More candidates are hunting for votes with guns

[jazzhound]

An interesting article from NPR:

You can find photos of Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York firing a pistol, and news of his own first foray into the world of hunting (he shot three pheasants last year while hunting with Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska).

This is downright hysterical! We're supposed to believe that Chuck is sympathetic to the RKBA because he embarks on his first hunting trip and fires a pistol? How incoherent does he have to be to believe he can run this con job?

When Ann Richards ran as Democratic candidate for governor of Texas, successfully in 1990 and unsuccessfully in 1994, she was photographed wearing hunting boots and a goose-down vest, and carrying a shotgun. Bystrom recalls that Richards campaign adviser Monte Williams said guns and candidates don't mix if it looks like the candidate has never been hunting before. She quotes Williams: "The degree to which you think your candidate is going to be out of place in that situation, obviously, the higher the risk. With Ann Richards, there was never any fear of her not looking good with a gun."

This one is more tragic than funny. Ms. Ann "looks good" with her gun. Then she proceeds to veto concealed carry legislation twice -- which helps put Bush in the governor's mansion, then the White House.

Full story here:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129302293

[bluestateguy]

1. That's one thing I don't think Obama would be stupid enough to do

A politically canned photo op hunting trip, with camouflage and all. It would just look so obviously fake.

And yet as president he has signed into law every single pro-gun amendment that has been inserted into legislation.

[shadowrider]

2. Name one "Pro gun" piece of legislation he's signed n/t

[one-eyed fat man]

5. Credit Card Bill

The President signed into law the credit card reform bill he wanted, despite a provision that changed the regulations on carrying concealed weapons in National Parks.

Credit where credit is due. Now all the change did, despite much hand-wringing, wailing and gnashing of teeth from Helmke, Sugermann, et al., was restore the rules to what they had been prior to 1982. Having the rules in the park the same as the rules outside the park, that is governed by state laws, had not been a problem for the first century and a half of the national parks existence.

This might have been one of the gripes from the "professional left" that Robert Gibbs mentioned.

[Euromutt]

6. And transporting firearms on Amtrak

Which is, similarly, merely a restoration of the situation prior to 9/11, and let's be honest, it's a fairly ludicrous idea that a federal agency (which Amtrak is) should be exempt from the Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986 while private industry (namely, commercial airlines) are not.

But again, both these measures were amendments appended to legislation that Obama really wanted. Let's not assume he was happy to sign them into law; he just reckoned he didn't have the political capital to get the legislation passed without the offending amendments.

[safeinOhio]

7. That does not count

Every one knows, that reads the NRA stuff, Obama has a "secret 10 point plan" to take away every gun in this country.


:sarcasm:

[one-eyed fat man]

10. Put another quarter in the jukebox

Is that the only tune you know?

[DissedByBush]

18. Prior to 1982?

That would mean Saint Reagan signed a bill restricting weapons in national parks?

Don't tell Hannity because his head will explode.

[bluestateguy]

11. The Wicker Amendment and the Coburn Amendment

One was to allow unloaded guns in checked bags on Amtrak, the other to allow right to carry in national parks. Both were latched on to unrelated pieces of legislation. If he was such a fanatic for confiscating everybody's guns, then he would have vetoed the bills.

[safeinOhio]

15. Zealots are not interested

in facts. They are mind readers like Beck and Limbaugh and can tell you what he really wants to do.

[PavePusher]

19. Do you actually believe...

that either amendment would have been approved by him if passed as stand-alone bills? Or that they even would have passed as as stand-alones?

If so, I have some very reasonably priced salt-water beach property here in Tucson that you may be interested in. Bridge optional...

[safeinOhio]

20. I'd say yes he would have.

Only going by what he actually said during the Presidential campaign. I also take him at his word that he is a Christian. Most Obama haters think different.

[PavePusher]

22. Well, his previous voting history on firearms legislation...

does not appear to support that theory.

[safeinOhio]

23. He represented Illinois and its' voters,

the ones the keep electing Daly. As President he has represented the nation as a whole. Running for President he stated that he supports the 2nd Amendment. Deal with it and stop thinking you are a mind reader and he has a secret plan. My guess is that the right wingers, like Palin, that scream about gun rights, will be the first to pull the 2nd when a few rich CEOs are gunned down. Why do you folks hate the man so much?

[PavePusher]

24. Unless you can stop projecting your baseless assumptions on me....

and stop accusing me of things I have not stated, this conversation is over.

