only of the left wing states who mostly have horribly liberal leaders who would not be disappointed by more gun control. So, the question are,

why do the liberal states keep sending these people to the congress? and

how much power really does the president have to come into your home and take your guns?

And if you are a real patriot, you would meet him at the front door guns in hand. . .

ONE MORE THING, while were are pointing out what was missed, you missed addressing my issues about how far we take the right to bear arms, is it okay for Bill Gates to own a fully functional f16, or a war ready m1 abrams?
 
Pro you just can't get over this can you? do you bring up abortion at the McDonalds drive up window as well? let me say this, the chances of Roe Vs Wade being overturned are greater than the second amendment being stricken so you do the math.

As for a president who forces his convictions upon me NO I don't want that, is that wrong? if Obama is Muslim can you honestly say you'ld accept him using the Koran to govern our country? ( if he really is Muslim ). just because you live by a certain religion or book doesn't obligate me to, freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion. get over it.
 
"BTW, where in the constitution does it say anything about the government regulating the individual rights of a woman to choose for herself, her destiny in life? Just cite the section and I'll read in in my own copy of the constitution which sits on my desk right next to my dictionary. . ."

Where in the constitution does it "define" when a "fetus" becomes a human? Where in there does it say it is OK to kill unborn unwanted babies? What about that unborn childs "rights"? She made the "choice" to get pregant, end of story except in cases of rape/insest, and "real" threats to the mothers life. To say it is a womans "right" to KILL a baby inside her, yet somehow it is "murder" to do the same once it is born is nonsensical.

Please 'enlighten' me on the "rights" the conservatives have "taken away". How about a list of the "rights" Huckabee and/or Rommney would "take away". Please.

PRO

Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.
 
Get over it? How can I when relilgios BIGOTS like you keep bringing it up? Huckabee and Romney were Governors, last I checked Mass. is not predominatley Mormon and Arknasas didn't increase the number of Baptists. So why are you 'convinced' they would "force" their religions on America when they didn't as Governors? Exactly 'how' would Romney "force" mormonism on America as President? Does the President pass laws? Does the President decide legal cases? Last I checked laws are writtne by legislatures(legislative branch) and laws are upheld/overturned by judges/justices( judicial branch). So, how is the executive branch going to be able to 'by-pass' these other two branchs of the government?

I hope roe v wade gets overturned in my lifetime and is rightfully returned to the states to decide by the people of each state as the CONSTITUTION states it should.

PRO

Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.
 
Couple more things for you PD and any others.

1. show us where personally you have had YOUR gun rights taken by a US President. If I recall, Bush pushed a constitutional amendment to make illegal marriage between the same sex, I dont recall in my lifetime any president attempting to take a run and a constitutional amendment banning gun ownership. However a run at the constitution that will limit personal freedom, that is NOT a traditional republican platform, is it?

2. I also believe that the laws are made by congress and the therefore I'm afraid only of the left wing states who mostly have horribly liberal leaders who would not be disappointed by more gun control. So, the question are,

why do the liberal states keep sending these people to the congress? and

how much power really does the president have to come into your home and take your guns?

And if you are a real patriot, you would meet him at the front door guns in hand. . .

ONE MORE THING, while were are pointing out what was missed, you missed addressing my issues about how far we take the right to bear arms, is it okay for Bill Gates to own a fully functional f16, or a war ready m1 abrams?
 
1)There is a case coming before the Supreme court shortly that is about whether a city/state can infringe on our gun rights. The liberals try and go AROUND the wishes of the people by using activist judges. You show your liberal side when you feel that is OK, but take offense at Bush pushing a constitutional amendment of marriage. How is an amendment pushed through excatly? Oh yes now I remember, by 2/3 MAJORITY vote from the STATES, instead of the votes of NINE people wearing robes! Who is it again going around the laws of the land?

2)I don't want it to come down to me meeting them at my front door, because by then my "rights" have been taken/reduced already. My ability to hunt would be lost by then as well.

3)A F16 and/or tank are not GUNS, and are NOT 'covered' under the 2nd Amendment. Since you supposedly keep this stuff handy, LOOK IT UP!

PRO

Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.
 
Pro with your theory it makes no difference who's president because they can't do anything, so why don't you prove it and vote for Hillary or Obama? you never did say if Obama maybe being a Muslim mattered to you by the way.

The most important thing presidents do on matters like we're on here is appoint supreme court justices and that includes gun control. think about what you're saying I know you're emotional but you're not that dumb.
 
