A "Plot" to kill Obama?
- Thread starter TwoXForr
- Start date
750 yard sighting in?
There's a whole lot that is very questionable about this...
The rifle caliber is not mentioned and then goes on to mention that the scope wasn't even mounted... Was it even somewhat capable of actually making a 750 yard shot? And, without even being actually sighted in?
Or even 400 yards?
How about the people themselves? Is there any hint they could even pull a long distance shot off?
There's a whole lot that is very questionable about this...
The rifle caliber is not mentioned and then goes on to mention that the scope wasn't even mounted... Was it even somewhat capable of actually making a 750 yard shot? And, without even being actually sighted in?
Or even 400 yards?
How about the people themselves? Is there any hint they could even pull a long distance shot off?
Thank God the meth addicts in Colorado didn't have an AR15 or one of its clones, or an AK47 type semiauto. This story would have really been blown out of proportion and the "deadly assault weapon" rhetoric would be running wild in the anti gun press outlets.
Where did the convicted felon get the gun(s) in the first place? I thought we had "reasonable" gun control laws in place to stop this. The GCA1968 forbids a convicted felon from having ANY firearm and the Brady Law means we run background checks on ALL people who buy firearms from ANY and ALL licensed dealers. You mean those laws didn't work? Again? Sheesh. I was waiting for the news release saying that the guns were purchased at a gun show by exploiting the mythical "gun show loophole".
Where did the convicted felon get the gun(s) in the first place? I thought we had "reasonable" gun control laws in place to stop this. The GCA1968 forbids a convicted felon from having ANY firearm and the Brady Law means we run background checks on ALL people who buy firearms from ANY and ALL licensed dealers. You mean those laws didn't work? Again? Sheesh. I was waiting for the news release saying that the guns were purchased at a gun show by exploiting the mythical "gun show loophole".
Playboypenguin
Moderator
Just what are you suggesting? That certain people should be banned from participation in free press because they disagree with you? In another thread you want to destroy one party so we can have single party rule and now you want to destroy the freedom of the press.
Disagreeing with me is one thing--that they're entirely entitled to do. People disagree with me all the time and I with them and that's perfectly fine. What's a good pistol, what's tasty to eat, whether or not this or that investment works best for that person, is Mercedes or BMW the better car, etc. No problem, no harm, plenty of the world to go around for everyone. Selling our country to enemies from within that are actively destroying us is something else entirely. Disagreement would be over which way to go about obtaining the best results for our country; what the leftists of the press push is nothing of the sort. Disagreement of debatable matters is certainly a good thing. Being complete accomplices of pushing a socialist at best regime that's deliberately geared towards destroying our society as they are is simply incontrovertibly wrong. Period. Wrong, as in right and wrong, a concept that seems to go out the window for some people when discussing matters of government. There are right and wrong ideas, good and bad conclusions, and right and wrong policies. They can be debated, but the end results and the methods to obtain them are quantifiable, verifiable, black and white crystal clear--regardless of this "oh, but that's your opinion" rubbish. Do A and you get B. It may be perhaps difficult in the short run, but in the long run you can pretty darn clear tell some cleanly verifiable results:
1. Prohibition was a crappy idea. It didn't work. Tried policy A to get result B and instead got result C.
2. Going off the gold standard was also a crappy idea. Money since then has become nearly worthless by comparison. Many people are verifiably poorer because too many folks hinged on prices staying the same, and the working class is at present getting gouged because of inflation. The gold standard kept inflation from multiple sources as an almost non-issue until such happened. You can look that up and see it to be clear as day. There is literally nothing good about inflation. Society CAN AND DOES function on a fixed money supply--the US economy today could easily run on 1/10th the money supply--all you do is just move a decimal/subtract a zero from price figures. Nominal price is just a number--it's when it moves by non-real market factors, that is, not real people making money by producing goods and service but instead by government spending and artificial money manipulation, that things go screwy. And we've just seen a minor tremor of what screwy is like.
"Oh, but that's controversial." Because what, because a leftist disagrees with that, largely based in agenda and ignorance? What a pathetic cop out. If I'm wrong, I adjust what I put forth and incorporate information and work within my mind to align my concepts of how things work with what goes on. Liberalism, and whatever aspects of supposed conservatism that somehow gets leaked out as such, makes no such reconciliation with reality. In fact, it resists doing so at all costs.
I go by right and wrong, not by left and right.
Wrong. I want to destroy one party so we get a better substitute for it, one that isn't overrun by communists. If we can get the donkey party eradicated then we can go to work on purging the other one of its Chamberlains who have completely fumbled the ball and swallowed the same poision as the other. I sure as heck don't want a one party system--what we have is close to one as it is, and it doesn't work worth a crap. We need at least 3 parties so that in the event one party is totally slime and the other not doing its job, we can actually effectively be rid of those two and not get one or the other as a result.
(I wonder what response he'll have for this, if any...)
I thought not.
Last edited: