dh777 Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 WTF is nilgai? A big a$$ ugly antelope from in South Texas imported from India. The skin is an inch thick. It will fill the freezer with some excellent meat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nilgai I went out and bought a nice .338 mag just for this trip. Something I could not have done under this candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hawkins Posted February 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 tesgt350, you brought up taxes. what is your thinking as far as income tax? I like the idea of a Flat Tax based on your income. Also....... To save Government Time and BS, I truely feel that when you get your W2 Form from your Employer or Employers, and your Earnings add up to less then $30,000.00 for the Year, you just Sign it and mail it in with out filling out anymore Paper Work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hawkins Posted February 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 A big a$$ ugly antelope from in South Texas imported from India. The skin is an inch thick. It will fill the freezer with some excellent meat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nilgai I went out and bought a nice .338 mag just for this trip. Something I could not have done under this candidate. The Rifle you use for that, is it the same types used by Snipers in the Army? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dh777 Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 The Rifle you use for that, is it the same types used by Snipers in the Army? No. They use .223 and .308 ---- point made, you need to be educated on the issues before you speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cobrakalas427 Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 When you give a speech in public, use a podium that says "OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT WANNABE". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hawkins Posted February 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 No. They use .223 and .308 ---- point made, you need to be educated on the issues before you speak. I was asked a question and I answered it as honestly as possible. I have read to many stories where Hunters using Long Range Rifles have fatally shot someone hundreds of Yards away. The Hunter always say that they thought it was a Deer, Bear or what every they were hunting, but they never could explain how they failed to see the Orange Vest. When it comes to Guns, I will refuse to take away your Rights to Own them (unless you are a Felon) I truly believe that you have the Right to Bare Arms and Own Guns. Do I want to put a Limit on how many you can own? Yes. I will consider lifting some of the limits if you have served in the United States Military. I would consider limiting the Ban to just Full Automatic and Machine Guns and raising the Number of Guns you can Own to 6 of each, more then that you will have to get a Collectors License and renew it every 5 years, but in return, Gun Owners must Pass a Safety Course every 5 Years and Title their Guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hawkins Posted February 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 What are some other Topics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
69dejavue Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 OK:I never said anything about Semi-Auto Guns. Why on earth would you need to own more Guns then what I listed? High Powered Rifles are for Snipers, why would you need a High Powered Rifle for Hunting when Regular Rifles will do? With all due respect you have already proven to be a politician. You want to ban high powered rifles without defining. The most common sniper rifle is the 308 caliber. This is also used for deer and high powered rifle matches. Shooting matches are a sport. A very disciplined sport. When you ask why would one need to own more than the guns you listed how about if I limit your horsepower to 200 as that will do. You don't NEED more than I listed. Sadly, you are a liberal that decides that you know what we need rather than letting us make that decision. You have chosen completely arbitrary numbers, without any statistical data to support, and decided to tell us what we need. As I stated before the crime rate has dropped since 1991 and there are more guns in the US now than ever before. So what is your rationale for gun control? You keep avoiding the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svttim Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 OK:I never said anything about Semi-Auto Guns. Why on earth would you need to own more Guns then what I listed? High Powered Rifles are for Snipers, why would you need a High Powered Rifle for Hunting when Regular Rifles will do? Define High Power? OK< if your serious. Its about freedom. Since I am a law abiding citizen, What threat do I pose? You would be correct if you said none. Gun laws only restrict legal gun owners, Criminals dont care if they break one more law. Some people treat thier guns like they do thier Shelby's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
69dejavue Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 Tes, if you make high powered rifles (still undefined) illegal you have just made felons out of thousands of people that shoot these rifles in competition on a weekly or monthly basis. Not to mention the thousands of hunters. In addition you propose registering all weapons and licenses. Let me tell you why many are against this. They do not trust their government. Other countries have tried the same ploy of telling everyone to register every weapon. Then they conveniently have a list to go door to door and confiscate. The first duties of every government should be the protection of its citizens and the protection of their rights. Everything else will fall into place. Government should be there to protect but not be the nanny state where we expect the government to do everything for us including balancing our checkbook and providing health care insurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
