What's in your arsenal??

[boomer]

How many innocent men women and CHILDREN need to die before all of the law abiding gun owners agree that reasonable gun laws like universal background checks should be enacted? I have nothing to fear from a thorough background investigation. Do you? And I don't need an AR 15 for anything.

I said the same forever. I want the safe and in some cases restrictive gun laws our state recently enacted, except one on high capacity mags. Luckily we can still own them, you just can't purchase them in our state. Had countless top FBI background checks on over 18 jobs for the Navy and Air Force. I can still legally apply concealed carry, but haven't or probably won't. I just don't get out much anymore, other then going sailing or going to Port Townsend - which is my other happy place, when I'm not on the water.

As for fear, from my experience most don't express fear, like they show in the movies. Unless they're a weak and fearful person, or something has caused them to be fearful - because whatever could cause one to express fear, usually happens in so quickly or is so dangerous or intense, one has to act quick. In those incidents where one might get hurt or worse, because one has to act, in most cases immediately, unless one has to hit the brakes to pause for a brief moment, to let the threat pass or position oneself favorably.- One doesn't have time to be afraid - maybe a after the fact, "Holy Schitt, I'm lucky" - and in some cases to be alive.

What one does fear is losing loved ones and friends, the close ones that you used to hang together with sailing, skiing, climbing or whatever. No parent wants to lose a child or spouse, but it's tough losing an old bud - in either case you keep moving on for others. Those are the ones you arm up for - spouse, family, buds- with equal or not better firepower - that way, one is doing there upmost to achieve success. Hopefully that never happens.

I certainly don't live for shooting. My wife is the shooter around here, and certainly doesn't live for shooting either - only remaining competent when handling a weapon, she'll be 71 this fall and doesn't want to lose that skill, yet. She shoots when she has to, such as scaring coyotes off, or scaring a beaver off that's trying to drown a goose. She doesn't kill coyotes either, because killing a coyote only causes them to breed more. We don't kill the deer, because we don't eat much venison anymore. My wife used to drop a deer, or my son would drop a deer, and I'd butcher them, but we haven't dropped a deer in our pasture for over 15 years. Now we let them use our pastures, to protect their young from coyotes or birth their young in the tall grass in the spring. I don't like shooting anything other then a target, or would want to shoot anyone. But certainly don't shoot anymore, like I did 20 years ago. Once one puts 1000s of rounds through guns, one doesn't have a desire to shoot. However one should be familiar, or take time to familiarize one with their weapon/s.

Does Killing Coyotes Increase Their Population

 

[boomer]

When I was in, some came out of boot camp as E-2s so that cuts a year.

Yes they always came out as an E-2, but they usually had to wait at least one yearly E7 review by other E7s to make Chief, unless promoted under special consideration, due to exceptional circumstances.

 

[boomer]

I guess I must have come out of basic as a E-2 , never occurred to me before this moment. I know that I came out of AIT as E-3 , I really wanted that bump in pay and my AIT , 91A in those days the Army in its typical wisdom has changed the MOS numbers to different skills??? , I had to score in the top 10% in my AIT class to get the bump .
Lol .. when I look at my Social Security earnings history I made $3,100 for my last year in the Army and that included 4 months of E-5, jump and combat pay, I saved every penny of my military pay and sadly never bought any of the photos that they sell in the various training programs.

Yes, you guys in the late 60's didn't get as a high a pay scale as they did in the early 70s. In 1972 as I recall $89 a month as a E1, E2 pay went up to $139 a month. E3 they finally started paying a bit more at $333 a month for under two years of service, not including extra pay. E4 was $392 a month for under two years of service, not including extra pay. Once over three years of service $438 in 1974, that went up to $462 a month in 1975. E5 was $491, which went up to $516 a month. Then the military extended me for three months, while waiting for a replacement to be trained and my pay went up to $538 a month - that's what I made per day or more when I retired 12 years ago.

 

[Go Left]

This is one sick fucking person.

Tucker Carlson today: "Maybe now isn't the best time to turn in your AR-15s".

That is one other sick fuck.

