My supply of GOOD Mini 14 clips was ok but the 10/22 clips (qty 8 of the 25 round Butler Creek Clips) were all but worn out.

Hopefully production will ramp up soon so I can get replacements. I wonder if Butler Creek will still honor the lifetime warranty on the originals

Well Bush showed what a gutless POS he is on this issue.
He said he supports it but didn't have the balls to get Congress to extend it.
Yep he is a great leader allright

Well had he just come out and said he doesn't support the ban is one thing but to say he supports it then cave in to NRA whackos shows me what I already knew. This man will do anything to stay in office.
68% of the Amercian public support the ban and it's a small vocal minority that is in favor of it :rolleyes:

Hold on now Stew....are you saying if you are a member of the NRA you are a wacko?....I am a member of the NRA. And how can 68% of America support the ban and only a small minority favor it?????

I have friends in the NRA so I was referring to guys like Heston and LaPierre and some of the "fringe" elements in your group. When the majority of police favor the ban that has to tell you something doesn't.

I see this as pretty much a non-issue. I can respect both sides of the gun control issue, but regardless of where you fall out on the actual issue, this law didn't mreally keep semi-auto weapons out of anyone's hands.

I think there's room to debate where to draw the line (most people think it's OK to keep a plastic picnic knife, very few would advocate for unlimited access to high powered machine guns, tactical nukes for the home, etc.).

But whether you're vehemently pro- or anti-gun control, this particular piece of legislatio seemd fatally flawed from the start. When it only bans certain models by name and other nearly identical models are legal, I don't feel any safer on the street.

Just my 2 cents.

Stew,

Are you suggesting that you would vote for Bush in November if he pushed to have congress draw up a bill that would extend the Brady Bill (that they don't have the votes to pass) and signed it into law?

Yeah, it tells me they don't know much about guns.

You're reaching there RB. There is more to this election than just guns and you know it. Not in a million years would I vote for Bush. He stands for just about everything I oppose and if it were Al Sharpton as the democratic nominee I would vote for Sharpton first! Bush is the symbol of all the is wrong in government and society for that matter. He was born with limited skills and intelligence so he rode the coattails of his father and the affluent GOP power brokers to get where he got to today. It's for damn sure he didn't get there on talent. His uses his phoney faith to pander to the Christian right and plays on the fears of the gullible (yes Rory I'm talking about you here). So no I would never vote for George Bush.

How's that ol' saying go.......Guns don't kill people, people kill people. And Stew, thanks for the clarification on your feelings about the NRA and it's members. I support what they do and I am a firm beleiver in my right to gun ownership. I just didn't think that made me a whack-o.

:D

I was going to pick up one myself, but when I read the directions it said "Make sure you are at least 15 miles from your target BEFORE discharging weapon."

I guess I could drive to Tacoma and lob one at the guy breaking into my house.

NRA wackos? Whats that saying about a skunk smelling its own hole first?

------------------------------------------------------------

If that's the case, why would Bush push to have a toothless- ineffective- ill-conceived-'feel good' bill drawn up by congress to extend the Brady Bill (that doesn't have the votes to pass it) so he could sign it?

You still wouldn't vote for him.

But that's OK--Bush will still win re-election this November. You'll probably have another opportunity to vote for Al Sharpton in '08

Kerry really know his gun laws.

“So, tomorrow for the first time in 10 years when a killer walks into a gun shop, when a terrorist goes to a gun show somewhere in America, when they want to purchase an AK-47 or some other military assault weapon, they’re going to hear one word: ’Sure,”’ Kerry told supporters in Washington.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5989162/

As always AuntyM--Don't let the facts get in your way

Originally posted by AuntyM:

The Republican votes weren't there deliberately to protect him and his chances for re-election.---AuntyM's misleading statement

Fact: The votes that weren't there in congress to extend the Brady Bill were a combination of republican and DEMOCRATic representatives.--RB
-----------------------------------------------------------

Portraying REPUBLICANS as protectors of gun rights is a joke.--Aunty M

Are you suggesting that the democrats have a better record of protecting gun rights?--RB
------------------------------------------------------------

They also won't protect your other CIVIL rights.--Aunty M


What other CIVIL rights are you eluding to?--RB

Presidents can only sign into law legislation that is drawn up and passed in the house and senate.

