Kennedy

There really are no rules for what makes a good gun. I've seen FN, HK, AR clones, AR10 clones, M1As, and more. I saw one guy shoot a bolt action, and he certainly wasn't last. If I was in the market for a new black rifle, I'd be looking at the SCAR, ACR, XCR, and other new guns. Depending on the next year or two, I'm thinking about a tan SCAR with two uppers; one NFA 10 or 12" and one 18" or so. Thinking about an AAC or GemTech to cap it off, but that may be pushing it. Considering calibers other than .223 as well. Maybe a REPR in .308 cal. Then again Lewis Machine and Tool just sent a shipment of their MWS over to the Brits for their version of the squad designated marksman program. How very innnnnteresting... witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Agreed, but the question was not whether Islam and democracy are incompatible, but whether a government based on Islam can be democratic. The USA is overwhelmingly inhabited and run by Christians. But it is not a Christian country (thank God!) no matter how much some fundamental whackjobs here want to make it one. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Then they were ignorant screws. I know damn well 95% of folks in teh UK don't sound like that. 95% don't sound like anything because of dialects, regional variations, and outside influence. Same in teh USA. There isn't anything you can describe that would fit 95% of people. And FYI, I spent plenty of time in London, along the Brit/Scot border, and in Glasgow and Edinboro. I know what folks sound like. You were here in the US. Did you hear a difference between Wisconsin, Texas, New Jersey, and the South? But with all those variations, the US ones all fall under American English and the UK ones all fit under British English. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

You do know Sukarno was appointed president in 1945 and remained so until 1998. Not exaclty democracy at its finest. Since 1998 things are significantly improviing, other than the fact that Indo was the ahrdest hit country in the Asian financial collapse of the late 90s. Since then the country and govt seem to be doing better, but is the govt really an Islamic govt, or is it a govt of secular laws run by guys who are Muslims? As for Turkey, I can answer that for you, and you can confirm it on the country's website along with wiki, the cia fact book, and any other source you like. It is a country of secular laws run by guys who are Muslims and populated by Muslims. That's a far cry from an Islamic state. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

I agree. I much prefer wars be limited to actual enemies that can be identified, located, and defeated. If anyone were to describe the conflict between the USA and the cave-dwellers we call terrorists without using big scary words it would be a joke. The war on drugs, the war on crime, and the war on terror are excuses for the most horrendous government actions (against its citizens) of the last fifty years. In addition to tearing down liberty and freedom, the all too common (unintended?) consequences result in more power for the things they are supposed to be fighting. Damn right. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

VB, have you met Mr. Godwin? He's Murphy's little brother. You lose. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Who cares? Just wondering if it's possible or not. I don't think so, but I am not an expert on Islam or Muslims. (I do know more about both that most Americans, but that's not setting the bar very high, so I'm far from an expert) Is it so necessary to you that their (new) form of g'ment be a democracy? Why is that? At the moment, absolutely nothing is necessary of their next government. That's the beautifula nd terrifying thing about sudden revolutions. I believe that a contitutional republic based on democratic principles is the best form of government, particularly when the constitution is well written. Because I believe that, I say that a leader who truly cares about his constituents will work towards individual liberty and a government whose purpose is to protect its citizens' rights. Mubarak was an autocratic thug. Hence the statement above. However, if the people of Egypt go to the trouble of having a revolution and then settle for a government intent on running their entire life and squashing all dissent, well then why the hell did they bother in the first place? They had that already. But if they want to trade a dictator for a dictator who uses religion as justification, that's their problem. I wasn't planning on visiting anyway. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Damn, I thought you were trying to be funny. My bad. But as to your "grow a spine" solution, I have to say there's a bit more to it than that. I don't think many would call Israel spineless pussies, but I don't think anyone wouldnsay they won the 'war on terror.' witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

No one is saying the new guy in charge has to be atheist, or even that he has to be reasonable in his religion. But there's a difference between a leader having religion and some guy being appointed to unilaterally amend or revise the constitution, don't you think? I'm sure everyone running for US Pres in 2012 will claim to be some sort of Christian or another. I doubt there will be a big brouhaha about that. But if after demonstrations in the street by everyone from libertarians to greenpeacers to socialists to Christian Identity groups, Roberts or Scalia or Thomas were appointed to rework the constitution to out more Christianity into it, people would have the right to be a bit pissed off, don't you think? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Government respecting religions, that I'm good with. Making the government religious, not so much. Really, is it possible to have a government that subscribes to Islam exist as a democracy? If the autocratic thug gave a shot about his country, he would have work to creat a democracy without all these factions going crazy. Instead, "Hey, no pressure, but you've got six months. Good luck." So the first middle eastern country to recognize Israel is now going down the opposite road. Wonderful. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

You know it's funny. This is almost an exact replay if markharju's last thread, except here futuredivot is playing you and you are Mark. (wish I could see your face while you read and digest that one) witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

