shuter

Question for you Hookster: If I sub a Sidearmor rail setup for #3 above, would that work, in your opinion (I know, only the ATF's "opinion" counts in the end), since it replaces the factory rail? Thanks

Skeeter, couldn't you just throw in a U.S. follower from Brownell's and be good?

I look at it like sparring. In the martial arts of any kind, you spar to stay sharp. It's not the same as streetfighting, but it keeps you in shape. Defending one's principles tends to do the same. It reinforces why you believe what you believe. A man ought to have a philosophy that guides him, and he ought to be able to explain it, imho. If others don't take it that seriously, so be it. see ya

Touche. Damn, I hate speakin' French . . . .

I might be out for a bit. Have to go back to my "handlers" for more ammo with which to slay the evil liberal dragon . . .

Just a quick comment on your last post about healthcare. The federal government has proven wholly incapable of effective management, whereas private industry (though imperfect) has a much better record over the long haul. Healthy private industry creates jobs, and opportunities for investors. Government creates fraud and waste. Care to compare the Postal Service to Fedex and UPS? Seriously, you seem to hate our Captialist society. You seem to believe that an "honest" federal government is needed to maintain control. First of all, "honest federal government" is an oxymoron. Do you really not see that our government is full of shitbags and miscreants? Always has been, and always will be - in this country and every other. That's the nature of the beast; and that's why it should be restrained and limited, not cut loose and expanded. I know you hate it when I quote the Dead White Guys, but here's another beauty from one who may have been EVEN SMARTER (I know, can't be) than Obama: "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." -- Thomas Paine Oh ****, I can't help myself. Here are a few others from a guy who was OBVIOUSLY smarter than Obama: "Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now." "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." "The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits." "To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association—the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." "I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious." "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." "I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive." "Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread." All from Thomas Jefferson, of course. One of the two greatest thinkers in our nation's history. I know you think he's as useful as a "basket of puppies", but that says more about you than him. As you can see, it's purely American, in the grandest sense of the word, to distrust and dislike (and yes, even to despise) government. Once we look to it to solve our problems and tend to us, our experiment has indeed failed. see ya

I will say you're being much more civil now. When I happened upon this thread a couple days ago, you were one arrogant, disrespectful, smart-ass dude. I've only tried to give you a dose of same. We don't agree on much. That's obvious. Still, debate is usually a good thing, as Martha Stewart might say. God bless America.

Back at 'ya, Kittens. Woohoo, got my 20th post in. Only 6,404 more and I'll catch ole' Tuck!

Nevermind. I just looked at your picture. Question answered. I've enjoyed it immensely, tuck. I'm glad you love Obama. Personally, I would've preferred the Old Man . . . especially since his Veep would've been major eye-candy. C'mon tuck, even an old lib like you has got to admit that Sarah's smokin' hot with that hair up, eyeglass-wearin' librarian look . . . don't ya? Don't ya? Oh, forget it . . .

What a load of crap. Are you, in fact, Michael Moore?

Oh, one other thing I noticed about your purty little picture is that Slobama seems to be headed in the same direction FDR went! The original socialist leads the neo-socialist . . . even from the grave.

First of all, I made the mistake of assuming you were aware that presidents can't spend or appropriate money. Uh, they can't. Reagan had a Dem congress, Clinton had a Repub congress, and Bush had Harry and Electric-Eyes Pelosi. See a pattern there? Hmmmm? Okay, I'll try to slow down. This will be too much for you, I'm sure, but try to engage for a sec. I see that you conveniently blew by my explanation of what happened to our economy from 2000-2007, and how Bush should get credit for what he did, not blame. So I don't have any hope that you'll follow this logic, either (something you appear incapable of doing in any case), but what was it that Reagan accomplished during that '80's that allowed Good Time Charlie (aka Clinton) to ride the wave that he did in the 90's? Hmmm? C'mon little fella'. Wouldn't you say that ridding the world of Communism gave us a fat "peace dividend" to spend . . . or to not spend? Clinton also had a Republican congress for 6 years, which pushed him to make the cuts he did. He (Reagan) frankly wouldn't have increased the deficit a penny if he'd gotten the budgets through congress that he submitted. When Tip and the girls got finished with them, however, they were as full of pork as, well . . . Tip was. Remember the talk about his budgets being dead on arrival, due to the spending cuts he proposed? Nice try, but we all know where the blame belongs. Reagan submitted cuts virtually commensurate with increased military spending. In the end, however, he went along with O'Neil's blackmail to get his tax cuts and much-needed military spending through. Your ridiculous little point seems to be that Dems are far more responsible, in terms of budgets. Everyone knows that both parties spend money like it's someone else's; but to try to assert that Dems are more "responsible" is ludicrous. There's more to your little chart than that single line, and you know it (or at least you should). More than anything else though, the friggin' federal budget is bloated. We should set an upper limit to the income tax (20% or so), then make the spoiled oligarchs in Washington come up with a budget that fits, not the other way around. Isn't that the way we live our lives? Can you take from your employer what you need to live on, or do you have to make your spending fit your income? Goodbye.