69dejavue Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 Let me offer a thought about reducing crime and prisons. After the third conviction for a serious offense the person is given a choice. Life without parole or........deportation. They must renounce their citizenship and are deported to another country, preferably 3rd world. That person is given 25 K and 10K for each member of their family they take with them. The government of that 3rd world country will receive 50 K for accepting them. That government knows they will now have millions of US dollars in their country. When you consider we pay over 50K a year to house prisoners it is a bargain. Of course extremely serious offenses receive the death penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dh777 Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 I was asked a question and I answered it as honestly as possible. I have read to many stories where Hunters using Long Range Rifles have fatally shot someone hundreds of Yards away. The Hunter always say that they thought it was a Deer, Bear or what every they were hunting, but they never could explain how they failed to see the Orange Vest. When it comes to Guns, I will refuse to take away your Rights to Own them (unless you are a Felon) I truly believe that you have the Right to Bare Arms and Own Guns. Do I want to put a Limit on how many you can own? Yes. I will consider lifting some of the limits if you have served in the United States Military. I would consider limiting the Ban to just Full Automatic and Machine Guns and raising the Number of Guns you can Own to 6 of each, more then that you will have to get a Collectors License and renew it every 5 years, but in return, Gun Owners must Pass a Safety Course every 5 Years and Title their Guns. OK - let's look a a few things. There is a big difference in murder or intentionally killing someone and an accidental shooting. So.... I am going to go out on a limb here and say this with nothing to back me up; but I would be willing to bet that more people are killed from car accidents than accidental shootings. On top of that, I will also bet that more people are kill in wrecks with over powered cars each year than all the accidental shootings each year. So, to bring the car comparison back in, do you want too limit car horsepower also. To but things in perspective and to ask another question, my grandparents were murdered in their own house. There was not a gun used. Everyone knew who the criminal was but did not have enough to convict him. He was on the loose for 8 years before they locked him up. He had every reason to come after me and the rest of my family during that time. That is when I built up my arsenal and became a proficient shooter because there was no way the cops could protect me. The guy was on death row and finally executed. Question - what is you stance on the death penalty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hawkins Posted February 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 OK - let's look a a few things. There is a big difference in murder or intentionally killing someone and an accidental shooting. So.... I am going to go out on a limb here and say this with nothing to back me up; but I would be willing to bet that more people are killed from car accidents than accidental shootings. On top of that, I will also bet that more people are kill in wrecks with over powered cars each year than all the accidental shootings each year. So, to bring the car comparison back in, do you want too limit car horsepower also. To but things in perspective and to ask another question, my grandparents were murdered in their own house. There was not a gun used. Everyone knew who the criminal was but did not have enough to convict him. He was on the loose for 8 years before they locked him up. He had every reason to come after me and the rest of my family during that time. That is when I built up my arsenal and became a proficient shooter because there was no way the cops could protect me. The guy was on death row and finally executed. Question - what is you stance on the death penalty? To your First Point: All Cars are Registered Titled and Taged. The Death Penalty: I am totally For it. I will expand on this soon as it is on my List as well as Equal Rights and Affirmative Action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svttim Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 Well, most of your stands are pretty much on although I would prefer a consumption tax as opposed to an income tax. esdy to collect and fair accross the board. Makes the IRS a much smaller organization. Your gun argument is extreemly week. Here is why as others have pointed out. You arbitrarily outlaw types of guns and numbers. In the end, it will do what? Nothing. Licensing guns is the first step to seizure. That does not mean you would be the one doing the seizing. Your predesessors could do that very easily. Gun ownership keeps our enemy's in check, both foriegn and domestic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hawkins Posted February 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 Well, most of your stands are pretty much on although I would prefer a consumption tax as opposed to an income tax. esdy to collect and fair accross the board. Makes the IRS a much smaller organization. Your gun argument is extreemly week. Here is why as others have pointed out. You arbitrarily outlaw types of guns and numbers. In the end, it will do what? Nothing. It is a start to slow Crime. Citizens Safety is the Issue. Licensing guns is the first step to seizure. That does not mean you would be the one doing the seizing. Your predesessors could do that very easily. Gun ownership keeps our enemy's in check, both foriegn and domestic. I believe in Gun Ownership, always will be for it. I never said that you couldn't own Guns, I just want to Limit how many and what types. I believe in Personal Safety and Protection, Hunting and sport Shooting. I also believe that Every Gun should come with a Title. To clear up some things........ to me, a High Powered Rifle is one that can Shoot 1000 Yards with little drop. You do not need a Teck 9 to Hunt. You do not need a Machinegun to Hunt. You do not need a 32 Round Clip to Hunt. 16 Shot Clips are plenty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hawkins Posted February 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 Death Penalty & Crime: I believe in the use of the Death Penalty. That will not change. But, for this to work, evidence must be true. I also feel that since some People do not believe in the Death Penalty, that if someone committed a Murder that the immediate Family (Parents, Spouse, Adult Children) should have a say in the choice of either the Death Penalty or Life with out Parole for the Suspect. I believe that when you Get a Drivers License for the First Time you should be Finger Printed and your Prints put into the FBI Data base. The next time those that already have a Drivers License renew them, they will be Finger Printed. I also believe that DNA should be entered into the Data Base as well. This will slow down a lot of Crime, as well as help solve past Crimes. If you have not done any Crimes and do not plan to do any Crimes, this should not be a problem. The excuse that you do not want the Government knowing all about you does not do it for me. I do believe in Smaller Government and the Government working for the People. I also believe that anyone aiding a Fugitive should be charged with “Accessory After the Fact” to the same crimes as the Fugitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stump_breaker Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 As POTUS it is not your responsibility to make new rules. It would be your responsibility to enforce the constitution as written and give power back to the states to govern the people. I do not want a man in Washington making 400k a