Obama what the hell are you doing?

[August]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

lying, hm?

I rest my case.

Does that mean that Europeans are so used to their politicians lying to them that even perjury doesn't phase you anymore?

Btw, if you can't take international criticism, do not post in a forum composed of international people. The days of the old fashioned nation states where every nation can do as it pleases without international reaction died with the invention of the internet and globalisation.

"Sound and fury signifying nothing". Proper criticism Bewolf requires an understanding of the situation, which I'm sorry but it's obvious that you don't possess that regarding this issue or our most recent Presidential impeachment, so maybe you ought to refrain from making flame bait posts about it until you do, or at least expect to get criticism in return.

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by August

Does that mean that Europeans are so used to their politicians lying to them that even perjury doesn't phase you anymore?

I think he was referring to the arguments for a certain war by someone who was not impeached...

[August]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

I think he was referring to the arguments for a certain war by someone who was not impeached...

Maybe, but then he's guilty of confusing being wrong with telling a deliberate lie, made in court, on the witness stand, under oath.

Originally Posted by August

Does that mean that Europeans are so used to their politicians lying to them that even perjury doesn't phase you anymore?

"Sound and fury signifying nothing". Proper criticism Bewolf requires an understanding of the situation, which I'm sorry but it's obvious that you don't possess that regarding this issue or our most recent Presidential impeachment, so maybe you ought to refrain from making flame bait posts about it until you do, or at least expect to get criticism in return.

Now, August, you sound like a polititan. These are semantics. It does not require a university degree or studying every detail to get a gripe of the warped values displayed here. I do concede that Zach was mad and in his anger spoke about impeachment. But what it takes to hear this demand, or not, is telling what priorities some folks have in their daily lives, where quite obviously owing of a gun is more important then lying presidents sending ppl to their deaths. If Zach actually did demand impeachment of Bush, I stand corrected, but for some reason I doubt that.

That has nothing to do with flamebaiting, no matter how you recieve it, but with the ppl posting here. For the last 8 years certain folks threw away the modesty card and were the most vocal folks around, and now you once again complain about getting the same treatment? If you can't take it, do not punch, it's simple as that. I on my side never whined about me or my country beeing critizised, so do not play me this card, kay? I am very much aware of my provocations here, but discussing stuff in a civil manner unluckily hits deaf ears most of the time.

[August]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

Now, August, you sound like a polititan. These are semantics. It does not require a university degree or studying every detail to get a gripe of the warped values displayed here. I do concede that Zach was mad and in his anger spoke about impeachment. But what it takes to hear this demand, or not, is telling what priorities some folks have in their daily lives, where quite obviously owing of a gun is more important then lying presidents sending ppl to their deaths. If Zach actually did demand impeachment of Bush, I stand corrected, but for some reason I doubt that.

Zachstar didn't say anything about impeachment, at least in this thread, you did.

You incorrectly attempted to compare a decision based on flawed (but long standing) intelligence, with a deliberate attempt to commit perjury in a court of law. I can't see why you have such a difficult time understanding such a significant difference.

That has nothing to do with flamebaiting, no matter how you recieve it, but with the ppl posting here. For the last 8 years certain folks threw away the modesty card and were the most vocal folks around, and now you once again complain about getting the same treatment? If you can't take it, do not punch, it's simple as that. I on my side never whined about me or my country beeing critizised, so do not play me this card, kay? I am very much aware of my provocations here, but discussing stuff in a civil manner unluckily hits deaf ears most of the time.

So you admit it then, so why are you complaining when someone returns your fire?

[SteamWake]

Here everybody

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Assault Rifles dont belong in the hands of regular US citizens, in my opinion. If you want to shoot an assault rifle, rent one from a range and use it there.

Who the hell do you expect to break into your house? Rambo?

[August]

Originally Posted by Kapitan_Phillips

Assault Rifles dont belong in the hands of regular US citizens, in my opinion. If you want to shoot an assault rifle, rent one from a range and use it there.