Since there is only one president and over 600 congresmen and senators, I ask you again:

Are you suggesting that the democrats have a better record of protecting gun rights?--RB
------------------------------------------------------------

Are you suggesting gun owners would have their rights protected better in the future by electing democrats at all levels?

Yeah, the president just sits around and waits for the Congress to present him with bills. He doesn't have any influence whatsoever within his party on what issues are brought before the House or Senate floor .................... or does he?

Can you tell us exactly what gun owning right you've personally lost as a direct result of the Democratic party?

Are you suggesting that the Democrats are after your guns and stripping the Constitution of the Second Amendment? The NRA and GOP loves guys like you; so easy to manipulate through fear. Someone in Germany did something like that a few decades ago, also. Proved to be pretty effective, and is still working right here in the good ol' US of A.

Good post Harley! Ya beat me to it!

Obviously RB don't watch "The West Wing" much and he probably slept through government class too! :p

The President (every president) has a DEFINITE legislative agenda, and in fact has a complete staff dedicated to insuring that this agenda makes it's way onto the House and Senate floors, or at least into committee.

------------------------------------------------------------

Goharley,

Calm down and take a Midol --Then after the the irrational rage subsides, :p crack open a history book and try to learn what one of the first things the Nazis confiscated from private citizens was-after they came into power in the 30's.


BTW--I didn't learn civics, government or history from 'The West Wing' or the 'Lifetime' channel....sorry

To say the President or anyone supports anything with out it coming directly from them is personal opinion, nothing more.
Democrats freely admit their position is one of more gun control. Hillary just did it in an interview with time Russert during the convention. What was interesting about her admisssion was that she recognized the 2nd amendment rights and openly admitted that her support for gun control measures was to appease her voters. The right does the same thing as a concession on other issues. The ownership of guns are an absolute right and any conditions are unconstitutional.

Aunty M,

No one or no party wears a 'white hat' on every single issue.

My question on the protection of 2nd Amendment rights is answered like most political questions in our two major party system--Which party (Republican or Democratic) is less likely to infringe on my right to 'Keep and bare arms'? Which is the lesser of two evils?

You know RB I absolutely agree! I not only think you should be able to keep your arms but you should also be able to bare them!!!! I would never vote for a candidate that would ban tank tops

Rory,

Speaking strictly hypothetically here:

Which amendment, if you were absolutely forced to, would you choose to keep and why. First or second?

The second insures the first.

People seem to forget that our freedom was won with guns not newspapers.

King,

While that may have been true in 1776, I HIGHLY doubt that the members of the Fall City Trap & Sporting Clays Assoc. would be able to stop the might of the U.S. Military if it were "god forbid" unleashed upon its citizens today.

We fought the British back then mostly as an armed citizen militia. We got the military to fight our enemies today.

One more thing... Why do you think the first amendment is the FIRST amendment?
Could it be that the framers of the Constitution believed that this was the most important of ALL rights in order to ensure that the new FREE democratic society would survive?

4 Salt,

I agree with TK on this one.

If you forfeit your individual right to be able to protect your family, home and self with arms---you'll forfeit all other rights (1st Amendment included) in time.

Besides, when you've got a gun in your hand, people generally let you say what you want.
------------------------------------------------------------

BTW--4 Salt is a great moniker! I've never landed one, but I've got a couple of trips planned for the lower Quinault this winter...stay tuned.

4salt,

No, I think they knew the importance of diologue before they took up Arms. You forget that the armed forces are made up of citizens and would be very reluctant to use it's might against it's own. If they did 10 ,20,30 million gun toting civillians could put a serious dent in any army. We would have no trouble resupplying ourselves and they would be operating from islands under siege. They would last 6 months at most.

If you're a well-regulated militia.

The Freemen figured they could take on the US military too.........until an Apache and an Abrams showed up. Party over.

PS: just arguing for the sake of argument.

The milita was composed of private citizens with guns. Just as it would be in the future. The freeman did not have the support of the people. I doubt it would ever happen. I would hate to be a lib if it did :p

Protect your family, home and self from whom?

Criminals - Isn't that why we have police?

Government - King is right when he says that the probability of our government using the military against it's citizens is minute at best.