Good night.

[Euromutt]

25. "Supporting the 2nd Amendment" is a malleable term...

There are, after all, people who claim the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" applies only to members of a state-run militia while on active duty. Others think it only applies to long guns suitable for hunting waterfowl or deer, and maybe a handful of .22 weapons suitable for Olympic sports like biathlon. When one of these people proclaims he or she "supports the 2nd Amendment," their interpretation of what that means is very different from mine.

And insofar that Obama has a plan, it's hardly secret. His desire to permanently reinstate a federal ban on so-called "assault weapons" was on his campaign website in black and white, and the Attorney-General publicly reiterated it before Nancy Pelosi yanked his leash.

Nobody here hates Obama. Overall, I'm quite happy to have him as president. But on the specific topic of gun rights, I do think he has objectives that I don't want to see him achieve, though he's an astute enough politician to know that there's currently insufficient support for them, both among the electorate and in Congress.

[safeinOhio]

26. My response was to

post #2. When it was answered by others, the attacks on the President began with all that he really wants to do and totally disregarded the facts that he has, as President, signed pro 2nd bills and has not any anti-2nd legislation. Those being the facts, some still are stuck on the talking points that he "really" wants to take away or ban guns.

Many, if not all Presidents have "evolved" on many issues after gaining office. Some here refuse to allow this President to evolve. Yes, he supports some reasonable restrictions as a majority of American gun owners do. However, any restriction are not tolerated by some gun zealots, reasonable and with-in the bounds of the 2nd are not allowed.

[oneshooter]

27. Reasonable restrictions

Such as:

Renewal of the "Assault Weapons" ban

Making the ban permanent

Federal law making concealed carry illegal

Yes very "reasonable".
:sarcasm:

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[safeinOhio]

38. May not sound reasonable to you, but this does to

most gun owners and NRA members.


The Luntz survey shows – again – that gun owners and even members of the NRA strongly support many specific gun violence prevention laws.

For example, the Luntz survey and others show that gun owners and even NRA members strongly support Brady criminal background checks for all gun sales at gun shows, and also strongly support keeping guns out of the hands of suspected terrorists.

Specifically, 82% of NRA members supported prohibiting people on the “Terrorist Watch List” from buying guns. 69% of NRA members supported requiring Brady criminal background checks for all gun sales at gun shows.



http://www.opposingviews.com/i/poll-claims-nra-members-support-gun-restrictions


note, nothing said about past AWB or national CCW laws. Nice straw man though.

[X_Digger]

41. What's Luntz's company motto again?

Oh right, "It's not what you say, it's what people hear."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,519142,00.html

http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/84229-debunking-doctor-luntz

Funny how that right-wing, faux snooze spinmeister gets no play, except when he spews garbage you're willing to gobble up.

NOMNOMNOMNOM*gulp*

[safeinOhio]

49. My bad

picked the first couple of googles. So, how about Salon and Thinkprogress.org


http://thinkprogress.org/2009/12/10/nra-poll/


– 86 percent of all gun owners believe the country can “do more to stop criminals from getting guns while also protecting the rights of citizens to freely own them.”
– 78 percent of NRA members support “requiring gun owners to alert police if their guns are lost or stolen.”
– 82 percent of NRA members support “prohibiting people on the terrorist watch lists from purchasing guns.”
– 69 percent of NRA members support “requiring all gun sellers at gun shows to conduct criminal background checks of the people buying guns.”
Interestingly, NRA members seem to be overwhelmingly against Rep. Todd Tiahrt’s (R-KS) amendment that would prohibit law enforcement agencies from accessing gun trace data and require the FBI to “destroy certain background check records within 24 hours,” which the NRA supports. Sixty-nine percent of NRA members said that they support the statement that the federal government “should not restrict the police’s ability to access, use, and share data that helps them enforce federal, state and local gun laws.”


http://open.salon.com/blog/steve_klingaman/2010/01/13/poll_gun_owners_not_in_lockstep_with_nra
or are they to far right wing faux news spinmeisters for ya.

Face it the majority of gun owners are not 2nd Amendment zealots as some posters here think they are. I have never seen any reasonable restrictions, like those in the survey, backed by the pro crowd here.

