Chicken sh*t Nancy Pelosi!!!!!

[jasper45]

I've not asked anyone to keep quite, only to take the discussion to the appropriate forum.

Well then, what does gun control have again with Nancy Pelosi, off shore drilling, etc... ?

[Tomcat1066]

Just because the Bandwagon engages in a behavior does not make it proper. If most everyone decides to talk on their cellphone during a movie, that doesn't make it kosher. Popularity is irrelevant to the argument.

And what about this is "improper". Threads drift, and they always have and always will. It's not about popularity anyways. It's about the fact that for 18 pages this thread has, more or less, been off topic. There's been discussion about drilling in the ANWR, the gun discussion, the economy, and even a little football.

There's no reason to get worked up about a thread going off topic.

[ThNozzleman]

I've not asked anyone to keep quite, only to take the discussion to the appropriate forum.

These forums take off-topic directions all the time. And for most of us that have been here for years it is one of the things that keeps it interesting for us. Don't like it? Tough.
Shouldn't you be spending more time researching how a TurboDRAFT operates, anyway?

[txgp17]

Isn't freedom of speech a wonderful thing? In Russia, China, and Cuba they don't allow that.

I've not asked anyone to keep quite, only to take the discussion to the appropriate forum.

Nice try. I was asked to name a firearm that had no sporting value. The weapon I named did just that.

You attempted to bait & switch, and failed at both. You insinuated that some overreact when the .gov bans a firearm because it has no sporting purpose. When asked to provide an example, you answered the .50 cal M2 HB. Now you're using the term "sporting value" which is similar, but not the same as "sporting purpose". Either way, your statement will be debunked in two ways: In legal terms and on principal.

First, the "Sporting Purpose" clause is a near absolute power granted to the Attorney General to authorize the importation of rifles and shotguns into the United States only if it is recognized as suitable for sporting purposes. This clause only applies to importation; domestic production is excluded from it. As a requirement of the government contracts regulating their production, all M2’s used by Uncle Sam were produced domestically, thus they cannot be imported, thus each one is excluded from the Attorney General’s authority granted under this law. The details of this can be found in 18 U.S.C. section 925 (d) (3).

Secondly, this sporting purpose clause can only be applied to rifles and shotguns. It cannot be applied to pistols, revolvers, or machine guns. By definition, a M2 is a machine gun; therefore it is excluded (again) from the requirements of the sporting purpose clause.

Finally, I’ll address your hair splitting definition of a firearm that has no sporting value. You wrote “no sporting value”, which is clearly synonymous with “zero sporting value”. If I find just one sport where a 50 cal M2 HB can be used, then a M2 would have “some” sporting value, thus making your statement false.

I refer you to the “Classes Of Competition” found on page 5 of the Official Match Rules and By Laws of the Fifty Caliber Shooter’s Association, Inc, an organization dedicated to advancing the sporting uses of the .50 BMG cartridge. They have 16 shooting competitions scheduled for 2008.

Paragraph 3 details the requirements for any firearm used in the Unlimited Class which reads: “Any barreled receiver that fires a bullet with a diameter of .510/.511 inches.” Though it’s called a “50”, the actual diameter of a 50 BMG’s projectile is .510” to .511”. Clearly, an M2 machine gun falls into this broad category. And in the used firearm market there are several M2’s that are available for private ownership and are presently for sale. That means we can buy an M2, and use it for sport shooting at FCSA shooting matches, thus an M2 HB has “some” sporting value, and it would have a sporting purpose.

Your Sporting Purpose/Value misconception has been busted. Look on the bright side: At least you didn't deny being the first person to hijack the thread.

And the big question is...so what? You're the only one who seems to be bothered by it.

Just because the Bandwagon engages in a behavior does not make it proper. If most everyone decides to talk on their cellphone during a movie, that doesn't make it kosher. Popularity is irrelevant to the argument.

[doughesson]

Nice try. I was asked to name a firearm that had no sporting value. The weapon I named did just that.