You know I'm not really advocating giving up your second amendment rights. I'm mostly trying to ascertain why the right defends the second so adamantly while almost never even mentioning the importance of the first?

You're kidding, right?

[/QUOTE]Protect your family, home and self from whom?

Criminals - Isn't that why we have police?

[/QB][/QUOTE]

Yep, that's right we do have police, but I see you live just outside or in the People's Republic of Seattle where you have an abundance of Law Enforcement where if someone breaks into your house at 2:00 AM you can call 911 and have an officer there 2 minutes.

Here in the some of the Rurual counties there is only one or two officers on duty after midnight and that deputy may be on another call on the other end of county and can't get to you for an hour, what do you do you tell whoever is breaking into your home, "Here take what you want, go ahead kill my me, my wife and my kids?''

I think not I know in my case there's an shotgun sitting there and if at all possible they're going to get their ass or some other part of their body full of Double OO Buckshot. Then that LEO can take his time getting here.

What's right for the Peoples Republic of Seattle is not necessarily right for the rest of the State.

Yeah, I've lost count of the number of news reports I've read of mullet-headed good ol' boys protectin' they's youngins from intruders. Damn, I miss the wild west when men was men and sheep was scared.

Oh, yeah, they knows we gots guns so they knows better than to try anythin'.

Just like that farmer that grows rutabagas to keep the wolverines away. That's why there's no wolverines on the OP.

NRA induced paranoia. GOP induced paranoia. No better way to control the masses but to instill fear, and then play the protector.

Just ask Goering:

Thats right I can buy any gun I want OTC with out any invasion of privacy. Because background checks and restrictions keep the guns out of criminals hands . I mean you see a lot of gang bangers, terrorist and cop killers using .270 bolt actions and .45/70 govt lever actions. Name any fire arm and I can have it in 24 hrs via private party and no one would know. Yep It's 100% paranoia.

Yep, you're paranoid.

No in fact the people that think they are safer restriticing type and ownership are the paranoid ones.

They won't ban my muzzleloader will they?

My supplies of deer and elk jerky would be severely curtailed if I had to hunt with a bow.

And, yes, I do know that the 1st amendment wasn't written for hunters.

Good day all, and THANK GOD that we live in a country where we can disagree and not get carted off to be "re-educated".

Hey does this mean they will warranty my clips Wow this thread took a turn I was actually just asking a question about a warranty issue....oh well.

I used to be heavy into guns and at first I was irritated by the AWB but soon came to realize is was nothing more then a political smoke screen. Since America is flooded with every type of weapon listed on the ban they were all still available to buy legally on the open market or through a gun dealer. The only thing the AWB did was to limit the importation of said assault weapons and ammo making it more expensive for the average shooter, the whole supply and demand thing. Magazine capacity was limited to 10 rounds but I can still by 30 rounders today without a problem, again the market is flooded. It limited the importation of rifles like the AK47 but it was still legal for Colt to pump out AR15’s. They both except 30 round detachable magazines and are semi auto so what is the difference. The difference is Colt is made in the US and the AWB for the most part only banned importation but not production. It was BS and did nothing except cost the target shooter more money for ammo.

If you really want to make a law that has some merit try this on for size. Colt produces an AR15 and before they sell said weapon they must first shoot a round into a test tank. This round is sent to the FBI with the serial number of said weapon. Now when there is a drive by and they pull the slug from the dead guy they can match the ballistics on there computer.

This is the part that erks me and I am not picking on Bush, this irritates me about all politicians so no F#$@ing replies about Kerry did this!!! “President Bush made a 2000 campaign pledge to support renewal of the ban. But Bush has disingenuously stood by in 2004, merely saying he'd sign it if Congress sent it to him. But leaders of the Republican-controlled Congress refuse to act on renewing the 10-year-ban first adopted in 1994.”

It is the duty of the Pres to pressure Congress on issues he wishes to pass, not just merely sit by hoping they send a bill up to him for renewal. Politicians are always trying to make themselves look good by saying one thing, when in reality they are all two faced liars. This bill could have been renewed if Bush wished it, however it was worthless to begin with.

This bill could have been renewed if Bush wished it, however it was worthless to begin with.--LT

WOW, you're saying that Bush 43 can force a majority of congresman and senators to do something they have made clear they wouldn't?