[X_Digger]

50. Same Luntz Push Poll..

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/12/10/nra-poll

"But in his Washington Post column today, E.J. Dionne highlights a new survey of 832 gun owners (including 401 NRA members) by conservative pollster Frank Luntz."

http://open.salon.com/blog/steve_klingaman/2010/01/13/poll_gun_owners_not_in_lockstep_with_nra

"Mayors Against Illegal Guns commissioned the survey, which was conducted by Republican pollster Frank Luntz through his firm The Word Doctors."

If you want unbiased polling, you don't go to Luntz. Why do you think Bloomie chose Luntz's company? "It's not what you say, it's what people hear"...

When the question is asked by reputable polling agencies..

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/08/gun.control.poll/

Now, a recent poll reveals a sudden drop -- only 39 percent of Americans now favor stricter gun laws, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll.

And that's a drop from previous numbers, as polled by gallup-

http://www.gallup.com/poll/117361/recent-shootings-gun-control-support-fading.aspx

[safeinOhio]

54. I agree with the poll you posted

89% of Americans want either stricter laws or the ones we have kept as they are now. So, you are in the 11% group? Good luck. I, forgot, how many in the new recent poll wanted less strict laws.

Why don't you poll DUers? They seem to be pretty sane.

[X_Digger]

55. Nice quibbling.

Do you admit that Luntz is a right-wing hack who will push poll to get whatever answers his corporate masters want? And that your reliance on such was ill-advised?

I don't care how you group the numbers, you and Luntz seem to have something in common- spin.

4 in 10 want stricter gun laws- a minority.

[safeinOhio]

59. Of course lutz is nuts

a right wing one at that, which makes this poll even more to the point. I would guess a winger like him on Faux would push the other direction. As we all know from reading this forum, the Democrats and the left have lost nearly all elections because of gun policies. My point being their are zealots on gun policy on both sides.

Will you admit that the majority of American want to leave the laws as they are now or add a few restrictions, like background checks? Only a minority want less strict laws, making them as big of nut cases as the Brady supporters?

From my point of view, you can spin with the best of them also.

4 in want stricter gun laws added to another 4 in 10 that want them left alone making a total of 8 in 10 and 1 in 10 want less strict laws. Did that cover it?

[X_Digger]

61. So that's the last time you'll spew a luntz poll as gospel, right?

I'd hate to have to bring up the fact that you didn't realize that even Salon & EJ Dionne got snookered by him.

Luntz was commissioned to do that poll by Bloomie's MAIG group. Luntz himself is right wing, but he's willing to get the answers anyone wants if you give him enough money.

5 out of 10 want gun laws to be relaxed or be stricter.

10 out of 10 want gun laws to be stricter, stay the same, or be relaxed.

See how stupid that looks when you group together things that are disparate?

spin spin spin.. keep on spinning.

[safeinOhio]

62. I did my mia culpa

However the CNN poll you put up proves the same point. You are the one that put it up, so I am going with it. It shows, beyond a doubt that those that favor less gun laws are on the fringe. Just making your spin my facts.

[X_Digger]

63. Lump disparate things together as though it proves whatever you like..

.. It's _already_ flipped, and it's only going to get wider.

You're grouping one minority (39%) with the plurality ('stay the same' at 46%) and comparing to the other minority (relaxed - 15%).

That's spin.

Notice that I didn't say that a majority want laws to be relaxed or stay the same (61%) or that one and a half times as many people want laws to be relaxed or stay the same as want them stricter. Though true statements, they're disingenuous. That would be spin.

When the percentage who wants stricter law gets down to 10% are you still going to try to tack that on to the plurality (or majority) who wants no change? When do you stop trying to tie your little red 'more laws' wagon to what a majority feel?

eta: and that was no mea culpa, that was a backhanded endorsement of him- (paraphrasing) "Of course he's crazy, but even the crazy agrees with me, so I must be right".

[safeinOhio]

64. Your killing me here

You put what I said in quotes, even though I never said it and then call it "paraphrasing". Does that make you less creditable than Lutz and more of a spinner than Faux.
I'll remember that little trick in my future post with you. Paraphrasing you, "Notice that I didn't really say what I said".

[safeinOhio]

65. On second thought

this has gotten pretty boring, lets argue about the weather.

[X_Digger]

66. Fine, then let me quote..

Of course lutz is nuts

a right wing one at that, which makes this poll even more to the point. I would guess a winger like him on Faux would push the other direction.

my paraphrase:

"Of course he's crazy, but even the crazy agrees with me, so I must be right".

