Lv 733.533 points

strech

Jawaban Favorit22%
Jawaban6.748
Pertanyaan8
  • Who's the best carrier to sent a 1 lb. package overseas?

    Who's better for shipping a package from South Carolina, U.S, to the Netherlands?

    UPS?

    FEDEX?

    Any others?

    Any better category to post this to?

    2 JawabanAircraft7 tahun yang lalu
  • Why does anyone need an assault rifle?

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/26/if-assa...

    The hypocrisy of the government knows no bounds. I have said repeatedly, and continue to say, that I am against all gun control at the moment because our government is extremely violent and not only do I not expect it to protect the American people in general, I believe it is far more concerned with protecting the status quo from the people. It has become crystal clear that the political and financial oligarchs are quite intentionally attempting to disarm the populace while arming themselves to the teeth in anticipation of some horrible economic event they know is inevitable. From the Blaze:

    The Department of Homeland Security is seeking to acquire 7,000 5.56x45mm NATO “personal defense weapons” (PDW) — also known as “assault weapons” when owned by civilians. The solicitation, originally posted on June 7, 2012, comes to light as the Obama administration is calling for a ban on semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines.

    Citing a General Service Administration (GSA) request for proposal (RFP), Steve McGough of RadioViceOnline.com reports that DHS is asking for the 7,000 “select-fire” firearms because they are “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters.” The term select-fire means the weapon can be both semi-automatic and automatic. Civilians are prohibited from obtaining these kinds of weapons.

    That being said, it is reasonable for the Department of Homeland Security to request these rifles as they are indeed effective personal defense weapons. The agency is tasked with keeping Americans safe from those who wish to do the country harm, and its officials should be equipped with all the tools they need to do so effectively.

    See the meme being pushed here? These guys want the entire population completely domesticated. They want us to depend on the government for food. For healthcare. For self-defense. Two sets of laws. One for the “rulers” and one for the “ruled.” This is the opposite of how things function in a free society.

    I am sorry, but unless you think the DHS is preparing for an invasion by Al Qaeda, it is quite clear these weapons are being bought for future use against the citizenry of the United States. The writing on the wall couldn’t be clearer.

    12 JawabanHunting8 tahun yang lalu
  • Why does anyone "need" an assault rifle?

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/26/if-assa...

    The hypocrisy of the government knows no bounds. I have said repeatedly, and continue to say, that I am against all gun control at the moment because our government is extremely violent and not only do I not expect it to protect the American people in general, I believe it is far more concerned with protecting the status quo from the people. It has become crystal clear that the political and financial oligarchs are quite intentionally attempting to disarm the populace while arming themselves to the teeth in anticipation of some horrible economic event they know is inevitable. From the Blaze:

    The Department of Homeland Security is seeking to acquire 7,000 5.56x45mm NATO “personal defense weapons” (PDW) — also known as “assault weapons” when owned by civilians. The solicitation, originally posted on June 7, 2012, comes to light as the Obama administration is calling for a ban on semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines.

    Citing a General Service Administration (GSA) request for proposal (RFP), Steve McGough of RadioViceOnline.com reports that DHS is asking for the 7,000 “select-fire” firearms because they are “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters.” The term select-fire means the weapon can be both semi-automatic and automatic. Civilians are prohibited from obtaining these kinds of weapons.

    That being said, it is reasonable for the Department of Homeland Security to request these rifles as they are indeed effective personal defense weapons. The agency is tasked with keeping Americans safe from those who wish to do the country harm, and its officials should be equipped with all the tools they need to do so effectively.

    See the meme being pushed here? These guys want the entire population completely domesticated. They want us to depend on the government for food. For healthcare. For self-defense. Two sets of laws. One for the “rulers” and one for the “ruled.” This is the opposite of how things function in a free society.

    I am sorry, but unless you think the DHS is preparing for an invasion by Al Qaeda, it is quite clear these weapons are being bought for future use against the citizenry of the United States. The writing on the wall couldn’t be clearer.

    9 JawabanLaw & Ethics8 tahun yang lalu
  • I just got a message from Newell?

    Here's a cut and paste of it:

    "From: Newell

    Subject: Could you do me a favor?

    Message: I don't like you.

    I think you are a disgusting and stupid human being.

    Could you just stay away from my questions?

    There is nothing you have to say that I want to hear.

    Thanks."

    How many points do I get for this?

    13 JawabanHunting8 tahun yang lalu
  • Would anyone agree with "Here's Why Someone Would Need To Own An 'Assault' Rifle"?

    Guns: The left keeps asking why anyone needs an "assault" rifle. Here's one reason — in 2010, a Texas teen used a rifle similar to the one used in Newtown to defend his younger sister and himself from home invaders.

