• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Rudy Guiliani

HercDriver

Idiots w/boats = job security
pilot
Super Moderator
Wonder what changed his mind, what knowledge he feels he has acquired and why he gets a pass on these ... so far.

I'm guessing that huge crowds turning out every time you speak anywhere, glowing hagiographic write-ups in various publications, people begging to throw cash your way if you run...so suddenly he has a great chance to win the nomination. What a difference a few years make.

He needs to quit smoking, though.
 

MasterBates

Well-Known Member
ON the subject of Rudy.

I think he is a good leader for the most part.

However, his 2nd Amendment Stance + Democrat Controlled Congress = MasterBates Scared...
 

squorch2

he will die without safety brief
pilot
Obama seems to always get a pass by the 'drive-by media'. I found it interesting today hearing quotes on talk radio by him from circa 2004 saying he would never run for Pres because he has nowhere near the expirence or knowledge it takes to run the country. Another quote circa 2005 has him being asked specifically "Will you run in '08 ... is there any chance of you running" and him saying 'no-way'. Wonder what changed his mind, what knowledge he feels he has acquired and why he gets a pass on these ... so far. If it goes nose to nose with him and Hillary, the Clinton machine will dig up anything and everything. Should be fun to watch :D
The first instance of "the Clinton machine" actually turned out to be a Moonie-owned magazine... which was then repeated by Fox News... and false all along... but hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good story, right?

I would also posit that Sen. Obama has more foreign and domestic policy experience than circa-2000 Gov. Bush. I base this on the fact that the Lt. Governor basically runs the legislature through his committee chair appointment powers and they are quite adamant about using their power of the purse to shape policy in Texas. Indeed, it was nearly taken as gospel that any prospective Bush administration would defer to foreign policy "experts" due to the lack of expertise in the POTUS-to-be. The 1980 Reagan campaign had a similar tone to it.

And actually, I think this election might be 1968 all over again: violent demonstrations, a strategic counter-offensive by insurgent elements, and the "peace with honor" candidate will end up winning it.

And that candidate will likely be Republican.
 

nittany03

Recovering NFO. Herder of Programmers.
pilot
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
He needs to quit smoking, though.
Frankly, I kind of admire him for having the balls to continue to do so despite the modern PC anti-smoking busibodies. He's over 18, it's legal, so who cares?
 

HercDriver

Idiots w/boats = job security
pilot
Super Moderator
And actually, I think this election might be 1968 all over again: violent demonstrations, a strategic counter-offensive by insurgent elements, and the "peace with honor" candidate will end up winning it.

And that candidate will likely be Republican
Note to Democratic front-runners...don't take the shortcut through the hotel kitchen post-speech.

I would also posit that Sen. Obama has more foreign and domestic policy experience than circa-2000 Gov. Bush.
The loyal opposition would change your date to "circa 2007 Bush".

I agree with you on one parallel to '68; there will be a turnover from the party in power in the White House. And do the Republicans have a "peace with honor" candidate yet?

As for smoking...I don't care, but I'll bet the people who "handle" him are bugging him to put down those smokes.
 

USMC_NA

Registered User
so for those of you who are worried about gun control coming from the dems, do you really think that a ban on semi's and handguns is a realistic possibility? I'm a gun owner myself and no offense, but i don't think that will be happening in our lifetimes. I mean guns are just as much part of america as beer and football.
 

MasterBates

Well-Known Member
so for those of you who are worried about gun control coming from the dems, do you really think that a ban on semi's and handguns is a realistic possibility? I'm a gun owner myself and no offense, but i don't think that will be happening in our lifetimes. I mean guns are just as much part of america as beer and football.

When my father was my age, you could buy guns thru the mail. No dealers needed. Until I was 8 you could buy a NEW Automatic Rifle as long as you paid a $200 tax (I think the NFA is BS, but we are going on things in my lifetime).

When I was 16 they made it illegal to have guns with bayonet attachments or other "evil looking" features. Also banned FULL capacity magazines.

So yes, most of us around 20 to 30 years old have seen a LOT of negative changes in gun rights in our lifetime.

CCW is one of the FEW things that has gone well for "us" in most places.

Back to your question-

I think it could happen. How likely is up for debate, but there are a LOT of people who would want to see them go away. I call them Blissninnies.

Also, gun owners can be our own worst enemies at times. Many will not care what gets banned, as long as their duck gun and deer rifle are OK.
 

USMC_NA

Registered User
I'm 29 and all that was new info to me. Probably cause I'm the guy who just wants to go duck and deer hunting, and well have a glock at home too.
 

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
so for those of you who are worried about gun control coming from the dems, do you really think that a ban on semi's and handguns is a realistic possibility? I'm a gun owner myself and no offense, but i don't think that will be happening in our lifetimes. I mean guns are just as much part of america as beer and football.

I see what you're saying, but the Clinton era ushered in a whole variety of restrictions for "Assault" type weapons (with a complicit Democratic Congress), so just because a ban of handguns outright may not be likely doesn't mean that serious reprocussions won't result.

There is a fundamental flaw in the logic of gun control advocates in that the laws they implement apply only to those that observe the law.

Brett
 

Herc_Dude

I believe nicotine + caffeine = protein
pilot
Contributor
There is a fundamental flaw in the logic of gun control advocates in that the laws they implement apply only to those that observe the law.

Brett

And why the fvck does it seem that the anit-gun folks just dont seem to get that! :icon_rage
 

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
And why the fvck does it seem that the anit-gun folks just dont seem to get that! :icon_rage

That's a good question. Probably a combination of wishful thinking (common thread in many liberal policies) and a genuine dislike for guns themselves. They see the statistically improbable "Kid finds loaded gun and shoots self" scenario and decide that guns should be outlawed, so they're going to do their part toward that goal.

Brett
 

Fly Navy

...Great Job!
pilot
Super Moderator
Contributor
so for those of you who are worried about gun control coming from the dems, do you really think that a ban on semi's and handguns is a realistic possibility? I'm a gun owner myself and no offense, but i don't think that will be happening in our lifetimes. I mean guns are just as much part of america as beer and football.

Look at the "progress" they've made in states such as Massachusetts, New York, California, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and places such as DC, San Francisco, Chicago, New York City, and so on. Believe it, the gun-control lobby has been targeting semi-automatic firearms for a long time, especially handguns. The "Assault Weapon Ban" in 1994 was a major win for them, fortunately when it came up for renewal, guns weren't a hot issue in the USA (and Republican leadership got their peepee's SPANKED by the voters after that bill and others passed in 1994. They weren't going to make that mistake twice).

They will lie, deceive, alter stats, make up stats, use emotional language, and so on. The facts are against them, they know this. The stats of "children killed by guns", guess what, that includes up to 20+ year olds and doesn't delineate gang killings. They're pros at it.

A large portion of gun owners are your enemy. They don't care about anything but their single-shot shotgun or rifle. In fact, they see handguns as useless or evil, as well as semi-automatic rifles. They WILL work with the anti-gun lobby to enact bans, they have in the past.
 

Cate

Pretty much invincible
Isn't this the way most laws work?
Well, now that one of you gets it, can you please explain the concept to the rest of your crowd? :D

brett
Well, following that statement to its logical conclusion, any laws would be, by their nature, as fundamentally flawed as gun laws, so why bother passing them at all? I'm not saying that recent gun legislation hasn't been deeply ridiculous, and I'm not saying that better enforcement of existing gun laws wouldn't be far more effective, but "laws only affect the lawful" is a pretty weak argument against legislation.
 
Top