Tell me how my paraphrase differs from the gist of what you were saying.

You confer legitimacy to Luntz because his 'normal' position is stuck on stupid with the right, but he polled to the direction you prefer in this poll. Your 'guess' is that he would have fudged the numbers if he could, yes? ('push the other direction') Therefore it must have been incontrovertible, making you correct.

[PavePusher]

51. Well, heck, if NRA members think subverting due process is O.K.....

I guess it's fine by me.

Can we have that poll on slavery again, too?

Seriously, W.T.F.?!

[safeinOhio]

52. Of those questions, which might violate the

Constitution? Oh yeah, in your opinion?

[PavePusher]

53. "Due Process"

I think it's been hashed out here many times.

[safeinOhio]

56. You'll have to refresh my memory

about how any of those listed in the survey violate due process any more than any other current laws like "do not fly list for travel"? That is the only one, restricting buyer of guns on that list. As for the others, like, background checks on private sales. Seems if requiring checks on FFD sales pass the mustard, so would private sales. Or are you just talking about that one and rest are straw men?

[PavePusher]

58. The "Do not fly" lists...

are what I am refering to.

No due process.

But if it's O.K. with a majority, it must be acceptable, right?

[safeinOhio]

60. I'm talking about the only restriction

listed in the poll result that could possibly, in any way have to do with due process. That is the one not allowing those on that list to purchase firearms. Now if that isn't the one you are talking about, please point out any others that violate due process.

[jazzhound]

69. I know that this is a diversion from the current topic

at hand, but I was wondering what ever came of your plan to purchase a semi-automatic pistol at your local WalMart "no questions asked"?

[Euromutt]

72. I think you've got a case of mistaken identity there, jazzhound

It wasn't safeinOhio who claimed to be able to buy "anything you want at Wal-Mart, no questions asked"; IIRC it was HockeyMom, the one who regrets the day she left NY to go live in Florida.

[jazzhound]

76. Thank you, Euromutt...............

................and my sincere apologies, SIO!

[Euromutt]

71. That is, at best, evidence of one thing

Namely, that nowhere near enough people, NRA members included, understand to a sufficient degree what a travesty the "Terrorist Watch List" is. We're talking a degree of suspicion that doesn't even justify an arrest, let alone a conviction. We're not talking about Jose Padilla here; he was actually detained (took a few years before he was actually charged, but he was detained). We're talking Marine SSGT Daniel Brown, who got put on the list because the TSA found gunpowder residue on his boots. His uniform boots. Gee, a U.S. marine with gunpowder residue on his boots, there's no non-sinister explanation for that! That's your "suspected terrorist."

The major fallacy underlying opinion polls is the assumption that the respondents have the first clue about the topic under discussion. The fact that a large majority of respondents believe some piece of utter bullshit is "reasonable" doesn't mean it's not bullshit; it just means they're wrong.

[friendly_iconoclast]

29. I must say, your reply was very nicely parsed.

Yes, he supports some reasonable restrictions as a majority of American gun owners do.

The sharp-eyed reader will notice that you don't actually state the "reasonable restrictions" the President supports are
one and the same as the "reasonable restrictions....a majority of American gun owners do."

However, any restriction are not tolerated by some gun zealots,...

Which zealots? Examples of same would be appreciated. Even the Gun Owners of America (who hold the NRA to be a bunch of
accomodationist sellouts) support some restrictions. I doubt you'll find anyone aside from some fringe-y libertarians
expressing this viewpoint.

....reasonable and with-in the bounds of the 2nd are not allowed.

Again, some examples would be nice. I have to say that, from what I've seen (YMMV), objections to gun laws have always
hinged on them not being "reasonable and with-in the bounds of the 2nd".

Some gun laws are both Constitutional and unreasonable - 'approved' lists and magazine size restrictions being foremost...

[safeinOhio]

39. see post 38

for what most Americans, gun owners and NRA members feel is reasonable and constitutional.

[friendly_iconoclast]

57. Read it. And the replies thereto, and all the links given.

Frank Luntz is quite accomplished at parsing an interrogatory sentence, and knows what his clents want to hear.

Bluntly, he's a push-poller and a well paid one. And I will tell you what I'd say to anyone else:

The fact that you like what someone says doesn't mean what they say is true - or that this person is your friend.