    The left quite often exposes its raging elitism through its odious habit of asking why anyone would need the things that it doesn't like, from guns to big homes to monster trucks.

    The implication is that if the elitists don't want whatever it is, then no one should be allowed to have it — except, of course, it's fine for the elitists themselves to live in energy-sucking mansions, hire armed bodyguards and drive around in gas-guzzling limousines and SUVs.

    When the left asks these questions it also reveals its blinding ignorance. Is there a single Democrat, dense celebrity or condescending journalist who is aware that "assault" rifles don't just define their owners as red necks but also serve as practical protection?

    Actually the total amount of what they don't know about firearms and crime is enough to crush them.

    Consider that, according to FBI data, in 2007, there were 453 homicides by rifle in the U.S. Yes, that's too many. But compare that number to a few other methods of homicide employed that year.

    In 2007, there were 1,817 homicides committed with "knives or cutting instruments"; "blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.)" killed 674; while "personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.)" were the choices in 869 homicides.

    The number of rifle homicides has fallen steadily since then to 323 last year, as have the other three weapon classes, though each still remains a more common choice than the rifle.

    In fact, when added together, knives, blunt instruments and the human body were responsible for more than nine times as many homicides as rifles in 2011.

    Yet no one is asking why anyone would want to own a set of steak knives, place a heavy candelabra on their mantle or have a hammer in their garage.

    The weapon used effectively as protection by the Texas teen was neither a club nor a fist but reportedly an AR-15, a rifle on which the .223-caliber Bushmaster used in the tragic Sandy Hook shootings was modeled.

    Though tagged "assault" weapons, both are merely semi-automatics, just as are many hunting rifles, and all but a handful are used legally and peacefully.

    But elitists on the left don't hunt — they let someone else do their killing — so how could they know?

    None of this is intended to minimize the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary or any other mass shooting.

    It's simply an attempt to point out that a screaming obsession over one particular weapon used less frequently to kill than knives is driven by ignorance, arrogance and a nonexistent sense of proportion.

    9 JawabanPolitics8 tahun yang lalu
  • Would anyone agree with "Here's Why Someone Would Need To Own An 'Assault' Rifle"?

    Guns: The left keeps asking why anyone needs an "assault" rifle. Here's one reason — in 2010, a Texas teen used a rifle similar to the one used in Newtown to defend his younger sister and himself from home invaders.

    The left quite often exposes its raging elitism through its odious habit of asking why anyone would need the things that it doesn't like, from guns to big homes to monster trucks.

    The implication is that if the elitists don't want whatever it is, then no one should be allowed to have it — except, of course, it's fine for the elitists themselves to live in energy-sucking mansions, hire armed bodyguards and drive around in gas-guzzling limousines and SUVs.

    When the left asks these questions it also reveals its blinding ignorance. Is there a single Democrat, dense celebrity or condescending journalist who is aware that "assault" rifles don't just define their owners as red necks but also serve as practical protection?

    Actually the total amount of what they don't know about firearms and crime is enough to crush them.

    Consider that, according to FBI data, in 2007, there were 453 homicides by rifle in the U.S. Yes, that's too many. But compare that number to a few other methods of homicide employed that year.

    In 2007, there were 1,817 homicides committed with "knives or cutting instruments"; "blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.)" killed 674; while "personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.)" were the choices in 869 homicides.

    The number of rifle homicides has fallen steadily since then to 323 last year, as have the other three weapon classes, though each still remains a more common choice than the rifle.

    In fact, when added together, knives, blunt instruments and the human body were responsible for more than nine times as many homicides as rifles in 2011.

    Yet no one is asking why anyone would want to own a set of steak knives, place a heavy candelabra on their mantle or have a hammer in their garage.

    The weapon used effectively as protection by the Texas teen was neither a club nor a fist but reportedly an AR-15, a rifle on which the .223-caliber Bushmaster used in the tragic Sandy Hook shootings was modeled.

    Though tagged "assault" weapons, both are merely semi-automatics, just as are many hunting rifles, and all but a handful are used legally and peacefully.

    But elitists on the left don't hunt — they let someone else do their killing — so how could they know?

    None of this is intended to minimize the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary or any other mass shooting.

    It's simply an attempt to point out that a screaming obsession over one particular weapon used less frequently to kill than knives is driven by ignorance, arrogance and a nonexistent sense of proportion.

    15 JawabanHunting8 tahun yang lalu
  • I figured it was coming?

    I see the liberal left has used the Colorado massacre to advance their (not so) hidden agenda:

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/white-house-giv...

    8 JawabanHunting8 tahun yang lalu
  • What happened to Fart P's question about H-D layoffs?

    It seems Fart P took down his question about Harley laying off people.

    Did too many people slam his stupidity about the business world?

    5 JawabanMotorcycles1 dekade yang lalu