Previous 11 - 20 Next
I dropped AARP after one year of membership many years ago - now a member of AMAC. Wouldn't own a Chrysler if given to me. Can't stand Alec Baldwin and refuse to use my Capital One Card - their monthly statement just costs them money to mail. Don't have any reason to do business with Progressive. Don't like Starbucks products and don't drink them. Hadn't paid much attention to their position on gay marriage but like their position on gun laws so that is kind of 50/50. If corporations think people like me don't pay attention to the public position of movie stars, etc., they are crazy. I will not watch the Butler because I refuse to watch anything with Hanoi Jane in it. Won't buy music from several artists. Refuse to watch anything with Rosie O'Donnell and Roseann Barr. On the other hand, go out of my way to see anything with Gary Sinise and people like him. Wake up corporate america, we are already voting with our wallets
By the Obama administration's definition, JFK's assassination was simply "workplace violence". If they awarded the people who were killed or wounded a purple heart, they would be admitting it was an act of terrorism. This is an easy case. Hasan was in a U. S. Army uniform which means if he was acting for a "foreign power" he was a spy and could be shot. Another reason why they won't award the purple heart or allow him to say he was acting for the al-Queda. Calling this anything but workplace violence would mean they would have to admit that the jihad is still going on and that al-Queda is NOT on the run.
When the law enforcement of the 1770's (the Red Coats) were trying to be the only ones with guns, our founding fathers took exception and started a new country. The rules they wrote (Constitution) were designed to protect the minorities (Blacks, LGBT and gun owners) from the majorities like DDD would like to be. Remember, the 2nd Amendment keeps us free so guys like DDD can exercise their rights under the 1st Amendment. I never cease to be amazed at how guys like him for get that while they are using free speech to advocate for gun control. For once, I would like to see how any of the gun control proposals now before the Senate could possibly prevent what happened at Columbine, Tucson,Aurora, Sandy Hook, etc. See next post.
In response to:

Coloradofornia?

Berniefeh Wrote: Mar 24, 2013 11:59 AM
I have been working with my community leaders to see if we can import Magpul or some of its suppliers to our town. We can use the economic development - apparently Hickenlooper thinks Colorado doesn't need it. Keep in mind, he is jumping on the gun control bandwagon in hopes of making a 2016 run for the White House.
In response to:

Coloradofornia?

Berniefeh Wrote: Mar 24, 2013 11:57 AM
I farm a mile from the Colorado border in Nebraska. Last year, I spent well over $20,000 for supplies with Colorado merchants. This year, that won't happen even though it will hurt people who think like I do. I grew up in Colorado and all my education is from Colorado Universities. As was said in this article, Colorado is a great place to be FROM. Unfortunately, I have a daughter and grand children in Denver. Fortunately, my car can make the trip there and back out of the state without needing fuel and you can bet that will happen now. I find it so sad that a couple of counties in Colorado have enough votes to cause this shift from common sense to Californinsanity. See next post.
In response to:

Gun Nuts vs Anti-Gun Nuts

Berniefeh Wrote: Mar 11, 2013 1:08 PM
Tucson shooting - he passed the check. Aurora Theater - he passed the check. Sandy Hook - he stole the gun because he didn't want to wait for the waiting period to expire so he stole the gun. As for "assault rifle" bans and magazine limits, Sandy Hook used pistols. Aurora Theater started out with a shotgun. The problem was the "gun free zones" prevented self protection. It is not possible for the police to be everywhere. It is time to recognize that. History shows that mass shootings do not occur except in gun free zones.
In response to:

Gun Nuts vs Anti-Gun Nuts

Berniefeh Wrote: Mar 11, 2013 1:04 PM
You do have to have a background check at a gun show if you buy from a dealer. It is only if you purchase in a "private" sale that you do not have a check. The 40% number being tossed around is from a study started before the background check law became effective until shortly afterward. If I recall correctly, it involved about 250 transactions. Currently, those who do not have an agenda believe that the correct number is about 5% of gun sales are done without a check. I should not have to have a background check on my grandson to give him a gun on his birthday. I have known him all his life. More stringent background checks would not have prevented Columbine (straw purchaser), Gabby Giffords in Tucson, Aurora Theater or Sandy Hook.
How long before the government decides that drones can be used against "terrorists" on US soil? Then the next step is to go after murderers like Dorner in California. How long after that do they decide that gun owners who do not (first) register their guns and then (second) turn them in are terrorists and should receive the same treatment?
If we talk about need, we certainly do not "need" a 240 mpn Lamborghini. If we are going to ban things like "assault weapons" because they look like military equipment, then we should ban Hummers and Hummer 2 vehicles. Interesting how celebrities want to ban "military equipment" and yet, they were among the first to buy the civilian version of the HumVee. If I recall, Schwarzenegger bought the first one available and it cost well over $100,000. Today they make shootem-up movies that make them millions. In them, they have FULLY automatic weapons and yet they want me to give up my "scary" hunting rifle. Sometime, look at a picture of the white house. There is more firepower on the roof than in my local National Guard Armory. Hipocracy
The posters analyzed hunting right. Hunting was such a part of the culture that the founders did not even think of mentioning it. On the other hand, even before the Constitution was written, people were required to own firearms and in some communities, to bring the to church because the Indians could wipe out a whole settlement on Sunday if it was unarmed.
In response to:

Guns in the Home Surprise Criminals

Berniefeh Wrote: Jan 18, 2013 10:53 AM
I agree - the pattern won't open up enough to worry about. Sometime you should shoot a pattern board at the range and see for yourself for future comfort.
Previous 11 - 20 Next