Where does it say that firearms may only be owned for sport?
Back on subject,this morning,Nancy was quoted on Fox about how she'd support debating drilling if it included a broad range of topics.
Most likely she wants to insure that spills are harshly punished and those that spill or harm the environment are slammed as well.
Maybe she needs to go out on a drill rig and try to explain to the people working there how to do their jobs.I wonder how that would be received:as help or an insult?
If she thinks that drill crews don't know how to do their jobs without tearing up the planet,maybe she shouldn't run for re-election but instead open a school where she can teach oil companies how they should be accomplishing their mission statement.

[ScareCrow57]

I believe I've discovered your true identity.


Bill Clinton.

Now that is funny right there, I don't care who you are.

But back on topic, it looks like Nancy is coming down off her high and is coming to her senses. Seems she is now willing to listen to the people and bring this to a vote. Perhaps America will become more self sufficient by using our own natural resources instead of someone elses. I did have to laugh though. Her claim was she was trying to "save the planet". Somebody needs to explain to her that the planet includes the entire globe, not just he USA. What is the difference if the oil is drilled in Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, the Middle East, Alaska, or off shore?

[DaSharkie]

We have both conservative and liberal newspapers in the LA and OC areas. Both are circling the drain. I won't miss the OC rag. They are on a jihad against all public servants. Especially fire and police. The usual overpaid and underworked BS.

Like I said, when you push an AGENDA with your "reporting" then people will go elsewhere for the facts.

Thank you for re-stating what I wrote.

[scfire86]

Actually, that would depend on how you define sport.

I believe I've discovered your true identity.


Bill Clinton.

[Tomcat1066]

The thread was first derailed by scfire86 when he failed miserably to use a firearm topic in an attempt to show hypocrisy in the political spectrum. A .50 cal M2 HB was never banned because it lacked a "sporting purpose." But at least thats a "political" issue.

Since this thread is actually supposed to be about Pelosi turning off the lights and microphones in the House prematurely, the sidetrack actually happened on page 1, when it became about oil and drilling in the ANWR. So, for 18 pages now, this thread hasn't been about the original topic.

And the big question is...so what? You're the only one who seems to be bothered by it.

[ScareCrow57]

Nice try. I was asked to name a firearm that had no sporting value. The weapon I named did just that.

Actually, that would depend on how you define sport. While attending a recent conference in Las Vegas I found out they has a firing range where you could go to shoot. They even had fully auto weapons you could rent. A lot of people were interested. I however, could have cared less. I got to shoot all the fully auto weapns I wanted while serving my country. And it didn't cost me a thing. There is a thrill though of pulling the trigger and just letting them rip.

[scfire86]

The thread was first derailed by scfire86 when he failed miserably to use a firearm topic in an attempt to show hypocrisy in the political spectrum. A .50 cal M2 HB was never banned because it lacked a "sporting purpose." But at least thats a "political" issue.

Nice try. I was asked to name a firearm that had no sporting value. The weapon I named did just that.

[ScareCrow57]

"Originally Posted by jasper45
Nobody is stopping you from posting comments about anything you want anywhere you want to."

That's one of the problems with these forums. And because there is no one stopping us from doing it, is not justification for doing it. Your assertion that you can do what you want cause there's nobody around to stop you is akin to a 8 year old who raids the cookie jar when there's no baby sitter. You know you shouldn't do it, but you choose to do otherwise.

Isn't freedom of speech a wonderful thing? In Russia, China, and Cuba they don't allow that.

[txgp17]

Are you one of these college educated guys that's a firefighter because you have to be to become a chief using your English degree for the bachelor's requirement?

Are you one of these high school educated guys that's a firefighter because he flunked out of college? I've been a Firefighter much longer than I've had a degree, and none of them are in English or Literature. I'm a firefighter because I like helping others. I'm a college graduate because I wanted to better myself and open opportunities in the future. What's your excuse?

Learn to read a bit before you criticize someone's writing.

WTF? It's my fault because you lack the ability to adequately express your thoughts. The keyboard is clearly marked yet you fail to use it. Nice way to spin the responsibility.

