MidnightRider

You rail against Fox yet link to a HuffPo article? Wow. Mind. BLOWN! You asked for data, I gave you data. If you care to refute the numbers in their article, by all means do it. But you should probably do so with sources and links of your own. Maybe you prefer the Washington Post article I linked to above? Or just tell me what sources I'm allowed to cite and we'll go from there. The Washington Post? Seriously? I was having fun but now I'm beginning to think I may have overestimated you a bit. You can post whatever you want, obviously. I'm just pointing out the absurd amount of irony at play here...

You rail against Fox yet link to a HuffPo article? Wow. Mind. BLOWN! You asked for data, I gave you data. If you care to refute the numbers in their article, by all means do it. But you should probably do so with sources and links of your own. Maybe you prefer the Washington Post article I linked to above? Or just tell me what sources I'm allowed to cite and we'll go from there. You provided "data" from an aggregate, liberal leaning website. I think I'll pass on that. Hey, I'm gonna go grab a beer. You want one? I have Heineken and Guinness.

Um, unless you were living in a cave for the weeks following the Ft Hood shooting, there is absolutely no way you could have missed those reports. I lurked this site for quite a while before joining and I noted early on that this was your go to move. I'm not your errand boy and I won't do your research for you. I don't need the federal government keeping track of how many lawn mowers, food processors or guns I own. Its none of their damned business. Period. Your definition of "useful" and mine are light years apart. How many felons do you think actually go to a gun store to purchase a weapon? That's a very weak support statement. BTW, you never answered this question: "are you cool with them tracking everything you say on the Internet while exercising your 1st ammendment rights?" Why is that? You strike me as the "well, I'm not doing anything wrong so I'm cool with it" type. Is this correct? My go to move is to ask people to supply evidence to support their claims? Guilty. No, I'm not a fan of people tracking my internet movements. But then that's not really an analogous claim to background checks on gun sales. It is illegal for felons to own weapons, so somehow we have to be able to check for that. It isn't illegal for felons to use the internet or send an email. Of course its analogous. You are exercising your 1st amendment rights in the same way that I exercise my 2nd amendment rights. How would you feel if I came on here and told you to STFU and go get whatever you're saying approved by some federal keyboard jockey before you post it? You cool with that? You don't get to f#cking cherry pick the Constitution!

You rail against Fox yet link to a HuffPo article? Wow. Mind. BLOWN!

Perhaps they would be doing a better job of it if the NRA hadn't worked so hard strip the ATF and FBI of their ability to track gun sales. If you want better data, It's out there, trust me. I'm not your errand boy. "I'm not your errand boy." Huh, that sounds really familiar but I'll give you an A for originality anyway because its Friday and I'm in a really good mood. Why the hell do they need to track gun sales? It is simply none of their business and if they think they can really effect any change, they are clearly delusional. See my above post. In 2012, 2000 felons, in Colorado alone, were stopped from the purchase of guns by background checks. That isn't "real change"? Can I see the source for those stats? That's really not the point though. If a man is intent upon getting his hands on a gun, he will find one. Hell, I could go down to the west end right now and have one in 30 minutes or less. Point being, you will never prevent evil people from doing evil things? A gun is but one of many tools they may use to facilitate this violence.

Do you know anything about this stain, Hickenlooper? You could very well live in Colorado so it could be but the dude is no friend to 2nd amendment proponents. Where is the source for his data? Sorry for the formatting issues, my tablet does not agree with this site for some reason.

Perhaps they would be doing a better job of it if the NRA hadn't worked so hard strip the ATF and FBI of their ability to track gun sales. If you want better data, It's out there, trust me. I'm not your errand boy. "I'm not your errand boy." Huh, that sounds really familiar but I'll give you an A for originality anyway because its Friday and I'm in a really good mood. Why the hell do they need to track gun sales? It is simply none of their business and if they think they can really effect any change, they are clearly delusional.

And what felon in their right mind would willingly go into a sporting goods store, pawn shop or any other place that sells firearms and has the buyer fill out a 4473 and fill it out knowingly that they can't buy or possess a firearm? http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/22/fugitives-gun-background-checks/7959529/ Its interesting that the article you quoted mentions the NCIS as a preventive measure to prevent mentally ill people from purchasing firearms. They're doing a bang up f#ucking job in that respect, aren't they? Every single mass shooting in the history of this country was perpetrated by a crazy mofo. What a joke. You seriously couldn't do better than that tripe?

Um, unless you were living in a cave for the weeks following the Ft Hood shooting, there is absolutely no way you could have missed those reports. I lurked this site for quite a while before joining and I noted early on that this was your go to move. I'm not your errand boy and I won't do your research for you. I don't need the federal government keeping track of how many lawn mowers, food processors or guns I own. Its none of their damned business. Period. Your definition of "useful" and mine are light years apart. How many felons do you think actually go to a gun store to purchase a weapon? That's a very weak support statement. BTW, you never answered this question: "are you cool with them tracking everything you say on the Internet while exercising your 1st ammendment rights?" Why is that? You strike me as the "well, I'm not doing anything wrong so I'm cool with it" type. Is this correct?