 

[boomer]

Tucker Carlson is a propagandist. What he does is unadulterated propaganda along with some conspiracy. I noticed the other day, he was pumping the brakes on transgender people shouldn't have guns. In the next breath, Carlson planted in his audience’s minds a scenario in which transgender people are armed not only with guns, but with F-35 fighter planes and tanks. You have to kind of wonder, like, what’s the limit to this?

Watch what you wish for Tucker - apparently you're not deep enough thinker to understand - the next thing after taking guns away from transgender people, is taking guns away from everyone including the conservatives. The gun owners, both conservative and liberal, would really love that. Talk about backfiring in your face Tucker - you'll look even worse then your daily look, like you've got a big dick up your butt.

His “Schtick” is going to get more people killed. It’s genocidal propaganda. The overlap between Tucker Carlson and Russian State media is mind boggling.

Every word was carefully chosen using the same method the Nazis used or Russia uses. The end goal is the eradication of trans people. When viewed from that lens his choice of words start to go from "dumb" to something completely sinister. These are the words you can legally use now until it becomes legal to genocide the people you hate. Then the coded language is no longer necessary.

Right now he's trying to bring along the people that aren't as extreme yet. Conditioning them to slowly move to the more extreme positions without coming right out of the gate with the extreme positions. If you do that you might scare them off. It took many years to bring along enough people for the Nazis to start committing mass violence. They started off using the same language Tuckems is using here.

His dismissing legitimate concerns about commonsense safe gun laws, with mockery and lying about their intentions and turning it around and saying the people with those concerns are the bad ones. It's despicable.

I'm sick of people dismissing Tucker, MTG, Boebert and friends as just "dumb". They're assholes. They know exactly what they do and feel nothing about it. Dismissing them as just idiots severely downplays the damage they're doing. I would say MTG and Boebert actually aren't the sharpest tools in the box. That doesn't mean they're innocent, they're just wicked people and not very deep thinkers.

Boebert is obviously lazy and willfully ignorant, how else do you fail a GED multiple times. MTG is evil. Motivated only by hate, spite, and greed. Tucker isn't a dummy, he knows what he's doing - he's driving up his ratings with his schtick.

I don't think Tucker is a mastermind. He is just a narcissistic and manipulative sociopath. He sees how to exploit and redirect for maximum effect. The people who buy into his schtick, are easily manipulated and influenced, and Tucker aligns his bullshit with their prejudices. Similar to what Trump did.

 

[sledracr]

please take it to PA.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Well, since this is the place for political public service announcements about Donald Trump, here's another:

only a temper tantrum stopped him from joining Feinstein to ban battlefield .22's.

You can take the grabber out of New Yawk, but can't get rid of that gungrabby instinct.

 

[sledracr]

This isn't political - it's a public service announcement.

Ah, so a left-wing nutjob railing about right-wing nutjobs... in a thread was doing just fine staying on topic for years... is a non-political public service announcement.

Got it.

 

[boomer]

Ah, so a left-wing nutjob railing about right-wing nutjobs... in a thread was doing just fine staying on topic for years... is a non-political public service announcement.

Left wing - hardly. Raised a conservative.

Now a independent, a conservative combining conservative policies with liberal stances, such as issues on social, ethical matters, social/economic as well as economic policies.

Trump is a con man - always been a conman - he has no party loyalty, if you think he does, you fell for the spiel.

 

[Point Break]

Left wing - hardly. Raised a conservative.

Now a independent, a conservative combining conservative policies with liberal stances, such as issues on social, ethical matters, social/economic as well as economic policies.

Trump is a con man - always been a conman - he has no party loyalty, if you think he does, you fell for the spiel.

Yes, but think about the appalling state of our national politics.

Out of 330 million people the machine offers us two choices……a doddering old fool protecting his dirtbag kid who spent his entire life in politics changing his tune to match the prevailing mood or a narcissistic con man being indicted for using campaign funds to pay off a porn star he was banging.

Hillary was the ONLY democrat who could have lost to Trump. Nobody voted for him….they voted against her. Trump was the only Republican - and an incumbent POTUS at that - who could have lost to that stumbling old fool. Nobody voted for Biden, they voted against Trump.

I just shake my head that those have been our choices. Our best and brightest my ass………

I’ll apologize before I hit the “post reply” because I know it’s sorta a political post….close enough anyway. I’ll stay in my chair for the rest of the time but I couldn’t help myself.