Who the hell do you expect to break into your house? Rambo?

Given the mountains of red tape and other bureaucratic obstacles a citizen must get through to legally possess an assault weapon they are anything but "regular".

BTW whose ranges? AFAIK government ranges do not rent firearms...

[Thomen]

Originally Posted by August

Given the mountains of red tape and other bureaucratic obstacles a citizen must get through to legally possess an assault weapon they are anything but "regular".

BTW whose ranges? AFAIK government ranges do not rent firearms...

http://www.machinegunshoot.com/

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Originally Posted by August

Given the mountains of red tape and other bureaucratic obstacles a citizen must get through to legally possess an assault weapon they are anything but "regular".

BTW whose ranges? AFAIK government ranges do not rent firearms...

That still doesnt mean there's much of a reason to own one.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Kapitan_Phillips

Assault Rifles dont belong in the hands of regular US citizens, in my opinion. If you want to shoot an assault rifle, rent one from a range and use it there.

Who the hell do you expect to break into your house? Rambo?

I agree.

[Zachstar]

Originally Posted by Kapitan_Phillips

Assault Rifles dont belong in the hands of regular US citizens, in my opinion. If you want to shoot an assault rifle, rent one from a range and use it there.

Who the hell do you expect to break into your house? Rambo?

That has nothing to do with this. The American public does not want ANY new "bans restrictions etc" on firearms. And a common republican tactic was to use the actions of past DEEP left democrats to portray us as gun grabbing. It was just about dead thanks to modern dems starting to move more towards gun education rather than gun banning but Obama looks like he wants to cater to the deep left again. A decision that will cost us atleast a few seats in 2010 and likely the presidency in 2012.

You dont touch guns. They are the third rail.

[Zachstar]

Some news. In one of those extremely rare days where Pelosi actually does something right. She basically slammed the door on Obama and the idea of a new assault weapons ban.

[Skybird]

NATO'S has implemented a "new" policy from the late 80s saying that personnel that is not combat troops at or for the front must not carry usual assault rifles like G36ers, however in asymmetrical wars even logistics specialists and abulances could become target of enemy assaults inside "safe havens", and thus such people nevertheless should carry small but powerful weapons for self-defense, so-called Personal Defence Weapons, or PDWs. The very small MP7 is such a weapon, for example, or the P90. they can fire cartridges that are designed to defeat body armour.

If the military expects it to be sufficient to have such a "mini-assault-gun" (actually smaller than an MP5) for fighting off a hostile wartime attack in rear areas near the front in a war, then it cannot be understood why people claim to need such weapons of war or even more "senior" weapons like regular assault guns in order to fight off intruders in their house or on their farm that want to rob the appartmenet or are after money. That is idiotic. Are American cities and farms places of ordinary warfare, with hundreds left dead every day and citizens mowed down in their appartements with machine gun fire??

It is all about a fetish, an excessive fascination for weapons, and implicitly a sign for a violence-loving culture (of which the medias are filled from A to Z anyway).

Eventually I could understand the farmer in a lonely place to have his hunting rifle, or the household in a dangherous neighbourhood having a pistol or a revolver.

But - assault guns...? That is absurd, hilarious.

If you would live in a place where you would need to keep your neighbourhood in check with such tools of war, you better run. Else you may not only lose your life or property, but your family as well. Just a question of time.

Listening to this fanatic demand to hold a private firepower surpassing that of an ordinary plice patrol, one could assume that the US is already a worse place to live in than the world of Fallout - but aren't we foreigners expected to be jealous of America for being in this superior state it is in? Something wouldn't match here, then. Nobody is jealous of a place where you would need to fight daily wars to just make it through another war-torn day in order to go to work, and come home again.

So either the US is a place that we can legitimately and peacefully be jealous of, then you would not need assault guns to live there - or you would need assault guns to survive the week indeed: then it hardly is a place where to live people are jealous for.

[A Very Super Market]

This thread isn't about that, so you wasted your time typing that up. Its about Obama killing his chances by going against his promise.