You do know we already have a problem with them doing the suicide thing, right? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

He who would pun would pick a pocket. But you've got a point. Technically it's the war or terrorism. Or terrorists. But the Feds are fond of relating war on actions or ideas instead of targets. Makes the war unwinnable when there are no conditions for victory. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

^ | | What he said | ^ witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

BBC in the 1700's?? ermmm.....dont think so! LMGTFY Eighth Link down. Was that so hard? It's just another was to differentiate between "British English" and "American English." witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that a DUI death and a dog beating having the same consequences is OK with you because state sentencing guidelines may be different in the relevant states? Yes, I know different state sentencing guidelines are the facts and that we have to live with it. I'm asking you on a personal level...emotional, if you will. Also, really Kennedy. I don't see the educated (sic) you are speaking about. All I see is questions raised...no statements indicating "educated". Are you taking the stance that the DUI death sentence is prim and proper in Georgia and that the dog beating sentence is California is prim and proper because the perp may have a record of some sort? Well, you noticed that I failed to remove a 'D' when rephrasing a sentence. It started as "I educated myself" but was rephrased to "I bothered to educate myself" to contrast with those who haven't bothered. Congratulations. And another pat on the back for your underhanded ad hominem. It was far more subtle than most. I raised those questions because without knowing the answer to them, one cannot form a rational and logical decision as to whether the sentences were appropriate and proportional or not. Unless a person thinks that there should be no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, simply knowing the crimes and the sentences handed out IS NOT ENOUGH. Unless a person thinks that prior criminal convictions should always be ignored during sentencing, simply knowing the crimes and the sentences handed out IS NOT ENOUGH. Unless a person thinks there should be no plea bargains made ever, simply knowing the crimes and the sentences handed out IS NOT ENOUGH. In a simple world, all else being equal, do I think a person convicted of two counts of felony animal cruelty should be given the same sentence as someone convicted of second degree homicide by vessel, tampering with evidence, violating the oath of a police officer, and three counts of making false statements? Absolutely not. I think they both should have gotten more than four years, and the filthy puke that killed a man and tried to cover it up should get significantly more. That is my emotional response. Thankfully, emotions generally don't affect sentences all that much, and most judges are bound by sentencing guidelines laid out in advance. And since those little words in red are not the case, that emotional response is even more invalid. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Have you got a better idea? Like the turtle said, it's the worst one in the world, except for all the others. You do understand about sentencing matrices and other factors that can affect the length of active time order by the court as result of criminal convictions, right? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

You two are being far too reasonable. You must immediately cease and desist posting to this thread and move over to the "drawing a line in the sand" thread. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

OK, so one side lies. Often. The other does not. At least we can agree on that. OK, so since Mike and I doubt your claim: please feel free to explain why it is accurate. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

You're right, they never defined it by legislation, but it is how it's interpretted by congress and the various enforcement bodies that creates the problem (and of course the courts that go along wtih it). witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Really? So you have pro-gun folks using reports on children than list anyone under 21 and a child? So you have pro-gun news reports that flat out lie about what the law says? You have pro-gun news reports that show one gun and then the results of another to allegedly show the effects of the first? You have a pro-gun author who has been stripped of acacdemic awards for inaccuracies and lies in a published book? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Yeah, and then congress passed the exact same law all over again, but changed it from 1990 to 1995 and added a provision [url "http://gunowners.org/fs9611.htm"]that the gun "affects interstate and foreign commerce."[/URL] Therein lies my concerns, and what prompted this thread. Congress defines what "affects interstate and foreign commerce" so broadly that anything and everything is covered, and so they can legislate anything and everything witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

I completely understand and completely agree with what you said. Like I said in the OP, the article itself really doesn't interest me. It's the underlying question that does interest me. If our federal government is based on the constitution, then what the Feds do must comply with the constitution. So, does the constitution set out limits on federal scope and authority? If so, does the current state of the federal government match with it's defined limits or not. Of the constitution doesn't set any real limits (either because of interpretation of commerce and general welfare clauses, or because it's a stupid old paper written by rich white slave owners, or whatever reason) then what does define our federal government? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

I was going to name this something about constitutional limits or small government, but I didn't want it mistaken for the current "guess what I'm thinking" thread. This Does Draw a Line in the Sand The article got me thinking (it's not that interesting, well written, or recent). Just how elastic should the elastic clauses be? Do the commerce clause and the general welfare clause mean the government can do as it pleases and the rest is just fluff, or are there areas the Feds should not be involved in? If the latter, does the current federal government operate outside those bounds, or are the boundaries being obeyed? I think a lot of disagreements here are caused by fundamental differences in how some folks answer the above question, and any particulars are irrelevant. If posters are in different categories as listed, it's difficult to see them agreeing on much of anything. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

You don't know the right Swiss, if that's your version of hell. Other than that, you might be right. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*