 

[Grande Mastere Dreade]

Amazingly obtuse.

Today, 150 million+ gun owners did not violate any laws. They exercised their God-given Rights legally and responsibly, to the detriment of no one, except criminals and tyrants. Then some freak, enabled and coddled by leftist society, breaks a whole slew of moral precepts and laws, and you reflexively want to punish the innocent.

Any more of this reduces this happy place to the sewer of Political Anarchy and I'll not go any further, except to echo @silent bob with a hearty Fuck Off!

no we just want to make it real hard for the mentally unfit to obtain a firearm.. purple on/ I'm sure there's a ton of background checks that can be done in three days / purple off and that's only for handguns.. purple on/ and i'm sure there's tons of uses for those 15+ round clips for rifles / purple off

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

no we just want to make it real hard for the mentally unfit to obtain a firearm.. purple on/ I'm sure there's a ton of background checks that can be done in three days / purple off and that's only for handguns.. purple on/ and i'm sure there's tons of uses for those 15+ round clips for rifles / purple off

There's really only one purpose for the +1 extensions that turn my battlefield .22 pistol's regular 10 round magazines into 11 round ones suitable for militia use.

It's to make a mockery of such idiotic rules.

 

[boomer]

Yes, but think about the appalling state of our national politics.

Out of 330 million people the machine offers us two choices……a doddering old fool protecting his dirtbag kid who spent his entire life in politics changing his tune to match the prevailing mood or a narcissistic con man being indicted for using campaign funds to pay off a porn star he was banging.

Hillary was the ONLY democrat who could have lost to Trump. Nobody voted for him….they voted against her. Trump was the only Republican - and an incumbent POTUS at that - who could have lost to that stumbling old fool. Nobody voted for Biden, they voted against Trump.

I just shake my head that those have been our choices. Our best and brightest my ass………

I’ll apologize before I hit the “post reply” because I know it’s sorta a political post….close enough anyway. I’ll stay in my chair for the rest of the time but I couldn’t help myself.

PB - I spent way to much time the first year after retiring here - so I took a break - then most of the last 10-11 years racing and crusing on my boats and racing on other peoples boats, as well as racing with Tacoma YC Cal 20 Fleet 8. Only gathering help here for Hobot, and Innocent Bystander brought me back to SA. All my previous history here on SA - non of it was political that I recall. One other thing I've done is my other passion since I was four - that's read a whole lot, but I've always read a whole lot. Plenty of time for reading, commuting on the ferry to work and home again at night before I retired. I like naval engineering, yacht design, and occasional biography, and keeping up what's happening in the world via the New York Time, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, the LA Times, the Seattle Times and even the Wall Street Journal - till the editorial board of the WSJ was replaced by Murdock's editor Gerard Baker as deputy editor in chief, Baker serving under Robert Thompson, who also replaced WSJ reporters and bureau chiefs who they felt were too liberal, who was replaced by Matt Murray who was recently replaced by Emma Tucker.

Many of our generation voted for Nixon, primarily to end the war in Vietnam. Historians have noted there’s a growing realization that the starting point for many of the catastrophes confronting the United States today can be traced to Reagan’s presidency. There’s also a grudging reassessment that the “failed” presidents of the 1970s – Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter – may deserve more credit for trying to grapple with the problems that now beset the country.

Nixon, Ford and Carter won scant praise for addressing the systemic challenges of America’s oil dependence, environmental degradation, the arms race, and nuclear proliferation – all issues that Reagan essentially ignored and that now threaten America’s future.

Nixon helped create the Environmental Protection Agency; he imposed energy-conservation measures; he opened the diplomatic door to communist China. Nixon’s administration also detected the growing weakness in the Soviet Union and advocated a policy of détente (a plan for bringing the Cold War to an end or at least curbing its most dangerous excesses).

After Nixon’s resignation in the Watergate scandal, Ford continued many of Nixon’s policies, particularly trying to wind down the Cold War with Moscow. However, confronting a rebellion from Reagan’s Republican Right in 1976, Ford abandoned “détente.”