LT,

Two things:

1) You're writing in your last post
acknowledged that the 'AWB' (or Brady Bill) was pointless in that there were so many ways to get around it (that's why a majority of representatives aren't interested in extending it) --why do you want to see it (BB) extended?

2) Your idea about ballistic registery on AR15's and the like works until the person in possesion of the AR15 realizes that the barrell can be changed (altering ballistic chatacteristics) in a matter of seconds.

Hi Aunty. Glad you enjoyed it.

I would have loved to stick around for some shrimp but one of my buddies had the audacity to get married that afternoon, and I promied Mrs. me that I'd be home in time to shower. Seems she didn't want to go to the wedding with a guy smelling like fish.

Anyway, Dogfish promised me that he ate some shrimp for me. What a pal.....

Had a ball out there. Wish I'd had a little more time to spend in your camp and chat.

Dogfish and I are on tap to go stack a couple of elk next weekend to replenish the supply.......

P.S. Wow, talk about hijacking a thread.....

I guess I better add something like "I support the constitution".

RB

Sorry if I did not make that clear but I do not want to see the bill extended due to the fact it is not a well written bill. I would however like to see some laws in place that help with some of the current gun regulation problems. The Pres. can pressure congress if he wants and he did state he would renew the bill. He certainly has the right to change his mind, not all campaign promises can be kept and things do change where it may justify a reneging of a current pledge. But rather then explain the issue the Pres just said congress did not send the bill up the ladder. He is trying to please both voting parties in this case when he had no intention of signing the bill, if he did he could have passed it through. Clever politics but not honest in my book. I wouldn't like it if a Dem Pres made the same move.

True barrels can be change but it could be a starting point and there are a lot of dumb criminals who even if they changed the barrel would keep it in a closet to be found in a search. Hey I was just thinking on this one of better solution that is all. Anyone got a better idea then the AWB?

LT,

You're starting to think as logically as a conservative.

There's always room over here if you want to play for the winning team

"True barrels can be change but it could be a starting point and there are a lot of dumb criminals who even if they changed the barrel would keep it in a closet to be found in a search. Hey I was just thinking on this one of better solution that is all. Anyone got a better idea then the AWB?"

LT,

Some things sound good until you think them through.

The majority of gun crimes happen two ways. 1. Ned catches Betty bangin Fabio, Ned grabs a gun and kills them both in a jealous rage. No mystry about who did it and the gun was leagally purchased.
2. Lephonso uses a gun to whack rival gang member and take all his blow. The gun he used was stolen in a robbery 3 weeks earlier and purcahes by Lephonso behind the Dairy Freeze.

Either way you have dead bodies and it had nothing to do with any gun laws.

king


:D :p


This is true...I would also like to see the sales of firearms moderated. You know the person to person sales that are never logged and now the guns sale history is lost. They tried to get this bill passed once, I think on the back of the Brady Bill and then they took it off to let the Brady Bill go through due to the uprise of the 10% sales fee associated with the sale instead of a flat fee like $25.

RB
Thanks for the offer but I just put a "I heart Democrats" bumper sticker on my car and you know how hard those are to get off

"I would also like to see the sales of firearms moderated. You know the person to person sales that are never logged and now the guns sale history is lost"

It will never happen even if they passed a piece of paper to make the soccer moms feel safe.

Got any ideas or are you happy with the laws as they reside?

LT,

Yes, repeal all gun laws. The issue is with our culture not gun's. Our society like to treat the symptom not the cause.

Aunty, the paranoia remark is directed at those that are absolutely convinced the Democrats number one objective is to repeal the Second Amendment.

I don't think there is any more chance of loosing that right than the First Amendment. I believe the NRA and GOP merely instill that fear into people to keep them in the flock, per se.

The Second Amendment was written precisely for the very reason it will never go away; protection from an overbearing gubmint.

goharly

If you believe that you need to read some of the Horror stories coming out of Illinois, New York, Mass and California about some of the abuses againist the Second Admendment. You had better not be caught with a firearm of any kind in your vehicle while traveling through those states and couple of the other east coast states even with them secured in a locked case.

In Maryland even if you are LEO and someone breaks into home and steals your Service Weapon from a locked or secure location and it's used in a crime you are treated as an accessory to the crime.

Does that stop you from owning a weapon?