You asking for evidence makes me laugh. Trust me, it's out there. Exactly. It's all part of a big classified report but it's out there. No, I can't provide it but I can tell you what it says. I did provide a link to the source. As for you implying that I provided classified information, you're dead wrong and I damned sure don't appreciate the inference. This isn't the first time you've done it either and you can stop now. No, I most definitely wasn't implying that you were providing classified information. You sure have an odd way of going about it then.

Typically, people supply the evidence to support their own claims. So if it is easy to find, you should be able to do it quickly. I'll wait. As far as the ATF... so? So they want to require gun dealers to provide form 4473? Information on who bought what guns? That seems like... something that is legally required and is their job. THOSE JACK BOOTED THUGS! I won't do your research for you. You must have been asleep during the weeks following the Ft Hood shooting if you didn't catch all of the dirty details. Yeah, those 4473's are to remain in possession of the gun seller. If they close up shop or die, only then are they mailed to a federally controlled storage facility. So no, its not their job. Why do they need to know who owns what anyway? Are you cool with them tracking everything you say on the Internet while exercising your 1st ammendment rights?

You asking for evidence makes me laugh. Trust me, it's out there. Exactly. It's all part of a big classified report but it's out there. No, I can't provide it but I can tell you what it says. I did provide a link to the source. As for you implying that I provided classified information, you're dead wrong and I damned sure don't appreciate the inference. This isn't the first time you've done it either and you can stop now.

You asking for evidence makes me laugh. Trust me, it's out there. So, let's see it then. Turnabout's fairplay, right?

I understand what his point was. And it is racist. End of story. Ah, once again "trust me, it's out there". What's your issue with the ATF? I assume the answer will involve "jack booted thugs". Also, Nadal: Nidal Malik Hasan: Got me on the spelling. As for the rest, not so much. I have many issues with the ATF although, they haven't reached Jack Booted Thug status just yet. Oh wait, there's that pesky Fast and Furious thing, the pressuring of gun store owners to provide form 4473's, I could go on and on. Eureka! They have reached Jack Booted Thug status. Awesome! Thanks for helping me along with that. I told you the info on Nidal is out there, all one needs to do is Google it. Instead, you resort to a snarky reply as the research probably wouldn't fit your agenda. Got it.

No. Not at all. But I am saying that if a person is an old, white, homophobic, racist elitist who is incapable of critical thinking they are more likely than the rest of the general public to be a member of the Tea Party. And how did you come to this conclusion? Surely you see that one could change the demographics you mentioned and link a group to any political party they so desire, don't you? You see, this really gets us nowhere and only serves to keep America from peeking behind the curtain to see what is REALLY happening to this country. Yeah. I completely agree that you could change the demographics entirely and then that person would be less likely to be a member of the tea party. I like the wordplay you're employing but you still haven't told me how you came to your original conclusion. Surely, evidence must exist for you to make such a statement. Right?

No. Not at all. But I am saying that if a person is an old, white, homophobic, racist elitist who is incapable of critical thinking they are more likely than the rest of the general public to be a member of the Tea Party. And how did you come to this conclusion? Surely you see that one could change the demographics you mentioned and link a group to any political party they so desire, don't you? You see, this really gets us nowhere and only serves to keep America from peeking behind the curtain to see what is REALLY happening to this country.

that concerns me as well. Cause if could of gotten more soldiers killed. But lately i've been hearing some rumblings amongst friends. That apparently Obama did this with out approval from congress, if so he could face jail time. Has anyone else heard anything like this? Yes, he most definitely did this without the approval of Congress. Jail time though? That's laughable.

Where did I ever say that being a minority makes one unqualified? You would never hear that out of my mouth and I'm stunned that you made that leap. I think his point was that, given his status as a minority (or whatever the particular quota may be) nobody would have blown the whistle on this guy if they did find something shady, due to fear of retribution. Yeah, I tried to get through a few of the other articles on that site and just couldn't do it. Maybe when I feel that I'm falling short on self loathing, I'll give it another go. Oh, and the ATF part? AHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! AHAHAHAHAHAHA! Whew, thanks. I needed that. That clusterf#ck will be one of the first to go when I am made King. Along with the DEA (oh hell, the entire Dept of Homeland Security), the IRS, USBP and many others. Do yourself a favor and conduct a bit more research on Nadal. You will be floored when you see what was overlooked and flat out ignored. Trust me, its out there. He could have been stopped. Edit: Oh, and the NSA. How could I have forgotten them? Screw you NSA!