Ford also let hard-line Cold Warriors (and a first wave of young intellectuals who became known as neoconservatives) pressure the CIA’s analytical division, and he brought in a new generation of hard-liners, including Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

After defeating Ford in 1976, Carter injected more respect for human rights into U.S. foreign policy, a move some scholars believe put an important nail in the coffin of the Soviet Union, leaving it hard-pressed to justify the repressive internal practices of the East Bloc. Carter also emphasized the need to contain the spread of nuclear weapons, especially in unstable countries like Pakistan.

Domestically, Carter pushed a comprehensive energy policy and warned Americans that their growing dependence on foreign oil represented a national security threat, what he famously called “the moral equivalent of war.”

However, powerful vested interests – both domestic and foreign – managed to exploit the shortcomings of these three presidents to sabotage any sustained progress.

The Republican Party has been running a long con on America since Reagan’s inauguration. In fact, Republican strategist Jude Wanniski’s 1974 “Two Santa Clauses Theory” has been the main reason why the GOP has succeeded under Reagan, and in producing our last two Republican presidents, Bush and Trump (despite losing the popular vote both times). It’s also why Reagan’s economy seemed to be “good.”

How it works is: First, when Republicans control the federal government, and particularly the White House, spend money like a drunken sailor and run up the US debt as far and as fast as possible, cut taxes. This produces three results – it stimulates the economy thus making people think that the GOP can produce a good economy, it raises the debt dramatically, and it makes people think that Republicans are the “tax-cut Santa Claus.”

Second, when a Democrat is in the White House, scream about the national debt as loudly and frantically as possible, freaking out about how “our children will have to pay for it!” and “we have to cut spending to solve the crisis!” This will force the Democrats in power to cut their own social safety net programs, thus shooting their welfare-of-the-American-people Santa Claus.



Think back to Ronald Reagan, who more than tripled the US debt from a mere $800 billion to $2.6 trillion in his 8 years. That spending produced a massive stimulus to the economy, and the biggest non-wartime increase in the debt in history. Nary a peep from Republicans about that 218% increase in our debt; nor the huge tax cuts for the rich, and a small tax cut for everyone else, followed by six tax increases for the middle class to pay for it, and raiding $3 trillion from Social Security - they were all just fine with it. (Trump fucked over the middle class the same way, a niggly little cut followed by increases after he was out of office). Also of note: Bush ‘borrowed’ $1.37 trillion of Social Security surplus revenue to pay for his tax cuts for the rich and his war in Iraq and never paid it back”.

When the Republicans stopped being fiscally conservative in the first couple years of Reagan's first term, is when things started going downhill, and I said WTF to the GOP. The huge buildup up the US Navy which kept me employed laying out FFGs at Todd Shipyard, then laying out the Whidbey Island Class LSDs at Lockheed, though it kept me employed, it had me scratching my head.

While conceding that some of Reagan’s economic plans, notably his trickle down economics did not work out as intended, his defenders – including many mainstream journalists – still argue that Reagan should be hailed as a great President because he “won the Cold War,” a short-hand phrase that they like to attach to his historical biography.

However, a strong case can be made that the Cold War was won well before Reagan arrived in the White House. Remember under Nixon, it was a common perception in the U.S. intelligence community that the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union was winding down, in large part because the Soviet economic model had failed in the technological race with the West.

That was also the view of many Kremlinologists in the CIA’s analytical division. As I recall senior CIA’s operations officials said, that some of the CIA’s best spies inside the Soviet hierarchy supported the view that the Soviet Union was headed toward collapse, not surging toward world supremacy, as Reagan and his foreign policy team insisted in the early 1980s.

The CIA analysis was the basis for the detente that was launched by Nixon and Ford, essentially seeking a negotiated solution to the most dangerous remaining aspects of the Cold War.
In that view, Soviet military operations, including sending troops into Afghanistan in 1979, were mostly defensive in nature. In Afghanistan, the Soviets hoped to prop up a pro-communist government that was seeking to modernize the country but was beset by opposition from Islamic fundamentalists who were getting covert support from the U.S. government.

Though the Afghan covert operation originated with Cold Warriors in the Carter administration, especially national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, the war was dramatically ramped up under Reagan, who traded U.S. acquiescence toward Pakistan’s nuclear bomb for its help in shipping sophisticated weapons to the Afghan jihadists (including a young Saudi named Osama bin Laden).

