Alaska Darin

At least he's consistant...Ya just gotta give 'im that.

Yet amazingly, over 200,000,000 guns owned in America never injure anyone. Keep being afraid of inanimate objects while embracing those you should actually fear. Goddamn lemming.

I had it done on one of my dogs - twice. He blew a ligament in each hind leg, about 2 years apart. Lived to be 13 and I never regretted it. To be honest, I've always felt like there's a certain karma with taking proper care of a pet. I still miss that dog, even though I basically replaced him with 3 more.

So now the "bare necessities" is rich? And why are we moving "around the world"? Because somehow you can equate $100K in the Bay Area to $100K in Laos? Nothing like continuing to show the weakness of your argument by trying to use emotion rather than fact. You let me know when you and your partner are making $100K a year with a kid in college and one in high school. I can guarantee that you won't feel anywhere near "rich". And using EII as a gauge ain't the greatest source... Except this thread isn't about YOUR perception of rich. It's about taxation and the amount of screwing the average middle class guy is going to take when another socialist hits the White House. So you try and see that as a "state of mind" while the rest of us live in reality.

So two people with middle class jobs are rich because you lived in a car. Got it. Care to tell me what a "reasonably priced home" is in any metroplex in the country? Mr. Obama and the rest of the socialists are thankful you got an "education".

You'll learn a hell of a lot when you leave WNY and enter the real world. I've lived all over this planet, including 2 of the highest cost of living areas in the country. Do you have kids? A mortgage? College debt? If you did, you'd understand that $100K ain't anywhere near "rich". It's middle class. If you were smart, you'd do a lot more listening and understanding and realize that guys like Obama prey on ignorance and the inability for people to see beyond their own neighborhoods.

Really? Do you have a link that implicitly states that? Because everything I've read on the subject calls it a one time tax cut. Both parties suck at the economy because both parties suck. The difference is, you don't understand even the fundamentals involved. Once again, an opinion based on ignorance. OOH, a continuing theme! Stick with that. *As long as I get to choose the weapons based on absolutely no subject knowledge. **Really? So spending as much on the military as the next 11 countries combined is a good idea?

Uhm, no.

It's called pandering, you twit. It's no different than what your masters are doing today. Apparently you're not much different than the slave owners - well, except that you should have more knowledge of history given the dawn of the information age. Try doing some critical analysis once in awhile.

You know, justs when I think you've reached the pinnacle of your idiocy...You kick it up a notch. Brilliant, brilliant stuff. It amazes me that a person can't draw a single valid conclusion. It's like you just decided to throw a whole buncha words on a page and then laud yourself for it.

He means this gem... Welcome back, dude.

I didn't say I was patient. I said I was more patient.

I "lump you in" with other anti-gun people because your opinions are based on ignorance. Banning ANY COMMODITY means there will be a black market, criminals will have them, and the cost of other similiar commodities will go through the roof for law abiding citizens. "Assault weapons" are involved for less than 2% of all gun crime. Handgun crime percentages are significantly higher. Canada banned handguns. Handguns are involved in over 60% of gun crimes there. Welcome to trends Yeah, let's try and remember the last time a legal assault weapon was used in a crime against police. Got an example? I'm pretty sure any gun I own would be a "cop killer gun", since guns don't discern who they fire at, only the people using them. That's because you don't know the history of gun laws in this country and they do. It's "Death By 1000 Cuts". BTW, from 1997-2006 521 police officers were killed by firearms (LEOKA). 73% of the firearms used were handguns. 20% were rifles. There was no further breakdown but you get the point. Even if every single "rifle" police murder was attributed to "assault weapons" (unlikely), they'd still be less than a third of handgun killings. You'll forgive me for laughing at you for using Brady as a measure of your opinion. They have as much credibility on guns as Charles Manson does on how to treat people. I love how they pick and choose very specific statistics for their arguments. Guess why they do that? It's similiar "lahjik" that has government officials up in arms over GTA because kids playing video games are certainly more likely to kill cops. All of that is nothing more than scare tactics. Remember the last time anyone fired off 30 rounds in five seconds? Think that wouldn't have been on the news? Just try squeezing your finger as fast as you can for 5 seconds. Yep, that's a big problem here in society. It's even more laughable when you realize there are at least 20 million "assault weapons" already in homes around the country. Yeah, they're a huge issue. People are running around all willy-nilly firing their "assault weapons" into crowds. And who said the average person buys them to hunt with? Why is that even on the table? The right to "Keep and Bear Arms" is not at all about hunting. It's about protecting yourself and the country. Guess what kind of weapons would be best suited for that purpose? Oooooooh. All the first "ban" did was triple the price. It certainly didn't hurt their sales. Manufacturers simply changed they way they looked slightly and charged more money for them. It also put them in the news, which was the best free advertising in the world. Guess what the weapon of choice was in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina?

