Stumpy

So very sad. Never try to eat more than you can lift

That's worked well in Central America, where armed guards are common. Wendy P. Wow - with all those armed guards, central america must be rolling in freedom! Never try to eat more than you can lift

The problem with you argument is you started out with and absolute I stopped reading after 100% because even at that point I considerd the point bs you should read some more of brenthutch's posts then. Never try to eat more than you can lift

Bingo Never try to eat more than you can lift

I think you nailed it. Never try to eat more than you can lift

Well duh Never try to eat more than you can lift

Have a look in the skydiving forums and see how many people talk about the break lines. Never try to eat more than you can lift

Never try to eat more than you can lift

Its also not true - but don't let that stop you. Sarcasm is lost on the interweb machine. Doh! Apologies! Never try to eat more than you can lift

Where??? Quick!! Let's bake a quiche! ...and tell thothe bad, bad menth to thtop making thothe loud popping thounds. They'll make the quiche fall. You're confusing a quiche with a souffle'. Sigh. I am so alone. Real men dont eat (or bake) quiche. Frittata on the other hand.... Never try to eat more than you can lift

Then explain it to the moderates. Haven't you heard? We don't exist. if you are willing to entertain ANY measure to control access to guns for anyone whether convicted felon or not, that makes you a "gun-o-phobe" trampling on peoples rights apparently. Never try to eat more than you can lift

Its also not true - but don't let that stop you. Never try to eat more than you can lift

Yeah -fair point. As you say, its kind of implicit Solicitation Number: HSCEMS-12-R-00011 Agency: Department of Homeland Security Office: Immigration & Customs Enforcement Never try to eat more than you can lift

Now we are getting somewhere. Well done on re-reading the original rfp and finally understanding that your thread title is incorrect. If you say so,although the RFP is for LEO's specifically - unless they are buying you one as well? Not true at all. I have no problems with you having guns, and I am sure you are a nice guy and are worth defending! No debate here No debate here Everything is debatable - I am sure there are many people who feel a pistol they can carry at all times is a better weapon than an AR where that isn't so practical, but each to their own! I have carried military rifles on exercise in the UK, and when you can't put them down AT ALL for hours/days they very swiftly become a pain in the arse! If you think an AR makes more sense I have no problem with that, I am genuinely interested here however in your opinion - for home defense, surely the best weapon is the one you have to hand - which in most cases is surely far more practically a pistol? Yeah - possibly, comes back to where you draw the line - but far more importantly Agreed. I think its a bargaining chip, and its shameful that they need it in order to get some sensible legislation through to close the "private sale loophole" normally misleadingly called the "gun show loophole". Doesn't matter what its called, you know what I mean. I'm in two minds here, you may be right, however I have, and I suspect you have zero proof of this other than some conspiracy theories. I don't disagree - still think that loophole needs closing and this is a good thing. I thought your post about how its done with a pre-check was a great idea. You'll be fighting shadows then - I like guns! Been watching hickok45's videos recently - that guy makes me laugh- I reckon he's doing the vids purely to land some ammo sponsorship to sustain his habit - and fair play to him! (Just as an aside, I was once lucky enough to get a few shots with an L115A3 - that was a beautiful rifle but I nearly choked when I found out how much they were worth) Never try to eat more than you can lift

Also of note The RFP stated select fire will semi-auto and auto No burst selection So you admit home defense is not mentioned. Glad we got that cleared up. Nice try at back tracking though Never try to eat more than you can lift

This http://www.havana.co.nz/product/type/31 - Not that it will mean anything to anyone here! Never try to eat more than you can lift

Such as? And why in the world would anyone not want to improve their chances? And how do you define "need" that covers all situations. That's just crazy. Ok - so you wear kevlar regularly? Nope...what does that have to do with wanting to or needing to? You evaded that one question and didn't address the others. Sorry- missed this question in the thread myself! Err - put yourself intentionally in harms way? I didn't evade anything. You asked for an example of something a regular guy doesn't want to or need to be able to do and I gave you one. Why in the world would anyone not want to improve their chances? No reason at all, but there are levels of this, starting with window locks, and ending up with nuclear deterrent. Where we differ is where the line is drawn as to what is and isn't appropriate. And how do you define "need" that covers all situations You can't - which is why this RFP isn't talking about home defense. Its not designed for that. Its talking about personal defense for LEO's The original point here (that has got lost in the fud), is that the thread title is complete bullshit, the DHS never said anything of the sort. I appreciate you guys are trying to confuse that to make your own point, but fundamentally you are wrong. Never try to eat more than you can lift

I might be reading this differently to you, however personal defense for an LEO =! home defense. As I read it, this is for guys on duty? If the DHS is buying 7000 of these purely for their officers to take home and use for defending their home then I stand corrected. Seems unlikely though. Especially when you read the rest of the criteria for the weapon. Their words Not mine Home defense Nope. The DHS does not once mention "home defense" The author of the article does. Never try to eat more than you can lift

I might be reading this differently to you, however personal defense for an LEO =! home defense. As I read it, this is for guys on duty? If the DHS is buying 7000 of these purely for their officers to take home and use for defending their home then I stand corrected. Seems unlikely though. Especially when you read the rest of the criteria for the weapon. Never try to eat more than you can lift

Did you forget to quote the part talking about private citizens needing them for home defense? All I saw in the parts you quoted was providing weapons for Law Enforcement? The DHS doesn't say that at all - rushmc is being disingenuous (go figure). The author of the piece says that. The DHS is purely trying to procure a weapon for its LEO's to use. The rights and wrongs of gun control aside, I'm not sure I agree with the author about an AR being a good home defense weapon anyway - if only from a portability point of view. Read it again All I pointed out was that an AR15 is considered a good gun for home defense WHO gets to have one is a different argument But, in that context, if it is OK or one person to use one for home defense, why not me? The Feds with have a select fire gun and I know I will not. However, the only disengenuousness here, is yours Please point out in the RFP from DHS, where it says the AR15 is a good weapon for home defence. Never try to eat more than you can lift

do you mean the entire outfit? or just the codpiece? Never try to eat more than you can lift

Such as? And why in the world would anyone not want to improve their chances? And how do you define "need" that covers all situations. That's just crazy. Ok - so you wear kevlar regularly? Never try to eat more than you can lift

yes it does. Never try to eat more than you can lift

Seriously? You don't understand the everyday difference between an LEO and a regular Joe who wants a weapon for self defence? There are lots of things LEO's do to improve their chances that a regular guy wouldn't want to or need to. Never try to eat more than you can lift

Never try to eat more than you can lift