[friendly_iconoclast]

79. I'd add that using popularity to define rights has resulted in Proposition 8, for instance.

Further, I find the use of excessive verbiage to promote an unclear agenda suspicious, at best.

[Euromutt]

68. "Reasonable" and "within the bounds of the 2nd" are also malleable terms

If your interpretation of what the 2nd Amendment protects is considerably narrower than mine, then it follows that there will be restrictions that you believe fall "within the bounds of the 2nd" but which I most emphatically do not.

I might add that Obama has, strictly speaking, not signed any pro-RKBA bills; he has signed into law "must-pass" bills on other subjects which had pro-RKBA amendments appended to them. We have yet to see what he'll do when a piece of legislation comes across his desk of which the primary function is to expand gun rights, instead of repealing some footling minor regulations introduced at most 28 years ago.

Frankly, in one post after another, you're just trotting out weasel words; hollow phrases that sound nice but don't actually commit you to anything substantial.

[friendly_iconoclast]

80. Stealth marketing requires one to soft-pedal the message,....

....especially when the 'product' you are trying to pitch has suffered a drastic loss in market share. It tends to fail when people

discover that they are being subjected to a marketing campaign. If they don't catch on to the scam, well... Can you say "Tea Party"?

[Katya Mullethov]

30. He had me at redis....

Stop right there ! Not another syllable ! That's a bit more than enough already .

[zanana1]

3. There's a Republican up here being criticized because...

He voted for stricter gun laws. In the south, that would be a death knell for a candidate. In NH, he'll probably win.

[benEzra]

8. I dunno...NH is one of the more pro-gun states in the nation...

and NH is WAAAY more pro-gun than, say, North Carolina or Alabama (13th and 19th strictest gun laws in the nation, respectively). It depends on how stupid the gun laws in question were that he supported (with the AWB being at the "utterly stupid" end of the spectrum) and who he's running against.

[zanana1]

47. If it's being used against him to GAIN votes....

I'd say NH is less pro-gun than you think. There are polls and statistics out there that would make you think that NH people believe in a gun in every pocket, but then there's reality. And if you live here, you realize that people aren't enamored of guns.

[TheCowsCameHome]

4. They pander to anyone that will give them a vote.

They're whores.

[Katya Mullethov]

9. Did he crawl on his belly in the mud ?

One can successfully hunt for votes with a firearm , but the vast majority insist on using bullshit for bait .

[Callisto32]

13. This...is awesome.

[jazzhound]

21. Very nicely put, Katya!

:thumbsup:

[Callisto32]

12. The fighting Dukaki!

N/T

[SteveM]

14. Yep. I remember that boner (among others) Ann made...

She was listening to some kind of "national audience" (always a mistake in Texas) created by MSM and those in her cultural milieu.

I was just thinking, if I were to run for office, and felt compelled to go hunting for the press, they would have to find me stumbling through sunflower fields on a 100+ day in a public hunting field trying to jump shoot dove. My stinky, torn t-shirt, ripped pants and 50-yr-old Remington Wingmaster would definitely categorize me as "in place." I'd win by a landslide!

[jazzhound]

44. Must say, Steve, that even I don't know

sh*t about hunting, this made me laugh:

I was just thinking, if I were to run for office, and felt compelled to go hunting for the press, they would have to find me stumbling through sunflower fields on a 100+ day in a public hunting field trying to jump shoot dove. My stinky, torn t-shirt, ripped pants and 50-yr-old Remington Wingmaster would definitely categorize me as "in place." I'd win by a landslide!

:rofl:

[SteveM]

81. And they say dove-hunting is so pastoral. Jesus. Not on public fields.

[Euromutt]

16. Frankly, color me unimpressed

I don't hunt. I don't shoot trap/skeet. I own one shotgun, a 12-gauge pump-action with an 18.5" barrel, ghost ring sights with tritium inserts, pistol grip stock, light clamped to the (extended) mag tube, and a side-saddle holding four rounds of 00-buck and two rounds of Hydra-Shok slug to complement the five rounds of 00-buck in the mag tube. It's not set up for waterfowl, if you catch my drift.

As far as I'm concerned, getting your ass photographed trying to blast the snot out of some duck or pheasant doesn't make you pro-RKBA. It makes you a fucking L.L. Bean-wearing preppie. Yes, John Kerry, I am looking at you; and you, Joe Biden (and to be bipartisan, you too, George Herbert Walker Bush). The fact that you used your position to wangle a CCW permit under a regime that denies them to most everyone (New York City) doesn't make you pro-RKBA either, Schumer; it makes you a fucking hypocrite.