So is my lawn. Care to guess how many of those 200 species live there during the time construction will be going on? The answer is easy. ANWR is the size of South Carolina. How many "species" do you figure live there? My bathtub drain might be more diverse than ANWR from October through April. And beautiful? Pass whatever the hell you're smoking. It looks like the moon 315 days a year. This is a photo from "SPRING". I would venture to guess that out of all the places in the world where resource development happens, ANWR likely loses the "Number of Species Possibly Harmed" battle by a wide margin. And how did all those species do when we started drilling 80 miles to the East? They fuggin' THRIVED. But let's keep using bankrupt, emotional arguments instead of facing reality.

Really? So what do you think of the bi-partisan "Tax Rebate" that just went out to pretty much everyone? Or is that OK because your masters were a part of it? Is there not a war still going on? Was Obama for or against the "rebate"? $112K is nothing in the real world. You live around any major city in America and have a family of 4 or 5, it's likely you live in a decent house, drive 2 decent cars, and can eat. But you're not saving a hell of a lot and you sure ain't paying for your 2 kids to go to college. That's reality. Democrats seem to define rich as a cop married to a teacher, which is about what $112K will give you if the 2 have been doing their jobs for any length of time. CNN balanced?

Given that most good hunting places in Alaska are about 30 miles from a road, if you ever plan on hunting here you better set aside a good bit of time. I've never hunted that way. My father used to - until a guy missed his head by a couple of feet doing the same thing. Of course, the other guy was hunting posted land. Dumbasses.

THERE IS VIRTUALLY NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN AK47 & A SEMIAUTOMATIC HUNTING RIFLE CHAMBERED FOR WINCHESTER .308. It's already been stated in this thread BY ME. Both are rifles. Both have the ability to fire one round per trigger squeeze. Both are magazine fed. Both fire the same size bullet (though one packs significantly less "oomph" - and it wouldn't be the one you'd "think"). Your "belief" is based on your ignorance and typical mass media stupidity, which is made funnier by the fact that you stand behind it like a badge of honor - all the while refusing to do 10 seconds of research because it'll likely blow your entire belief system out of the water. The biggest reason not to take an AK47 hunting is because it's notoriously inaccurate at distances beyond about 150 meters. The fervor that you and the rest of the uniformed base your opinion on is solely the way the damn gun looks. "Assault weapons" may be the only thing in U.S. history that were ever banned based on safety features. Very smart.

Just about anything. Deer, moose, caribou, turkey etc. I'm not a "flush something out" hunter. I'm a "go in the woods and do your homework, pick the spot the animals travel" hunter. Once I get to my spot, I chamber my round and wait for my moment.

How about because it's not my job? How about because with the internet available, it'd take 2 seconds for you to educate yourself? How about because I think you're a complete waste of time? Hmmm. I was in the military for 12 years. I've owned an AK-47 for probably 20. I've forgotten more about small arms than you'll ever learn. I didn't go "all out" in the NASA thread. I copied and pasted a post from a few years ago, when I was still patient enough to spend time educating the terminally stupid.

The round is equivalent to .308 Winchester. Everything else you said is correct.

If only one round can be "shot" per every trigger pull, how exactly is an "assault weapon" different from any other semi-automatic hunting rifle? How would it be possible to "fire off rounds a lot faster than any other legal gun"? Thanks for exposing yourself as another ignoramus who'll regurgitate whatever is pitched at you by the mass media.

Speaking of that, I wonder what Travis Henry get's for Father's day? That haul has to look like Christmas...

Except we're not going to run out of oil and that lahjik is what's gotten us to this point in the first place - there is no short term replacement for oil. And ANWR is anything but beautiful. It's a desolate wasteland.

Why don't you tell us everything you know about "assault" weapons. Try and stay off the tubes while formulating your answer. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say it's probably not much. I don't know what they were hunting but for the life of me I can't figure out why you'd be transporting a hot weapon. I've never done that while hunting (sidearms excluded).

I don't have a problem with it. sh--, it's more newsworthy than about 95% of the garbage that they usually give us. One of the 5 most recognizable newsmen of his time. A titan of the industry. They paid homage to one of their own. Nothing wrong with that, really. Maybe it sends a message to the rest of the clowns in the industry to live up to what Tim Russert stood for. But probably not.