Hey, I generally agree. There is no reason to use derogatory terms for someone if their actions alone paint the picture of their own ridiculousness. I don't personally call them "teabaggers," I don't make fun of John Boehner's last name, I resisted the humor of "Bush and Dick" during the last Republican regime, and I don't objectify Sarah Palin for her looks. But if you adopt the teabag as your own symbol, you better be ready for ridicule. I lump it in with all the other terms that get thrown around like democraps, libtards, rethuglicans, etc. It's derogatory and does absolutely nothing to further the conversation. This was my point. It does absolutely nothing to facilitate bi-partisanship. Neither does the Tea Party. That's their point. Wrong. The point is to belittle a party that they are ideologically opposed to. They do so by using childish, denigrating name calling.

Um, in the crazed, lunatic conspiracy sort of way. But my favorite part was the blatant, unabashed racism: Racism: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. Please show me, based upon the definition above, how racism was involved. And, if you think that when any type of quota is involved that quality doesn't suffer? Well, I can't help you there. I see it happen in our Armed Forces, Fire Departments, Police Forces etc. regularly. Do you really believe that Nadal wasn't shielded? Dude was a known, raging fundamentalist. He got shuffled around to be somebody else's problems many times instead of someone blowing the whistle. All in fear of retribution. That's a double fail. One for the system and one for the gutless officers that facilitated his rampage by not doing the right thing. Yay, career progression. You still haven't told me your plan either. What's your solution to stop these shootings? Is this the part where I get accused of being a racist by someone here? I'm kinda new here so I'm not sure...

This was off the bench . . . could barely get sub-10" groups at 100 yds with a variety of hand loads. Normally I'd agree about blaming the shooter . . . but when I'd shoot respectable groups with one rifle and then pick up the mini and scatter the rounds across the paper it's a heck of a coincidence. I have heard this tale told many times about the M1 and the Mini 14. This is another reason I don't have one in my collection yet. Could you ever get any kind of consistent grouping with the 14?

Sufficient proof is all we ever have, sir. Set the line (beyond a reasonable doubt works) and if you cross that line the proof is sufficient. (For that matter, all that you're requiring is sufficient proof. It's just that you set your bar at what you say is definite . . . but that word doesn't mean what you think that it means.) There is no certainty beyond death, taxes, and that 1995 Nebraska was the best college football team to ever walk the face of the earth. Wait for results. Why on earth are you in such a hurry to rush to judgment? What can be gained? I can sure tell you what could be lost. I certainly hope you're not inferring that I don't believe he deserves a fair and speedy trial by a jury of his peers. If you are, you couldn't be further from the truth. Just because everything I've seen and heard points to his guilt, he still deserves to defend himself. Then why are you so anxious for everyone to say that he is definitely, undoubtedly, certainly a deserter? Becasue he is.That doesn't mean he doesn't deserve a trial and the right to defend himself though, because he absolutely does. Who knows, a jury may find differently than the initial investigation? Since that hasn't happened up to this point, I'll go with what the initial investigators found. Just to be clear, I do NOT advocate any type of punishment for this dude until he gets his day in court and then, only if he is found guilty. There, does that help so we don't have to keep muddying the waters with inferences of what some think, I think?

Hey, I generally agree. There is no reason to use derogatory terms for someone if their actions alone paint the picture of their own ridiculousness. I don't personally call them "teabaggers," I don't make fun of John Boehner's last name, I resisted the humor of "Bush and Dick" during the last Republican regime, and I don't objectify Sarah Palin for her looks. But if you adopt the teabag as your own symbol, you better be ready for ridicule. I lump it in with all the other terms that get thrown around like democraps, libtards, rethuglicans, etc. It's derogatory and does absolutely nothing to further the conversation. This was my point. It does absolutely nothing to facilitate bi-partisanship.

Shortly after Obama took office, when protesters came on the scene, many of them wore tri-corner hats to hearken back to the Boston Tea Party, found a clever acronym to fit ("Taxed Enough Already") and for added effect, often hung teabags from their hats or sent them in the mail to congressmen. There were several folks on the right and in convservative media who proliferated the teabag idea as a symbol. They started it themselves. The fact that the movement took off before they realized that "teabagging" was a derogatory sexual term is a hilarious microcosm of the Tea Party's thoughtfulness. It's one of many things that they deserve mockery for. This is from Wikipedia, I know, but someone else can check out the deeper sources, professors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_protests Best summation of how juvenile, sophomoric, and myopic they truly are. ---- People don't realize that there are going to be long-term consequences for legitimizing their lunacy--yes, they have freedom of speech, and they can say what they damn well please, no matter how bats**t crazy or hypocritical their platform is. It's this big picture type of thought process that is entirely lost on their party, which is why they favor obstructionism instead of critical thought and working through issues to compromise. But putting their herpaderp in the spotlight, and letting the lay person think that passive-aggressive homophobia, racism, and elitism are acceptable avenues of political and social thought is a sure fire way to set a country back a few decades or so. Are you saying that all members of the Tea Party are homophobic, racist elitists who are incapable of critical thinking? That pretty much sum it up for you?

Considering they were enemy combatant prisoners, I am not sure anyone thought they were exemplary Not in everyone's eyes, they weren't. There are many who feel that they never should have been there in the first place. I was being facetious. I'll use the sarcasm emoti next time.