Not that I'm impressed by Sharon Angle claiming to CCW a .44 Magnum revolver, or anyone cradling a semi-auto-only AK knockoff. No offense to our own benEzra, but that comes off as someone who wants to impress gun owners, but doesn't actually know enough about firearms to select the right tool for the job.

[one-eyed fat man]

28. Here's a question

How did the practice of loading 3 buckshot followed by a couple slugs in a shotgun get to be called "Dutch loading?"

Is it one of those quaint terms that have nothing to do with nationality like French toast or is there some historical basis?

I have one of those super bright lights affixed to mine as well to comply with humane spirit of the Geneva and Hague conventions. That way the last thing a burglar sees won't be me, naked, in the hallway.

[Euromutt]

33. You actually asked me that in March

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=304267&mesg_id=304452

To be honest, I don't have a clue. In my earlier reply, I pointed out that particularly in American idiom, a lot of things get called "Dutch" that are actually Deutsch, i.e. German (e.g. Pennsylvania Dutch, Dutch baby pancakes). But neither the Dutch nor the Germans have a history of using tubular magazine-fed shotguns. The Dutch marines use Mossberg 590A1s for boarding actions, but that's a very recent development.

[one-eyed fat man]

34. That's what I get

for approaching the Biblical limit of "threescore and ten." Now that you remind me I remember the exchange. At least "Dutch courage" has some history behind it. Rather than a slam on the Dutch as some might suspect, it was the Englishman's acknowledgment that the Dutch invented gin.

That's always been the struggle for any student of a new language, making sense of the idioms.

[Glassunion]

42. The term "Dutch Loading" comes from the American Revolutionary War...

The Dutch Republic who were so pro-American that the British declared war on them in 1780. It might have had something to do with the fact that the Dutch were supplying the Americans with arms. Anyhoo...

The Dutch Navy at the time was no match for the British Royal Navy. In fact at the time the Dutch only had 20 ships and they leaned heavily on the French Navy. But, necessity being the mother of invention, what is one to do when greatly outnumbered by a superior force? Improvise. The Dutch sailors adopted a practice of loading their muskets with what we call "buck and ball". It is the practice of loading a musket with both shot and a ball. The intent of the buck and ball load was to combine the devastating impact of the full-size ball with the spreading pattern of a shotgun, and served to greatly improve the hit probability of the smooth-bore musket used in combat, especially at closer ranges, where the buckshot would retain significant energy. Like when being boarded or while boarding a ship. At ranges of 200 yards and under, the buck and ball from the smooth-bore musket, while less accurate than the rifled musket, actually produces a greater number of hits due to the greater number of projectiles; 37 of 50 Minie balls, vs. 18 of 50 balls and 31 of 150 buckshot, for a total of 49 hits in 50 shots. Beyond this range, the buckshot will have lost sufficient energy to become ineffective due to its lower ballistic coefficient.

Anyhoo... Perhaps the most famous proponent of the buck and ball loading was George Washington, who encouraged his troops to load their muskets with buck and ball loads during the American Revolution. Like the Dutch do it.

What we call "Dutch Loading" today has evolved into simply alternating a load in a firearm.

[jazzhound]

45. Wow. The stuff I learn in this forum! N/T

[Euromutt]

70. Heh. Who knew?

Yeah, we got our asses handed us to us in the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War, in exchange for Britain taking our last colonies in India, trashing our colonies in the Windward Islands, and capturing a shitload of our merchantmen in the West Indies (most of whom weren't aware there was a war on until they got boarded). Mind you, it was the last nail in the coffin of the Netherlands' aspirations toward being a world power, but by no means the first. The decline started almost seventy years earlier.

Ah well, unlike the British, the Dutch still have their gains, namely having a firearm term named after them. Qua patet orbis, as the Dutch marines say ("As wide as the world stretches").

Thanks for that, Glassunion.

[Glassunion]

73. Gotcha... +1 for me...

You may wish to hold onto your thanks. As I was being an asshole. I have no fucking clue where the term "Dutch Loading" comes from. I have often wondered where the term got its meaning, however there is nothing out there that I can find where the term came from. So... I thought that I would have a bit of fun, at someone else's expense and try to come up with a believable(yet complete bullshit) story behind the term.