The second half of that sentence (you know, after the and) is a rhetorical question, hence the question mark.

There is nothing about that sentence that resembles a question, except for the punctuation mark at the end.

It was saying, if this thread has been off-topic for quite some time ("quite a while"), why did you feel the need to say anything on page 17,

Maybe your settings are different, but my post was on page 9. Your math sucks as much as your writing.

And just for argument's sake, it went off-topic as soon as the discussion went to oil production and potential solutions, which was on page one.

Oil production is one of the key issues here. Pelosi shutdown things before a vote could take place on oil production, yet you think discussing oil production is off topic. Please explain that rational.

Speaking of hypocrisy, isn't a bit hypocritical to spin the thread in a whole new direction with this petty BS? (another rhetorical question, like the orgy and football one)

It's not petty, it's one of the foundations of an online decorum. I concede that it's hypocritical, but so is a Police Car that speeds to catch up to a car he just caught speeding. Just how constructive do you think a forum can be when it gets plundered with drivel about a completely unrelated topic?

[Catch22]

I didn't miss a point because your post didn't ask for an explanation. Read it again: It was written as a statement, but it ended with a question mark, and it didn't ask for a reason. Yet you get your panties in a wad cause I didn't supply one. Try brushing up on your writing skills before criticize someone for not reading your mind. But I'll make an attempt to pacify you.

The thread was first derailed by scfire86 when he failed miserably to use a firearm topic in an attempt to show hypocrisy in the political spectrum. A .50 cal M2 HB was never banned because it lacked a "sporting purpose." But at least thats a "political" issue.

Talking about the NFL in this thread makes as much sense as showing Queer Eye for the Straight Guy reruns on Spike TV.
It doesn't matter whether I love or hate the game. This thread is about Nanci Pelosi and her actions in preventing a vote on increased offshore drilling.

If you want to criticize or fantasize about Brett Favre, it's none of my business, but at at least take the discussion over to the Sports Sub-Forum. Your argument here holds no water. No one wants to click on a "Brett Favre" thread and read about Nancy Pelosi.

Are you one of these college educated guys that's a firefighter because you have to be to become a chief using your English degree for the bachelor's requirement? Learn to read a bit before you criticize someone's writing. The second half of that sentence (you know, after the and) is a rhetorical question, hence the question mark. It was saying, if this thread has been off-topic for quite some time ("quite a while"), why did you feel the need to say anything on page 17, which didn't really require an answer, but you gave one nonetheless. You're about as quick to respond as the webteam and get about as much done in your new role.

And just for argument's sake, it went off-topic as soon as the discussion went to oil production and potential solutions, which was on page one.

Speaking of hypocrisy, isn't a bit hypocritical to spin the thread in a whole new direction with this petty BS? (another rhetorical question, like the orgy and football one)

[txgp17]

You missed the point. If you're going to appoint yourself a forum police officer, why did you wait until the 17th page when it started the spiral at page one?

I didn't miss a point because your post didn't ask for an explanation. Read it again:

This thing has been off topic for quite a while and now you think you need to point it out?

It was written as a statement, but it ended with a question mark, and it didn't ask for a reason. Yet you get your panties in a wad cause I didn't supply one. Try brushing up on your writing skills before criticize someone for not reading your mind. But I'll make an attempt to pacify you.

The thread was first derailed by scfire86 when he failed miserably to use a firearm topic in an attempt to show hypocrisy in the political spectrum. A .50 cal M2 HB was never banned because it lacked a "sporting purpose." But at least thats a "political" issue.

Talking about the NFL in this thread makes as much sense as showing Queer Eye for the Straight Guy reruns on Spike TV.

Do you have something against orgies and football?

It doesn't matter whether I love or hate the game. This thread is about Nanci Pelosi and her actions in preventing a vote on increased offshore drilling.

If you want to criticize or fantasize about Brett Favre, it's none of my business, but at at least take the discussion over to the Sports Sub-Forum quit cluttering other threads. Your argument here holds no water. No one wants to click on a "Brett Favre" thread and read about Nancy Pelosi.