Blah Blah Blah So I've answered your little talking points. I have to say that I don't see how an adult who doesn't wear a diaper can think the way you do; but whatever. Buh Bye now. I'm not sure I'll waste any more time with you. You appear to be an arrogant liberal, who happens to be fun to toy with, but I've grown tired of you.

That is completely childish. Republicans share plenty of the blame for what's wrong with this country . . . largely because they've spent money like Democrats. However, when it comes to the current congress, they've been completely shut out in terms of input, and if you're honest, you'll admit that. Then there are these little gems: "Gun legislation? Please show me where the bills are? That shouldn't be hard to do, should it? What has the new administration done, other than repeal the previous one's ban on guns in national parks? perhaps I've missed something. Obviously I have, or you wouldn't invoking these dead patriots, would you? Yes, I know there are some leftists who want to abolish all guns. There are also some right-wingers who want to tell women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies." OK, are you serious, Tucker? Do you not agree (and this is a simple test of honesty) that - were there no political consequences - probably 75% of congressional Dems and certainly the entire Administration would abolish the private ownership of firearms (at the very least, all handguns and semi-automatics) TODAY? Are you seriously not honest enough to admit that? If you're not, then you're delusional; and conversations with the delusional are seldom (if ever) productive. And the bit about telling women what they can do with their own bodies? Who are you, Patricia Ireland? Seriously, there's nothing in the world more feminine-sounding than a male liberal prattling on like that. Man up, for heavens sake! I happen to be grudingly pro-choice, but I also have to admit that the taking of an innocent life occurs EVERY time that "right" is excercised - as opposed to our very clear 2nd Amendment right, where the same occurs in far less than 1% of cases. Yet, oddly enough, most pro-choice types refuse to acknowledge the latter, while supporting the former with a passion that is almost religious in nature. You're previous 700 or so posts in this thread alone indicate a high level of contempt for "rednecks" and "teabaggers" (one in the same, in your opinion). I happen to be neither; but that disdain for "regular folk" appears to be common among liberals. We now know that the recently-fallen-from-grace John Edwards (famous liberal though he is) had the same contemptuous feelings, though he prattled on about fighting for "regular people" and "two Americas", blah blah blah. The elitist leftist mindset of superiority tends to lead to that. You people tend to think that you're smarter than everyone else, and should therefore be allowed to take care of those of us who comprise the rabble - since you know what's best for us. Frankly, to borrow from that model of inclusiveness, Rahm Emanuel, that kind of thing makes you sound "f'ing retarded" to the rest of us - and I can tell you're not; so snap out if it, Skippy! Tucks, you strike me as the kind of person who enjoyes bullying others with your sharp tongue and (admittedly) sharp wit. It appears as though you're used to intimidating people. That obviously works better with some than others. You also have a 6,000 plus post history on this forum, and I do not. So, I'm obviously new around here, but it strikes me as strange that: A) You're a gunowner at all, given your far-left leanings (be honest, that makes you about as rare as an un-groped intern in the Clinton Administration). B) You're serious enough about it to post 6,000 times on this forum. C) You have so little respect for, and in common with, what I would guess is the VAST majority of other forum members. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to why none of those things should surprise me. Anyhoo, it's been fun, and we could go on forever, I'm sure. As you can probably tell, I enjoy this as much as you do. see ya

"I'll bet you're a Teabagger, aren't you?" No, I'm an American who advocates a return to what made us great, rather than a scamper toward the policies that have failed every time they've been tried. Besides, wasn't it you who decried those who, "offer you a litany of insults"? I find that hypocritical, but maybe that's just me. Sure, there's regulatory action to be taken in the banking and healthcare industries. That doesn't call for the Socialist solutions pushed by greedy and power-hungry Democrats (including your esteemed President), however. You really do sound like a whiny George Soros disciple. Truly a product of Dem talking points, and a hatred for all that made this country great. What a shame, because you also seem to have a reasonable level of intelligence. see ya