While Reagan’s acolytes cite the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan as decisive in “winning the Cold War,” the counter-argument is that Moscow was already in disarray – and while failure in Afghanistan may have sped the Soviet Union’s final collapse – it also created twin dangers for the future of the world: the rise of al-Qaeda terrorism and the nuclear bomb in the hands of Pakistan’s unstable Islamic Republic.

Trade-offs elsewhere in the world also damaged long-term U.S. interests. In Latin America, for instance, Reagan’s brutal strategy of arming right-wing militarys to crush peasant, student and labor uprisings left the region with a legacy of anti-Americanism that is now resurfacing in the emergence of populist leftist governments.

In Nicaragua, for instance, Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega (whom Reagan once denounced as a “dictator in designer glasses”) ended up back in power. In El Salvador, the leftist FMLN won the latest elections. Indeed, across the region, hostility to Washington is now the rule, creating openings for China, Iran, Cuba and other American rivals.

The American Dream also dimmed during Reagan’s tenure. While he played the role of the nation’s kindly grandfather, his operatives divided the American people, using “wedge issues” to deepen grievances especially of white men who were encouraged to see themselves as victims of “reverse discrimination” and “political correctness.”

Yet even as working-class white men were rallying to the Republican banner (as so-called “Reagan Democrats”), their economic interests were being savaged. Unions were broken and marginalized; “free trade” policies shipped manufacturing jobs abroad; old neighborhoods were decaying; drug use among the young was soaring.

Meanwhile, unprecedented greed was unleashed on Wall Street, fraying old-fashioned bonds between company owners and employees. Before Reagan, corporate CEOs earned less than 50 times the salary of an average worker. By the end of the Reagan-Bush-I administrations in 1993, the average CEO salary was more than 100 times that of a typical worker. (At the end of the Bush-II administration, that CEO-salary figure was more than 250 times that of an average worker.)

And then along came Bill Clinton. The screams and squeals from the GOP about the “unsustainable debt” of nearly $3 trillion were loud, constant, and echoed incessantly by media from CBS to NPR. Newt Gingrich rode the wave of “unsustainable debt” hysteria into power, as the GOP took control of the House for the first time lasting more than a term since 1930. The increase in our national debt under Clinton was only about 37%, as Clinton slashed social programs and welfare by more then half.

The GOP “debt freakout” was so widely and effectively amplified by the media that Clinton himself bought into it and began to cut spending, taking the axe to numerous welfare programs (“It’s the end of welfare as we know it” he famously said, and “The era of big government is over”). Clinton also did something no Republican has done in our lifetimes: he supported several balanced budgets and handed a budget surplus to George W. Bush.


When George W. Bush was given the White House by the Supreme Court (Gore won the popular vote by over a half-million votes) he reverted to Reagan’s strategy and again nearly doubled the national debt, adding a trillion in borrowed money to pay for his tax cut for GOP-funding billionaires, and tossing in two unfunded wars for good measure, which also added at least (long term) another $5 to $7 trillion.

There was not a peep about the debt from any high-profile in-the-know Republicans then; in fact, Dick Cheney famously said, essentially ratifying Wanniski’s strategy, “Reagan proved deficits don't matter. We won the midterms [because of those tax cuts]. This is our due.” Bush and Cheney raised the debt by 86% to over $10 trillion (although the war debt wasn’t put on the books until Obama entered office). BTW - Cheney knew the Iraq War would turn into a quagmire, and said so, after Desert Storm.



Arguably, the descent into this dark fantasyland – that Ronald Reagan began in the early 1980s – reached its nadir in the flag-waving early days of the Iraq War. Only gradually did reality begin to reassert itself as the death toll mounted in Iraq and the Katrina disaster reminded Americans why they needed an effective government.

Many other trends set during the Reagan era continued to corrode the U.S. political process in the years after Reagan left office. After 9/11, for instance, the neocons reemerged as a dominant force, reprising their “perception management” tactics, depicting the “war on terror” – like the last days of the Cold War – as a terrifying conflict between good and evil.

The hyping of the Islamic threat mirrored the neocons’ exaggerated depiction of the Soviet menace in the 1980s – and again the propaganda strategy worked. Many Americans let their emotions run wild, from the hunger for revenge after 9/11 to the war fever over invading Iraq.

