Sport Bikes banner

21 - 40 of 73 Posts

·
RESIDENT ASSHOLE
Joined
·
8,497 Posts
sexyicecold said:
Why does an average citizen need an assualt weapon? I'm pretty sure any wild animal can be killed by your average rifle, or even a bow. Unless you plan on your front yard becoming a warzone in the near future, there's no reason for Joe Schmoe to own a Tec 9.
Why shouldnt I be afforded the right to own a weapon of such nature?

How many rounds my gun fires by me squeezing the tr***** has little effect on how much damage I can do.

As a matter of fact..........if you had a full auto assualt rifle, you are more apt to waste about 90% of your rounds. Its called suppression fire.

If the government can have them..........I should be allowed to have them, it is in the amendment after all "threats, foreign or domestic"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,682 Posts
Man, you never know where a discussion will go on SBN. I have another theory. Being a single issue voter simplifies one's decision, making you more comfortable with your choice.

However it'll be little comfort to have a gun if the government sees fit to eavesdrop on you, particularly without the balance of power oversight of courts. Your little assault weapon will do you little good if the actual government decides they don't like what you've said and comes for you.

Its just more complicated than being a one issue voter.
 

·
RESIDENT ASSHOLE
Joined
·
8,497 Posts
jim schmidt said:
Man, you never know where a discussion will go on SBN
true dat

jim schmidt said:
Its just more complicated than being a one issue voter.
Im not really a single issue kind of guy but those two issues hold the most water with me. The rest of it just adds up to my infuriation (is that a word?)

Oh and me having assault rifles make for at least a fun day when they decide they dont like me saying "plutonium bomb" on my cell phone for no apparent reason.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
491 Posts
I am pretty much a single issue voter. I feel comfortable carrying a concealed weapon- legally. I know what responsibility comes in tow with it and I know what it means to use it. I don't want to use it and I hope I never have to but it is there just the same. I also own an "assault rifle". Why? Because I like to go out to the boondocks and kill some pop cans, flour bags, milk jugs, paper targets, and the like. I use it responsibly, no one ever gets hurt and fun is to be had by all. If I swap the 30 round mag for a 5 rounder I can legally hunt with it, in fact I plan to. I was reading Fargin's article about the role of sportbikes in society and how there was a movement to get them banned. People want to do the same with guns all the time. What we need is a little more tolerance between citizens here. Here at SBN we all share a common hobby that is detested by some (the bikes). If anything I think that riders here should atleast understand that the firearm owners have a hobby they like and give them the latitude to enjoy it. Also, be glad that I want to do the right thing and obtain a concealed carry permit and carry legally. It would be far easier and cheaper just to stuff the Glock in a waistband holster without a permit and be done with it. I want to do the right thing. I kinow I am a representative of all gun owners and want to convey a positive image just as we all should for the sportbike world as sport riders. But being this single-issue voter is somewhat ironic as I have many tendencies to the Democrat side. To me pro-gun and pro-choice seem that they should be part of the same party as they both have a "stay out of my business and I will stay out of yours" overtone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,600 Posts
jim schmidt said:
Clinton was pro-business and pro-worker. You shouldn't underestimate the value of that policy balance. And you shouldn't underestimate the economic value of taking the US Government out of the competition for loan funds either. Lastly, he didn't fuck up anything in the business sector, in itself a valuable contribution.

Last I checked, just as many PCs are being sold today as during the Clinton years. Lots of people make shit up to avoid giving the more talented President his props. I don't really know if you made it up or got fooled by it. But it doesn't hold water.

Market saturation burst the dot.com bubble the 90's rode the wave of the PC revolution, as with any technology or advance, when the wave goes by, the money decreases...like automobiles....there are more autos being sold now than in the 1960's, but the auto industry doesn't support the economy today as it did in the '60s, actually the reverse, the auto industry is about to become a drag on the economy as the automakers shed their pension and retirement obligations onto the Taxpayer.

And if you consider Ron Brown selling the Patent Office disks to the Chinese so they could illegally copy and produce American technologies for mass sale not hurting anything/anyone in the business sector, you weren't paying attention in the 90's.

The great wealth the Government amassed in budget surpluses came from places like the capital gains taxes people paid on investments as the PC revolution greated huge increases in the world market indexes.

Do you remember the how the Dow nearly doubled in the 90's? All that wealth created when the Dow passed 10K...Look closely...the Dow is around and over 10K again...Where is the wealth?