Matter of fact, my father-in-law used to live in Maryland a couple of years ago and owns probably 6 different guns. His brother still lives in there and owns probably 2 dozen different guns. They hunt deer up and down the East Coast. Wonder how they get all those guns to their hunting camps?

I'm sure there's deer hunting in Illinois, New York, and California.... gotta get them guns there some how.

------------------------------------------------------------

GH,

They've made it illegal to have a gun in D.C.---Has the crime rate gone down there?


Do you think your father-in-law and his brother should have to violate the law to be able to hunt?

Lets first curb all the Bleeding Hearts that are wispering to their rich politically backed husbands out there. The ones who would rather execute the pistol that was used in a murder, than the murderer himself. The last time I checked, my pistol was just firing itself. "STAY AWAY FROM THE GUN KIDS IT MIGHT KILL YOU" How about teaching gun safety instead. If anyone tries to charge me with accessory to a crime, because they stole my rifle from the house, Ill hire Johnny Cochran, then run for office..

How are they violating the law?

This shows what a genius Kerry is:

"The October edition of Outdoor Life will feature interviews with both presidential candidates. When asked about their favorite guns, President Bush responds: "My favorite gun is a Weatherby Athena 20 gauge." Mr. Kerry says "My favorite gun is the M-16 that saved my life and that of my crew in Vietnam. I don't own one of those now, but one of my reminders of my service is a Communist Chinese assault rifle."

So Mr. Kerry owns an "assault" rifle designed for war. Interesting coming from the guy who just went ballistic over the end of the "assault" weapons ban. "

"one of my reminders of my service is a Communist Chinese assault rifle."--Hanoi John Kerry
------------------------------------------------------------

That's because ultimately Hanoi John Kerry served the Communists!

RB

I am not positive but I think DC only limited certain types of guns, not all guns. I think they were allowed hunting rifles just not handguns and semi auto weapons.


U.S. House Bill Would Kill D.C. Gun Bans
9/16/2004



There is majority support in the U.S. House of Representatives for a bill that would repeal many of the existing gun laws in the District of Columbia, the Washington Post reported Sept. 14.

The D.C. Personal Protection Act, sponsored by Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.), would lift the ban on handguns in D.C., which has one of the strictest gun bans in the nation. In addition, the bill would remove a ban on semiautomatic weapons; remove registration requirements for ammunition and other firearms; and cancel criminal penalties for those possessing unregistered firearms or carrying a handgun in one's home or workplace.

The legislation would also prohibit the District's elected officials from enacting laws or regulations "that discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms."

"This is a constitutional issue, not a home-rule question," Souder said. "The fact is, we didn't allow the District to have home rule on the selling of slaves, either."

District Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) argued that repealing the District's gun laws would increase violence in the city.

The bill, which has 228 co-sponsors, has enough support to pass the 435-member House. However, passage in the U.S. Senate is doubtful.


More News Summaries

AM,
I think you're right, I missed the dissing of the military. Anybody who says the Military is for the poor and uneducated , I would have to say is "uneducated" on the matter. I would love to take that person aboard one of the Aircraft Carriers that I served on, show them some of the equipment and systems that I worked on and then have them tell me I am uneducated. Or take them on an E2, look at the systems on that and then tell me that the 19 year old kid that fixes them and makes them fly is uneducated! Go down to the plant and tell the people down there, that can make a 100,000 ton vessel go , well let's just say in excess of 32 knots and a lot faster than you can really imagine a ship that size could go, and tell them they are uneducated.

If you think the military is for the poor and uneducated, come see me. Let's see if you can pass some of the tests that I have passed that advanced me to where I got in the military and allow me to work on some of the systems that I work on know, and then tell me I am uneducated. And not that financial wealth means squat to me about a persons character or usefullness to society, but I'll show you where I came from and where I am at, then see if you can say I am or was poor.

Oh Aunty, that someone would say that about our men and women of the armed forces really fires me up!

Aunty M,

Pull your pants down if you're going to talk out of you a$$!

I've NEVER once put the military or those who honorably served in it down on this forum or anywhere else for that matter.

I honor our military and those who serve in it at ALL times--not just when I agree with the orders they're carring out at a given moment.