I was just F'ing with you two.

Sounded good, huh? Don't hate me. :evilgrin:

[Euromutt]

74. You sly dog, you

Yep, you really had me going. That was a pretty convincing explanation. You should be on "Call my Bluff" or "Would I Lie To You?" or some panel game show like that.

I will hate you for maybe five minutes, if I can stop sniggering long enough.

[Glassunion]

75. The beauty of it is...

That in a few weeks after Google crawls the site, it may show up as a solution to the question. If they don't read down thread they may take it as fact.

That's how bullshit becomes fact on the Internet. Sweet!

[jazzhound]

78. Good thing I finished my coffee

before arriving to this thread!

EDITED TO ADD: Why should we be surpised by GU's behavior here? After all, those who own de eebil gunz are eebil by definition, right?

[jazzhound]

77. Hook.......... line........... sinker!!

:rofl:

Too funny!!!

Hate you? Nah -------- quite the contrary! :D

[PavePusher]

40. "Go... towards... the light.... Oh SHIT, wait...!" n/t

[SteveM]

83. Folks have "stacked" ammo in that manner in both and revolvers & shotguns.

I have hog-hunted with an old Stevens 311D 2X2 w/ one bbl a foster slug (modified), and the other 00 buckshot (full). My revolver has 3 x .357 rounds to start; 3 x .38 spls to end.

I think the utility of "stacking" is over blown.

[benEzra]

31. Don't worry, no offense taken!

If someone owns one, shoots one, and knows how to run one, that says a lot more than merely holding one does. Personally, I'd like to see candidates actually learn about the issue and discuss it intelligently...but I suppose people like that grow up to be bloggers, not politicians. :(

One thing I wonder...are the people who are offended by politicians holding guns in publicity shots equally offended if the politician is pandering to the anti-gun crowd?

[Euromutt]

36. Of course not. It's not like DiFi can even pretend she knows what she's doing

That photograph just makes me wince; breech closed, selector lever set to fire and finger on the trigger. In my basic training company, that would have gotten you a swift kick in the pants from a drill instructor.

[benEzra]

48. ...and probably pointed at the guy to her left, to boot. (n/t)

[SteveM]

88. Well, her politics are center-right.

[SteveM]

82. .44 Mag indeed. She's just dickin' with the "professional left."

[rrneck]

17. I'm more impressed with people`

who embrace principles than persona.

[-..__...]

32. Hey, Chuckie...

Nobody needs an "assault weapon" for hunting.

[onehandle]

35. Levi Johnston Targets Voters -- At Gun Shop

Levi Johnston made his first official stop on the campaign trail last weekend -- TMZ has learned ... just one day after declaring his intent to run ... the ex-Playgirl model hit up a gun shop in an effort to connect to his people.

According to a source at Chimo Guns in Wasilla, Alaska -- where Levi plans to run for office -- the famous Palin-impregnator rolled up with a camera crew and played like a politician ... glad-handing everyone and taking advantage of the photo op.

Our source tells us, Levi -- a loyal Chimo customer -- also checked out a few guns -- including a $2,000 Weatherby Ultra Lightweight hunting rifle -- but ultimately didn't buy anything.

We're told Levi talked with some of the employees at the shop about hunting -- but according to our source, the political hopeful hasn't had any time to kill some Dall sheep (Levi's game of choice) ... probably because of the whole reality show thing.

http://www.tmz.com/2010/08/23/levi-johnston-reality-show-mayor-wasilla-alaska-gun-shop-weatherby-ultra-lightweight-hunting-dall-sheep

[rrneck]

37. Did you think you'd have better luck over here?

:rofl:

[oneshooter]

43. Still not showing us His point. Keeps wearing a hat. n/t

[jazzhound]

46. Quite predictable, really, since voicing a clear point

would result in his "point" being quickly demolished.

[Euromutt]

85. Ironically, we'd never have heard of him...

...if he'd worn a "hat" at a more appropriate time, if you know what I mean. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

[SteveM]

84. "...famous Palin impregnator..." Now, stop that Gorn Porn!

[Euromutt]

86. There has to be some joke in there...

...about getting his hands on Bristol's "Bristols," but I can't quite make it work.

[SteveM]

87. "...When they do the Bristol Stomp." Some old pop group?

[Hoopla Phil]

67. When I see a candidate in an IPSC or three gun match then I'll give them

a little credit. Scoring not withstanding of course.