>Pro with your theory it makes
>no difference who's president because
>they can't do anything, so
>why don't you prove it
>and vote for Hillary or
>Obama? you never did say
>if Obama maybe being a
>Muslim mattered to you by
>the way.
>
> The most important thing presidents
>do on matters like we're
>on here is appoint supreme
>court justices and that includes
>gun control. think about what
>you're saying I know you're
>emotional but you're not that
>dumb.

No it does NOT matter if Obama is a muslim, as long as he would put America before his religion.

You make my point, it DOES matter where a president stands on these issues because of their appointments to the bench. Who is more likely to appoint pro-2nd amendment judges, Clinton or Romney? I'll let the Sp's base their stances on emotions, I'll stick with logic and sense. A democratic president, any of the 3 running right now, are MUCH more likely to appoint Justices who are anti-gun than ANY/ALL of the Republican canidates, including Rudy/McCain.

PRO


Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.
 
OK so now you agree who is president does matter. you're probably right a republican would be more likely to appoint a pro gun justice, if that were the only issue in life that mattered we'ld be set.

Are you willing to take a chance Obama would forget he's a Muslim when governing? but I'm supposed to assume Huckleberry being the preacher that he is will forget he's a Baptist? yeah Ok.

Is Obama still a practicing Muslim or not? anyone know? I'd vote for him over Huckleberry anyway but for arguments sake it would be nice to know.
 
whew, I'm glad that's over. . .

PD you made my point too, the check and balances are key. My point was, that you have only seen, in recent times, one guy take a run at the constitution - BTW, it was NOT CONGRESS who introduced it - and his run was an amendment to broaden the federal authority and as such, NOT a traditional republican action. That's all I'm saying. Just look at the evidence it show us who's doing what. Thank goodness for a congress that saw that Bush was out of his mind to try to limit personal rights and liberty. Thank goodness there still are a few real republican left in the congress, or we may have lost, by virtue of one new conservative leader, more rights. . .

Where has this been the case for guns - ever, show us where a president or a democrat has taken a run at the constitution in recent times. . .

BTW, I'm not taking a position on the issue of abortion, I'm looking at this as a former republican who wants limited government and NO more infrigements on my personal rights, including an national ID card, another really stupid and "big-brother" idea that the repubclcian party is all jizzmic about. . . wow, . . never thought I'd see the republicans supporting an national enrollment platform, that's out of control psyco politics right there i'll never ever support a federal enrollment program for americans ever!
 
That's just one of the great things about this country, we get to voice our opinions and then vote on it. PRO gets the satisfaction of voting against me but more importantly I can rest easy knowing I cancelled his vote out with mine, we all win.
 
TF, question for you, which US President in the last 100 years do you believe has "taken" more rights from the people? I say it isn't even close, Woodrow Wilson. What party did he belong to again?

dude, sorry but your vote does NOT cancel mine out, nor mine yours. Every hear of delegates? I would NEVER cast a vote to "cancel someone else's vote". I vote based on my principles and values and finding the candidate that most closely reflects them. And, NONE of the democrats reflect many of MY values/principles. TF, you say you want smaller government, do you honestly believe Hilliary would EVER reduce the size of government, and are you saying you believe Romney would EXPAND the government more than ANY/ALL of the democrats? If so, please explain.

PRO

Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.
 
>
>Where has this been the
>case for guns - ever,
>show us where a president
>or a democrat has taken
>a run at the constitution
>in recent times. . .


Bill Clinton, Asualt weapons ban, Brady bill. All in clear defiance of our second amendment rights. Your not worth arguing with.





If huntin is a sport.....Well your lookin at an athlete!
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-17-08 AT 01:41PM (MST)[p]I dont understand how any of what you just posted makes any difference.

first, WW, youre kidding right - completely different time, my examples are about TODAY, the current political timeframe, say the last 15 or so years mark the current system.

I referred to, and like the old republican party better, and it's good to use a reference to how things could be, but WW, so what? Crud, Roosevelt did his fare share too, but he saved this nation. If you want to start argument about how good or bad the parties were, go ahead I'll bury you in that debate. . .

Dude, look at the last 5 years and the new republican party, of the last 15, they are pushing to take individual rights, do you not see that? Romney and Huck, are clones, they wont get elected because most of the nation does not want a religious leader in the WH, they want a political leader. The Republican party is dead. It will come alive again but right now, it's dead. . .

I dont think its possible to make our government much bigger, However, I do believe GWB expanded the government more than any president since Roosevelt, I think he's a republican. . . Moreover, making the government larger is not the same as taking my liberties, and legislation what I can and can not do in my private life, neither of which the democrats are proposing to do, not so with the republicans. Bigger government also does not necessary reduce your opportunities, taking my rights away and tell me how to live my life sure does, I can opt out of a government program, I cant opt out of a constitutional amendment. . .