I have and will continue to bring attention to the fact that Hanoi John Kerry stabbed his fellow servicemen in the back by lying about them and suggesting that on a daily bases they were "RAPISTS and BABY KILLERS". He also misrpesented his service record. What he did when he got of of Vietnam did serve the communists--that's why they honor him in their Communists museum in Ho Chi Minh city.

http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=20040604194804799


I challenge you to re-post any statement I've made that ever said that the people went in to the military because they were stupid or didn't have any other options.

Since I know you can't you'll need to RETRACT the assertion that I look down on the military.

Also, the chickenhawk tag against someone that happend to make a different career choice than someone else several years ago but has the unmidigated gaul to support our troops 100% whether history proves what they're carring out was advisable or not will only continue to be applicable if YOU POST ALL DOCUMENTATIONJS OF ALL THE ABORTIONS YOU'VE EVER HAD if you ever want to weigh in on the abortion issue in the future.

Complete documentation
--------------------------------
How many ABORTION(s) you've had:

Who perfomed your ABORTION(s):

Where was your ABORTION(s) performed:

How many weeks pregnant were you when you had the ABORTION(s):

If you do not make this information public and ever comment on the abortion issue again --

You'll be reffered to as : ABORTIONhawk

Umrules,

The accusation that I ever said the the military is for the poor and uneducated is Bull $hit! (pure propaganda from Aunty M) She's just upset that here hero Hanoi John Kerry's record of stabbing his fellow servicemen in the back is coming to light.

Before you say or believe AM on this matter:
------------------------------------------------------------
AM,
"I think you're right, I missed the dissing of the military"--Unrules
------------------------------------------------------------
Read my posts about the military and you'll see that the military has not only played an important role in my families history--it's something respect greatly and speak up to support quite often.

Someone else on this board made the remarks she is accusing me of making--She owes me an apology--and I would hope you give me the benefit of the doubt and make any judgements about me from what I SAY OR WRITE--not what is SAID OR WRITTEN ABOUT ME.

Sincerely,

Rory B

Speaking of someone talking out of their ass:
I've pointed out to you numerous times that those statements are total BS. I've provided links to credible sources to back it up. As long as you keep spewing ignorant hyperbole how can anyone take you serious?

BTW, I'm not going to re-hash or repost again all the facts to discredit your unadulterated BS above.

I made statements about option limited people joining the military. I backed it up with reasearch. That in in no way implies that the people that join the military are stupid as others have tried to twist it. It implies that many join for education and training because they will not get it in the private sector. They have few skills when they join which would put them at the bottom level of any private business. After their service and training about 10% then go on to achieve college degrees and advanced college degrees. I have hired and worked with several hundred ex military and consider them friends. I would not insult them by calling them stupid. their advanced electronics training speaks for itself.

Rory,
No worries!
My post was not directed towards you nor did I associate the comment that someone said the military was for the poor and uneducated to you. I really didn't know who AM was refering to nor did I see the post / comment that said it. Must have been when I was up on the Canada fly fishing trip.

But I WILL give my complete support, appreciation and gratitude to all the men and women out there that volunteer to put on the uniform and defend this great nation!

Was that a group hug :p

------------------------------------------------------------

I know myself and my beliefs--that's why I knew that you or anyone else wouldn't be able to find any posts I've made belitting our military or the brave men and women that serve in it (other than Hanoi John Kerry).

Apology accepted.

Now that we've wiped that slate clean--we can find something else to argue...I'm mean debate over.

Aunty M,

The claims made by the numerous deorated honorably discharged veterans that served with Kerry in Vietnam in 'Unfit for Command' have not changed or been refuted---interestingly Kerry has had to change several of his versions of what happened in SE Asia since 'U 4 C' was published.


The authors of the book are donating the considerable profits from the #1 best selling book in the country to Veteran's charities.

Let's see......The Swift Vets for Truth are standing behind what they said (not for a profit motive) so that the truth is know about Kerry (knowing that they could be sued for everything they have if found to be lying)---and Kerry is 'flip-flopping' on his account of what happend in SE Asia since the book was published.....very interesting.

George Bush served in the 'Guard and received an Honorable Discharge--your side is having to forge documents to try and discredit his service.

What I find most hypocritical about the left (not you ) is that they are making such a big issue about Bush 43's service record compared to Kerry's. Bush said he honors Kerry's service and hasn't made his service 35 years ago the sole reason he should be elected--he's been Commander and Chief for almost four years.

