Gordon Fink
Member
Well, buzz, we obviously have different interpretations of the facts.
~G. Fink
~G. Fink
How active will Kerry be against guns?
- Thread starter jefnvk
- Start date
- Status
ninjaj448
Member
Best answer I can come with it to consider what he has done for gun owners up til now. Difficult for me to see anything different if he's elected. By the way, he went goose hunting in Ohio this morning according to the news. Another photo op.
Kerry will stick the screws to us exactly as far as he feels he can get away with without jeopardizing a second term.
Past behavior predicts future behavior. Past behavior for Kerry is screwing and backstabbing anyone and everyone he possibly can for political gain. Lying and spinning himself a new persona to get what he wants. Voting for every single anti-gun bill he's ever seen - including flying back from the campaign trail for just that one vote to screw us.
The Brady Bunch et al would have a friend in the white house again. The anti-gun love fest will make Clinton look like Charlton Heston.
- Gabe
PS: A Kerry presidency will put us one step closer to a Kerry second term. Imagine that: Kerry in the oval office with no re-election to worry about. Kiss your a** goodbye.
Past behavior predicts future behavior. Past behavior for Kerry is screwing and backstabbing anyone and everyone he possibly can for political gain. Lying and spinning himself a new persona to get what he wants. Voting for every single anti-gun bill he's ever seen - including flying back from the campaign trail for just that one vote to screw us.
The Brady Bunch et al would have a friend in the white house again. The anti-gun love fest will make Clinton look like Charlton Heston.
- Gabe
PS: A Kerry presidency will put us one step closer to a Kerry second term. Imagine that: Kerry in the oval office with no re-election to worry about. Kiss your a** goodbye.
If you like low taxes, vote for Bush. Kerry has said he will raise them.
If you like guns, vote for Bush. Kerry has repeatedly voted to ban them.
If you like the US being a super power and acting the part, vote for Bush. Kerry has said he will defer judgement to the UN, France and Germany.
If you think energy and gas prices are high now, wait until Kerry sponsors carbon restrictions on energy companies.
If you would like science to rule policy, such as having proof that a chemical causes problems before banning it, vote for Bush. That is what the EPA and eco-nuts are having a hissy fit over. They can no longer create bogus studies and have the EPA make them laws unless "sound scientific evidence" is shown.
The limit for PCB's in fish is like 500 times lower than the lowest recorded level for health effects in people. For example, if it takes 500 parts per million PCB's over an extended period of time, to start to have effects on a body, then the EPA set the limit for fish at 1 ppm. You would have to eat 500 highly contaminated fish a day for several weeks to have enough PCB's before you to MIGHT have a problem.
All the griping about farmed salmon having over the limit concentration of PCB's such as a fish having 4 ppm, and for women to not eat them is stupid. Scientifically you should tell them "Don't eat a couple hundred fish a day". But to not eat them at all will cause a loss of nutrients a fish has that is healthy for a body which is worse than the extreamly small risk you would have even after eating 10 fish a day for the rest of your life.
If you like guns, vote for Bush. Kerry has repeatedly voted to ban them.
If you like the US being a super power and acting the part, vote for Bush. Kerry has said he will defer judgement to the UN, France and Germany.
If you think energy and gas prices are high now, wait until Kerry sponsors carbon restrictions on energy companies.
If you would like science to rule policy, such as having proof that a chemical causes problems before banning it, vote for Bush. That is what the EPA and eco-nuts are having a hissy fit over. They can no longer create bogus studies and have the EPA make them laws unless "sound scientific evidence" is shown.
The limit for PCB's in fish is like 500 times lower than the lowest recorded level for health effects in people. For example, if it takes 500 parts per million PCB's over an extended period of time, to start to have effects on a body, then the EPA set the limit for fish at 1 ppm. You would have to eat 500 highly contaminated fish a day for several weeks to have enough PCB's before you to MIGHT have a problem.
All the griping about farmed salmon having over the limit concentration of PCB's such as a fish having 4 ppm, and for women to not eat them is stupid. Scientifically you should tell them "Don't eat a couple hundred fish a day". But to not eat them at all will cause a loss of nutrients a fish has that is healthy for a body which is worse than the extreamly small risk you would have even after eating 10 fish a day for the rest of your life.
sumpnz
Member
Just as an aside, WRT eating fish, the real big concern is methyl-mercury. For a healthy adult that is not going to be giving birth it's pretty much a non-issue. For women who are, or intend to become pregnant in the next few years, and for small children it can be a significant problem because even fairly small doses can cause developmental problems in fetuses and children. Even then, it's really the top predatory fish that are problem (e.g. tuna, swordfish/marlin, sharks).
Here endeth the tread drift. Back to our regularly scheduled ranting.
Here endeth the tread drift. Back to our regularly scheduled ranting.
Sumpnz: True, but I was talking only about farmed vs fresh salmon. Unless you are eating hundreds a day, even pregnant women should not worry. Yet eco-nuts want the EPA to do something. Without proof they can't, and that has caused people to leave the EPA.
That is also why Gun tracing reports are now no longer provided. Even the ATF under Clinton tried to use that as a reason for tougher gun laws. There is even one report that says traceing shows what guns criminals like to use and thus the ones that should be banned, then at the end of the report in the appendix it says trace data does not show actual usage or distribution of guns.
Before Bush it was perfectly OK to have 10 valid scientific studies that say PCB's do nothing, yet the EPA will still make a ruling costing Billions of dollars without proof.
Don't get me wrong, the Patriot act sucks and Ashcroft needs to be sent back to whatever past time he came out of.
I disagree with just about everything Kerry stands for this week.
That is also why Gun tracing reports are now no longer provided. Even the ATF under Clinton tried to use that as a reason for tougher gun laws. There is even one report that says traceing shows what guns criminals like to use and thus the ones that should be banned, then at the end of the report in the appendix it says trace data does not show actual usage or distribution of guns.
Before Bush it was perfectly OK to have 10 valid scientific studies that say PCB's do nothing, yet the EPA will still make a ruling costing Billions of dollars without proof.
Don't get me wrong, the Patriot act sucks and Ashcroft needs to be sent back to whatever past time he came out of.
I disagree with just about everything Kerry stands for this week.
mohican
Member
Hmm
everyone is acting like it's a done deal
I'm still pulling for Bush
And then build a groundswell for a true conservative
everyone is acting like it's a done deal
I'm still pulling for Bush
And then build a groundswell for a true conservative
Selfdfenz
Member
Mohican,
"And then build a groundswell for a true conservative"
I fear your search may be better fulfilled by looking outside the Rep. party.
All I find is a sea of moderates, Rockefeller Republicans and Rinos and not much to get excited about.
Sad state of affairs.
S-
"And then build a groundswell for a true conservative"
I fear your search may be better fulfilled by looking outside the Rep. party.
All I find is a sea of moderates, Rockefeller Republicans and Rinos and not much to get excited about.
Sad state of affairs.
S-
- Status