I lost nearly 300K on paper when the Dow tanked in 98-99...The Dow in now back to the high numbers, but my portfolio isn't back to where it was...I think maybe you are looking back to the Clinton Era through the rose colored glasses...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
854 Posts
bumblebee said:
Market saturation burst the dot.com bubble the 90's rode the wave of the PC revolution, as with any technology or advance, when the wave goes by, the money decreases...like automobiles....there are more autos being sold now than in the 1960's, but the auto industry doesn't support the economy today as it did in the '60s, actually the reverse, the auto industry is about to become a drag on the economy as the automakers shed their pension and retirement obligations onto the Taxpayer.

And if you consider Ron Brown selling the Patent Office disks to the Chinese so they could illegally copy and produce American technologies for mass sale not hurting anything/anyone in the business sector, you weren't paying attention in the 90's.

The great wealth the Government amassed in budget surpluses came from places like the capital gains taxes people paid on investments as the PC revolution greated huge increases in the world market indexes.

Do you remember the how the Dow nearly doubled in the 90's? All that wealth created when the Dow passed 10K...Look closely...the Dow is around and over 10K again...Where is the wealth?

I lost nearly 300K on paper when the Dow tanked in 98-99...The Dow in now back to the high numbers, but my portfolio isn't back to where it was...I think maybe you are looking back to the Clinton Era through the rose colored glasses...
that is well put, I would add that economy was already turning around BEFORE clinton ever got in office, clinton had nothing to do with the economy, he mearly rode the wave... also, by the time clinton left office, our economy was headed in a recesion.... bottom line, clinton INHERITED a good economy due to Bush Sr. and by the time he left office it was in RECESSION... now Bush Junior is fixing that recesion...
 

·
RESIDENT ASSHOLE
Joined
·
8,497 Posts
DCMETRO1 said:
that is well put, I would add that economy was already turning around BEFORE clinton ever got in office, clinton had nothing to do with the economy, he mearly rode the wave... also, by the time clinton left office, our economy was headed in a recesion.... bottom line, clinton INHERITED a good economy due to Bush Sr. and by the time he left office it was in RECESSION... now Bush Junior is fixing that recesion...
Well, we all know that the war machine creates ecomomic growth.........unfortunately the majority of it is for a select few cronies.......ahem (Cheney and haliburton blah blah blah) the rest of us suck hind tit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,682 Posts
I suppose I can understand the desire (among righties) to try to explain away the Clinton era prosperity and the Bush malaise. At least no one is denying that those were prosperous years. We were all better off in every way. It may be coincidental that when government pursued a policy of balance between business needs and worker needs, both prospered. It may also be coincidental that when that policy ended, everyone lost ground except a segment of the business community. But I don't think so.

Did any of you every expect (when you voted for Bush) that the market would be exactly where it was -- six years later -- as when Clinton left office? Even I didn't expect Bush to do that badly. :rolleyes
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,600 Posts
perhaps you should also look and see when the greatest outsourcing of jobs and industry occurred over the last 50 years...which boosted those record profits for short term gain. Don't forget, it was a collaborative effort between the parties that brought us NAFTA, CAFTA, the WTO and others

Clinton...Bush Sr or Jr...it doesn't matter who wants the credit for creating the 20 million jobs...of course they were the minimum wage jobs to replace the Union Jobs that moved offshore...I would be proud of myself too...Push the Dow up over 11 and gut the middle class...that is quite a feat that both parties have perfected
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
905 Posts
jim schmidt said:
I suppose I can understand the desire (among righties) to try to explain away the Clinton era prosperity and the Bush malaise. At least no one is denying that those were prosperous years. We were all better off in every way. It may be coincidental that when government pursued a policy of balance between business needs and worker needs, both prospered. It may also be coincidental that when that policy ended, everyone lost ground except a segment of the business community. But I don't think so.

Did any of you every expect (when you voted for Bush) that the market would be exactly where it was -- six years later -- as when Clinton left office? Even I didn't expect Bush to do that badly. :rolleyes
im typically pretty right-wing, but i loved clinton. still do. that dude rocked. i did very well under his term, and those were my formative years as far as my profession goes. but, im not ready to give him head like ms lewinsky and some of you are doing in here. lets get real, all he did was not screw it up. he was the beneficiary of the economic plans laid out by reagan and bush sr. clinton just kept the ball rolling. big props to him for not fucking it all up, but he didnt do anything great. whoever our next president is will probably have to clean up w's mess.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,682 Posts
What economic plans? He was left to clean up the Reagan deficits, which were created in the last massive transfer of wealth to the rich. Bush Sr. had a plan? About anything? What was it?