Those on the left thought nothing of voting for Clinton (a known draft dodger) over two verifiable decorated war heros (Bush 41 and Dole). So it makes the comparison the left tries to make between Kerry's and Bush 43's military record laughable.

As for what Kerry did after he came home from Vietnam working with Hanoi Jane Fonda and the VVAW --John McCain has said that's fair game, and he should have to account for his actions and words (you'll be hearing alot more about it in the weeks to come).

As for other PP members opinions about the military--that's what makes this country great--we're all entitled to an opinion.

Aunty M,


I've never said that they should add Bush 43 to Mt. Rushmore because of his service in the 'Guard----However, Kerry salutes and honors his own service and 4 months in Vietnam so often that I think he believes he should be on Mt. Rushmore.... and maybe some form of currency too.


Did you vote for Bill Clinton in either '92 or '96?

Beats the hell out of Metamucil, though, don't it?

------------------------------------------------------------

Aunty M,

The fact is you're the one who's being inconsitent--if you voted for Bill Clinton (a known draft dodger) in '96 over a decorated war hero (Bob Dole).

Then say now that Bush's Service in the 'Guard that he received an Honorable discharge for makes him a "draft dodging scumbag" and should disqualify him to serve as Commander and Chief.

You are the one with two different standards.

BTW--The only 'combat tour' Kerry had lasted 4 months----He's the only Swift Boat Veteran in Vietnam to ever serve 1/3 of his 'combat tour' duty and bug out that early after accepting two Purple Hearts under false pretenses without being seriously wounded or killed. That's not an opinion--that's a fact

"Bush is a liar and a criminal................"

"Personally I have higher standards...."


Now that was worth signing on for....The most telling, yet pathetic , post I have read in a long time.....WOW

Six days without the ban and somehow I haven't been shot by an assault rifle or stabbed with a bayonet. It's a miracle.

pathetic is standing out in your field bellering......and no one is listening.

Like I said, I have been confined to bed for two weeks so I must be desperate for entertainment trying to get a rise outta you....

Sorry, Krusty, but it's not.

------------------------------------------------------------

Kerry has had to admit (after 'Unfit for Command' was published) that two of the wounds he received a Purple Hearts for were:

not from a wound from enemy fire, but from self-inflicted 'rice shrapnel' from throwing his own grenade in a pile of rice.

The other 'self -inflicted' wound came from a grenade he threw to close to his own boat.

He took these two Purple hearts knowing that they were being granted under false pretenses so he could get the 3 and out and go home and work with Hanoi Jane Fonda and the VVAW to help ensure a communist victory in SE Asia.

RB

You can receive a purple heart for injuries sustained through friendly fire.

"Since then, over 800,000 Purple Heart medals have been awarded, some in formal ceremonies, others as intimate as a medal pinned to a hospital gown. The qualifications have expanded during that time as well, to include injuries to servicemen and women from terrorist attacks, friendly fire and from being part of a peacekeeping force."

http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/patc/purpleheart/

Hey Bob Dole recived a purple heart in WWII for his grenade bouncing off a tree

John Kerry's First Purple Heart

.
The action that led to John Kerry's first Purple Heart occurred on December 2, 1968, during the month that he was undergoing training with Coastal Division 14 at Cam Ranh Bay. While waiting to receive his own Swift boat command, Kerry volunteered for a nighttime patrol mission on a small, foam-filled "skimmer" craft under the command of Lt. William Schachte. The two officers were accompanied by an enlisted man who operated the outboard motor. The purpose of the patrol, which Kerry later described as "a half-assed action that hardly qualified as combat," was to find Vietcong guerillas moving contraband around a peninsula north of the bay on sampans.

At the target location Kerry saw a group of sampans unloading something on the shore, and lit a flare to illuminate the area. The men from the sampans ran, and Kerry and his crew opened fire. At that point, according to Kerry, "My M-16 jammed, and as I bent down in the boat to grab another gun, a stinging piece of heat socked into my arm and just seemed to burn like hell." (page 147, "Tour of Duty") Kerry and his men strafed the beach, shot up the sampans and returned to Cam Ranh Bay.