Lets get back to apples and apples, youre off topic and trying to make comparisons that just dont work. . .
 
"I dont think its possible to make our government much bigger, However, I do believe GWB expanded the government more than any president since Roosevelt, I think he's a republican. . . Moreover, making the government larger is not the same as taking my liberties, and legislation what I can and can not do in my private life, neither of which the democrats are proposing to do, not so with the republicans. Bigger government also does not necessary reduce your opportunities, taking my rights away and tell me how to live my life sure does, I can opt out of a government program, I cant opt out of a constitutional amendment. . . "

Socialized healthcare won't expand the government? How do "opt out" of something like paying taxes that pay for abortions? I'll "opt out" in a New York minute. Again, what rights/liberties have been taken away from YOU in th elast 7 years? Telling me as a small business owner how to run my business and what to pay my employees and what kind of benefits I MUST offer them isn't "telling me how to live my life"? Really? Which party is it again that is for "minimum wages", regulations on businesses, universal health care, requiring small biz to offer health care for employees? I see these as DIRECT attacks on my "personal life" and how I chose to live. How do I "opt out" of paying social security for others piss poor finacial planning? I'll "opt out" of paying for that as well.

PRO

Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.
 
Socialized healthcare won't expand the government? How do "opt out" of something like paying taxes that pay for abortions? I'll "opt out" in a New York minute. Again, what rights/liberties have been taken away from YOU in th elast 7 years? Telling me as a small business owner how to run my business and what to pay my employees and what kind of benefits I MUST offer them isn't "telling me how to live my life"? Really? Which party is it again that is for "minimum wages", regulations on businesses, universal health care, requiring small biz to offer health care for employees? I see these as DIRECT attacks on my "personal life" and how I chose to live. How do I "opt out" of paying social security for others piss poor finacial planning? I'll "opt out" of paying for that as well.

Wow, a new standard for impacting youre life, change your profession, move forward, I'm a small business owner too but come on, we choose out profession friend. . .

Good debate, but you like to ignore almost every thing I ask or say. Thats okay because that's the beauty of the www.

Take care, have a great day.
 
I think it was Metzenbaum's bill, he was a senator, I dont remember the president (clinton) taking a run directly at a constitutional amendment, do you?
 
All this arguement about whether or not our right to bear arms is or isn't threatened only has to look at legislation aimed at the Tobacco Companies. Hear me out.

How many of you enjoy the smell of burning cigs when you are eating or sleeping in a motel or being in a smokers house or car or bar? Not many of us I would suspect. How many of you have voted for anti-smoking legislation?

I am not a smoker and hate the smell of cigarettes on my clothes or around me when I am eating or in a motel. BUT!!!! I have never voted against them. Why? Because people can get almost anything put on a ballot to be voted for or against or taxed.

There is an undercurrent amongst the antis that if they can't "change" the 2nd, then tax and tax heartily the component parts, i.e. bullets, powder, primer, etc. In other words, make it more and more difficult and expensive to own and shoot firearms.

They did it to the smokers. All they have to do is instill some suspicion that regulation through taxation (sin taxes) can pay for the evils that are "caused" by the subject.

Remember. Just very recently, obesity was classified as a disease. How does beaurocracy garner funding for research of new diseases? Taxes. don't be surprised if in the near future you see a McD's qrtr pounder getting a few extra pennies levied on it.

Always be careful for what and for whom you vote for.
 
>I think it was Metzenbaum's bill,
>he was a senator,
>I dont remember the president
>(clinton) taking a run directly
>at a constitutional amendment, do
>you?


Bill Clinton supported and more importantly signed both into law. Pretty funny you guys can soley blame Bush when it benifits your cause but when it does'nt there's checks and balances so no one branch has too much power.





If huntin is a sport.....Well your lookin at an athlete!
 
good points Jim.

The cool thing about this whole issue is that we WILL find out what the dems do with guns and with health care, there is a zero percent chance of a repbublican president. . .

I'm not saying I like that, i'm just saying that's the righting on the wall. . .
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

20171002_143215.NM (2).jpg
Half-a-buck.JPG
IMG_5090.jpeg
2A7A01AB-5E12-4355-9083-9DE51D97D593.jpeg
E9603F8B-6BB2-41C5-9D3B-3F3C73D58D7E.jpeg
FullSizeRender.jpeg
IMG_6374.jpeg
Screenshot_20231104_181229_Video Player.jpg
My elk on trail cam.jpg
IMG-9664.jpg
768715F1-6527-4B4F-B39A-3BDF47E9AF3C.jpeg
IMG_20221229_101538577_HDR.jpg
Back
Top Bottom