And even if you only give him credit for not fucking it up (fair enough, though I disagree) given our current president, I'd think you'd be able to see the importance of that accomplishment.

The country changed direction with a progressive democrat in office and things were better. It changed back and things got worse.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
905 Posts
jim schmidt said:
What economic plans? He was left to clean up the Reagan deficits, which were created in the last massive transfer of wealth to the rich. Bush Sr. had a plan? About anything? What was it?

And even if you only give him credit for not fucking it up (fair enough, though I disagree) given our current president, I'd think you'd be able to see the importance of that accomplishment.
i agree. thats why i gave him props. not fucking up is a good thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
905 Posts
jim schmidt said:
A rare moment of intellectual intersection. We should savor it. :cheers
lol. im really much more moderate than i come across. i would vote for clinton again and again. its just the constant bellyaching of the ultra-left that aggarvates me. stuff like that pushes people like me to the right.
 

·
Autobots! Roll Out!
Joined
·
2,061 Posts
sexyicecold said:
Why does an average citizen need an assualt weapon? I'm pretty sure any wild animal can be killed by your average rifle, or even a bow. Unless you plan on your front yard becoming a warzone in the near future, there's no reason for Joe Schmoe to own a Tec 9.

Hybrid said it best, why not? I have never committed a felony or misdemeanor crime ever, why should the government tell me what I can and cannot shoot. I strictly target shoot, and have fun doing it. I like the fact I can shoot guns with larger mags now. Concealed carry rights save lives, hands down. As soon as I put down my Xbox 360 controller :)onfloor), I'll look up the numbers. Vote against it all the way, but you'll never come up with laws that do half as well at regulating violent crime as concealed carry holders. Who wants to mug someone that can fight back? Attack the sheep, or the sheep with a gun? If criminals don't know whose carrying, they're a LOT less likely to attack someone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,927 Posts
The prison buildup and the ramping up of the Drug War all occured during the Reagan years..
I am a moderate liberal with a penchant for weapons. I enjoy my assault rifles because nothing compares to a day of blasting targets at the range until you are coated with gunpowder residue.
Also believe in the CCW.
I also believe the richest nation in the World could treat it's citizens with a little more compassion and ease up on the police state we are becoming.
I think I would rather take on a platoon of Al Queda types versus watching the constant erosion of Americans civil rights and the rampant corruption that is quite apparant with the Jack Abramoff scandal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
168 Posts
A government that can misinterpret the 2nd amendment could more easily put limits on how much power one's motorcycle can have. Think about that, there is no constitutional protection to motor vehicles.

That being said, what did the Clinton AWB do besides raise price and demand for the "banned" firearms? It was nothing but legislation based on unfounded fears.

On the economics of Clinton, exactly what legislation made the supposed "boom". I can point out the legislation drafted by the Democratic Congress of 1986 that killed the Savings and Loans which pushed the late 1980's economic decline. Sure, Ronald Reagen signed it but the drafters are the key actors responsible.

As far as economics, it was under the Clinton watch that the major oil corporations were allowed to merge, leading to an inflexible industry that couldn't respond fast enough to avert short supply that led to the current energy shortage. Back in 1998, crude was retailing for less than $12 a barrel, compared to the $68 per barrel current price.

Clinton's power was significantly limited under the post 1994 elections when Gingrich et al rose to power in response to the 1994 AWB. It was this limit of power that made Clinton a centrist.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
162 Posts
DCMETRO1 said:
that is well put, I would add that economy was already turning around BEFORE clinton ever got in office, clinton had nothing to do with the economy, he mearly rode the wave... also, by the time clinton left office, our economy was headed in a recesion.... bottom line, clinton INHERITED a good economy due to Bush Sr. and by the time he left office it was in RECESSION... now Bush Junior is fixing that recesion...

+1
 

·
Gonna go far on my GSX-R!
Joined
·
2,238 Posts
bumblebee said:
perhaps you should also look and see when the greatest outsourcing of jobs and industry occurred over the last 50 years...which boosted those record profits for short term gain. Don't forget, it was a collaborative effort between the parties that brought us NAFTA, CAFTA, the WTO and others
Let them outsource all they want, it's good for me. I'm majoring in International Studies and Chinese; bring it on.
 
21 - 40 of 73 Posts
Top