As an officer in command (OIC) in training, Kerry reported during this mission to William Schachte, who eventually retired as a Rear Admiral. Schachte flatly contradicts Kerry's claim to have been wounded by enemy fire, saying that after his M-16 jammed, Kerry picked up an M-79 grenade launcher and fired a grenade that exploded too close to the boat, causing a small piece of shrapnel to stick in the skin of his arm. Kerry himself did not report receiving hostile fire that night, which would have been required, and there is no record of hostile fire for the mission.

Kerry succeeded in keeping the small piece of shrapnel in his arm until the following day, when he was treated by Dr. Louis Letson, whose version of the event matches William Schachte's account rather than Kerry's:

I have a very clear memory of an incident which occurred while I was the Medical Officer at Naval Support Facility, Cam Ranh Bay. John Kerry was a (jg), the OinC or skipper of a Swift boat, newly arrived in Vietnam. On the night of December 2, he was on patrol north of Cam Ranh, up near Nha Trang area. The next day he came to sick bay, the medical facility, for treatment of a wound that had occurred that night.

The story he told was different from what his crewmen had to say about that night. According to Kerry, they had been engaged in a fire fight, receiving small arms fire from on shore. He said that his injury resulted from this enemy action.

Some of his crew confided that they did not receive any fire from shore, but that Kerry had fired a mortar round at close range to some rocks on shore. The crewman thought that the injury was caused by a fragment ricocheting from that mortar round when it struck the rocks.

That seemed to fit the injury which I treated.

What I saw was a small piece of metal sticking very superficially in the skin of Kerry's arm. The metal fragment measured about 1 cm. in length and was about 2 or 3 mm in diameter. It certainly did not look like a round from a rifle.

I simply removed the piece of metal by lifting it out of the skin with forceps. I doubt that it penetrated more than 3 or 4 mm. It did not require probing to find it, did not require any anesthesia to remove it, and did not require any sutures to close the wound.

The wound was covered with a bandaid.

Not [sic] other injuries were reported and I do not recall that there was any reported damage to the boat.

The following morning, John Kerry arrived at the office of Coastal Division 14 Commander Grant Hibbard to apply for a Purple Heart. Having already been informed by Schachte that Kerry's injury was self-inflicted rather than the result of hostile fire, Commander Hibbard told him to "forget it." Hibbard recently said of Kerry's minor scratch, "I've seen worse injuries from a rose thorn."

Nevertheless, John Kerry managed to obtain his coveted Purple Heart for this incident nearly three months later after being transferred to Coastal Division 11. The circumstances remain obscure, as there are no written records of this award on file at the Naval Historical Center. Various other documents that might shed light on this award remain unavailable due to Senator Kerry's refusal to release his complete military records.

Military regulations state that to qualify for a Purple Heart, an injury must come "from an outside force or agent," and treatment for the wound must "have been made a matter of official record." While John Kerry managed to satisfy the second criterion by insisting that an amused Dr. Letson provide an official Band-Aid, nicking himself with a fragment from his own poorly-aimed grenade fails to meet the first qualification.

OK point being?

Again, this has been debated, discussed, and proved incorrect numerous times. Let go, already.

You're a Cheney man, aren't you? You still believe there's WMD, don't you? :rolleyes:

He got one of those purple hearts for getting rice in the ass from a grenade HE threw into a barrel of rice that he was trying to destroy. Now, unless that barrel of rice was attacking him, I would say that concerning that particular purple heart, it is suspect. BTW, that is from his own book "Tour of Duty".

This is where everyone has it wrong
You can receive a purple heart for injuries sustained through friendly fire.

Like I stated earlier your Republican buddy Bob Dole recived a purple heart in WWII for his grenade bouncing off a tree that caused him injuries.

Um Lead Thrower, you get a purple heart through friendly fire when in direct action with the enemy, not when you are horsing around with live grenades having fun (which is what he admits to doing). That at least shows great irresponsibility on Kerry's part.

"And according to a Navy casualty report released by the Kerry campaign, the third purple heart was received for "shrapnel wounds in left buttocks and contusions on his right forearm when a mine detonated close aboard PCF-94," Kerry's boat. As a matter of strict grammar, the report doesn't state that both injuries were received as a result of the mine explosion, only the arm injury."

Qoute from Factcheck.org

So for the third purple heart he got some rice in the ass and some shrap in the arm from a mine.