Still, the disasters – set in motion by Ronald Reagan – continued to roll in. George W Bush Reagan-esque tax cuts for the rich blew another huge hole in the federal budget and the Reagan-esque anti-regulatory fervor led to a massive financial meltdown that threw the nation into economic chaos.

Then comes Democratic President Barack Obama, and suddenly the GOP is hysterical about the debt again. So much so that they convinced a sitting Democratic president to propose a cut to Social Security (the “chained CPI”). Obama nearly shot the Democrats biggest Santa Claus program. And, Republican squeals notwithstanding, Obama only raised the debt by 34%.

Then when we’re back to a Republican president, and once again deficits be damned. Between their tax cut and the nearly-trillion dollar spending increase passed in the first year-and-a-month of Trump’s administration they’ve spent more stimulating the economy (and driving up debt by more than $2 trillion, when you include interest) than the entire Obama presidency.

Consider the story of where this strategy came from, and how the GOP has successfully kept their strategy from getting into the news; even generally well-informed writers for media like the Times and the Post – and producers, pundits and reporters for TV news – don’t know the history of what’s been happening right in front of us all for 40+ years.

Republican strategist Jude Wanniski first proposed his Two Santa Clauses strategy in 1974, when Richard Nixon resigned in disgrace and the future of the Republican Party was so dim that books and articles were widely suggesting the GOP was about to go the way of the Whigs. There was genuine despair across the Party, particularly when Jerry Ford began stumbling as he climbed the steps to Air Force One and couldn’t even beat an unknown peanut farmer from rural Georgia for the presidency.

Wanniski was tired of the GOP failing to win elections. Americans loved the Democrats back then. And every time Republicans railed against these programs, they lost elections. Wanniski decided that the GOP had to become a Santa Claus party, too. But because the Republicans hated the idea of helping working people, they had to figure out a way to convince people that they, too, could have the Santa spirit. But what? “Tax cuts!” said Wanniski.



Yes, Trump was so bad, that the election was won on "Anyone but Trump". Then the nation saw, that Trump didn't know how to debate. There was supposed to be three debates, but Trump made such a fool of himself, against a doddering old fool, it was almost laughable. After two debates, his handlers said, "No Mas". So that doddering old fool, Mr. Republican Light Biden won the election.

However Biden rolled up his sleeves and went to work from day one. With the most significant economic impact of any first-year president. Biden’s first year was the greatest year of job creation in American history, with more than 6 million jobs created. Lower unemployment rate then either Trump or Obama. - The average number of Americans filing for unemployment has been near its lowest level since 1969. Getting both sides of the isle to agree on an infrastructure bill. If Bush would have pushed an infrastructure plan, our infrastructure wouldn't be in such piss poor state. Just half the cost of the last two unneeded wars would have paid for it. The largest investments ever in the power grid, electric vehicle chargers, and climate resilience. And that's the short list, the list of accomplishments goes on and on and on. Apparently the doddering old fool turned into the energizer bunny.

I'm quite certain that even if Hunter Biden is charged with anything - The filing of charges, if warranted, would show even the closed-minded - that the system isn’t fixed, that justice awaits all law-breakers, whether their daddy occupies the White House. Speaking of which - Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump reported between $172 million and $640 million in outside income while working in the White House. Look up how much Don Jr and Eric Trump profited out of the White House - however in the end, whatever any of either President's kids profited has bearing on what?



As for Hillary, she had the election in the bag. It was far more then the Comey Effect that cost her the election. You do know since 1988 it's mathematically impossible for the GOP to win the Presidential Election without voter suppression, and that's what the GOP used to steal the election from Hillary - voter suppression. The Comey letter to Congress did damage too. The Comey Effect

What insured Hillary's loss however was Crosscheck. Fortunately the ACLU had an airtight case they presented to the Supreme Court in December of 2019, so air tight - that a Conservative Supreme Court had no choice, but to rule against the validity of Crosscheck.

Starting in 2013 – just as the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act – a coterie of GOP operatives, under the direction of Kris Kobach, Kansas Secretary of State, created a system to purge millions of Americans of color from the voter rolls of GOP-controlled states. The system, called Crosscheck, was detailed in the Rolling Stone article, The GOP's Stealth War on Voters. Basically how it works is, removing Blacks, Hispanics and Asians names from voter rolls, if the same name is used in other states, even if the middle name or middle initial doesn't match.

Let's look at Crosscheck in action
Trump victory margin in Michigan: 13,107
Michigan Crosscheck purge list: 449,922
Trump victory margin in Arizona: 85,257
Arizona Crosscheck purge list: 270,824
Trump victory margin in North Carolina: 177,008
North Carolina Crosscheck purge list: 589,393



Addendum - New York City, John Jay School of Criminal Justice - Forum on Reform and Revolution - Why Thomas Paine's "Common Sense,The Rights of Man " is important.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Yes, but think about the appalling state of our national politics.

Out of 330 million people the machine offers us two choices……a doddering old fool protecting his dirtbag kid who spent his entire life in politics changing his tune to match the prevailing mood or a narcissistic con man being indicted for using campaign funds to pay off a porn star he was banging.

Hillary was the ONLY democrat who could have lost to Trump. Nobody voted for him….they voted against her. Trump was the only Republican - and an incumbent POTUS at that - who could have lost to that stumbling old fool. Nobody voted for Biden, they voted against Trump.

I just shake my head that those have been our choices. Our best and brightest my ass………

I’ll apologize before I hit the “post reply” because I know it’s sorta a political post….close enough anyway. I’ll stay in my chair for the rest of the time but I couldn’t help myself.

I used to join the pretense that GA was different from PA. Then the mods here made it clear to me directly that this is OK behavior on this forum.

Bend over and stick it up your ass. Gun nuts should stick it up whatever orifices on their body. F U.

I reported that post, something I rarely do, and said they could react or I would. The response was that this is OK. So, I'm reacting. GA = PA.

Might as well come visit, you're here anyway.

 

[Charlie Foxtrot]

I've lately been introducing a lot of posters to Igor.

PA behavior is NOT acceptable in GA.

 

[Charlie Foxtrot]

I recently purchased the CZ 75 P01. The trigger does take some getting accustom to but is very accurate. It cost only a little more than the "Plastic" 9mms and is a very nice shooter.
View attachment 572783

Did the deed. Now, I'm going to give her a good bath, lube her up reeeeal gud, and take 'er to derange.

So far, I'm impressed.

 

[sledracr]

I finally got my franken-PCC to the range yesterday for a little work-up (zero'ing, etc)

The new JP ULW (ultra-light) barrel is the tits. It's basically a 6" barrel with a shroud that brings it to the magical 16" minimum weight. I'm gonna guess it's close to a pound lighter than a standard 16" barrel.

On the other end I'm experimenting with one of the Scheel roller-delayed buffer system. Pretty cool drop-in mod, very consistent. I mean, hey, it's low-power 9mm ammo, but still, it's nice to have noticeably less dot movement.

If it isn't too rainy tomorrow I'll probably head out to a local match and see how it does...

 

[d'ranger]

It's telling that boomer gets labeled a left wing nutjob - bunch of wanker snowflakes that get all butt hurt if anyone disturbs the force.

Since I don't give a shit about what anyone thinks and happy to make that Igor list, with or without a hump the #1 reason that posters dislike PA is because they try to float some bullshit that isn't fact based - looking at you PB. There are nutjobs from both extremes but the Right is so far off the charts it isn't even graphable now. Rant off and I promise to not interrupt this masturbatory love of things with the only purpose being to kill other humans.

 

[Liquid]

The cheap way to 'own' a FN P90 via a Ruger 18" 10/22 inside!

 

[Point Break]

It's telling that boomer gets labeled a left wing nutjob - bunch of wanker snowflakes that get all butt hurt if anyone disturbs the force.

Since I don't give a shit about what anyone thinks and happy to make that Igor list, with or without a hump the #1 reason that posters dislike PA is because they try to float some bullshit that isn't fact based - looking at you PB. There are nutjobs from both extremes but the Right is so far off the charts it isn't even graphable now. Rant off and I promise to not interrupt this masturbatory love of things with the only purpose being to kill other humans.

Just curious….what is your objection. I am willing to stipulate my quasi political post is completely my impressions.