year + making the rules for me who knows nothing about me. That is what I elect representatives from my district to the State capitol. Washington is too big and to powerful as they are and IMO your're going about this the wrong way. For example, your limit on gun ownership is your opinion since you don't see the need to own more than x amount of guns. Frankly that is not a decision for anyone but the owner/purchaser to make. If I want to own 15 9mm pistols then that is my right and no politician should curb my right based on their opinion. Representives are not there to enforce their opinion's on the people. Please define "high powered". My .22 Marlin that can shoot 1.5 miles under the right conditions or my .303 with a muzzle velocity of ~2500 FPS? Like I said IMO and it would seem I'm in the minority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svttim Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 I believe in Gun Ownership, always will be for it. I never said that you couldn't own Guns, I just want to Limit how many and what types. I believe in Personal Safety and Protection, Hunting and sport Shooting. I also believe that Every Gun should come with a Title. To clear up some things........ to me, a High Powered Rifle is one that can Shoot 1000 Yards with little drop. You do not need a Teck 9 to Hunt. You do not need a Machinegun to Hunt. You do not need a 32 Round Clip to Hunt. 16 Shot Clips are plenty. You are into states rights issues now. Example, in Wisconsin, you cant hunt with a weapon that holds more than 4 rounds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hawkins Posted February 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 Equal Rights and Affirmative Action: I truly believe in Equal Rights. Every US Citizen should be Treated Equally. I also believe in ending Affirmative Action. A company should not be made to hire anyone. The Government is not writing the Paychecks therefore, it is not the Governments business to tell you who to hire. I will end Government Funds to ALL Non US Citizens collecting Social Security, Wel-Fare, Medi-Care, Food Stamps, Subsidized Housing, Etc. I believe America First. I believe no more Government Funding for Projects in other Countries if we have not fix those problems in the United States yet. I also believe that Since all States receive Government Funding, that each State should be Audited every 3 Years to make sure they are not wasting the Money and that it is used on what it is supposed to be used for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hawkins Posted February 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 As POTUS it is not your responsibility to make new rules. It would be your responsibility to enforce the constitution as written and give power back to the states to govern the people. I do not want a man in Washington making 400k a year + making the rules for me who knows nothing about me. That is what I elect representatives from my district to the State capitol. Washington is too big and to powerful as they are and IMO your're going about this the wrong way.For example, your limit on gun ownership is your opinion since you don't see the need to own more than x amount of guns. Frankly that is not a decision for anyone but the owner/purchaser to make. If I want to own 15 9mm pistols then that is my right and no politician should curb my right based on their opinion. Representives are not there to enforce their opinion's on the people. Please define "high powered". My .22 Marlin that can shoot 1.5 miles under the right conditions or my .303 with a muzzle velocity of ~2500 FPS? Like I said IMO and it would seem I'm in the minority. I will admit that I do not know much about Guns, but unless you are a Sniper in the Military, you do not need a Gun that will shoot 1.5 Miles, but yes, that is just MHO. I know that there are many people that feel that they do need a Gun that will shoot that Far........ Will you tell me why you must have a Gun that will shoot that Far please? I am Sincere and seriously would like to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hawkins Posted February 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 You are into states rights issues now. Example, in Wisconsin, you cant hunt with a weapon that holds more than 4 rounds Glad you fixed that......... Personally yes, Hunting Laws should be a State issue, I would perfer 6 rounds for Hunting. Since a lot of People move State to State on a regular basis, I think Gun "Ownership" Laws should be National. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dh777 Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 I will admit that I do not know much about Guns, but unless you are a Sniper in the Military, you do not need a Gun that will shoot 1.5 Miles, but yes, that is just MHO. I know that there are many people that feel that they do need a Gun that will shoot that Far........ Will you tell me why you must have a Gun that will shoot that Far please? I am Sincere and seriously would like to know. I'm done - you lost me and probably many others. You just don't get it because you just don't know. I like most everything else you have said but you just don't get this point. I have no problem with any of your other gun issues other that limiting the amount. What's the problem - you can only shoot 1 or maybe 2 at a time so what's the big deal if I want to own 8. What is the point of the limitation other than you just don't think people need that many. Maybe I don't think you need as many Mustangs as you have.... they are dangerous and could accidentally kill someone. Sure you can only drive one at a time... but what's the point. There is no reason for someone to have as many deadly mustangs as you have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stump_breaker Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 I will admit that I do not know much about Guns, but unless you are a Sniper in the Military, you do not need a Gun that will shoot 1.5 Miles, but yes, that is just MHO. I know that there are many people that feel that they do need a Gun that will shoot that Far........ Will you tell me why you must have a Gun that will shoot that Far please? I am Sincere and seriously would like to know. A .22 is a small caliber varmit/plinking rifle one might use to defend their place from coyotes, skunks or other nuisance critters or just general for fun target shooting since it's cheap. As I said "under the right conditions" (which would be extreme) it will go 1.5 miles but it is not designed to do so. A .303 British can shoot through a tree trunk with the FMJ's I have. It was a rifle handed down to me through the family so would I go out and buy one? Probably not. I'm more of a shotgun/smaller caliber person but the fact still remains that if a person wants to buy one why should they be restricted just because someone does not understand the need? There are lots of things in this world not needed and opinion should never come up in enforcing the constitution. And before one says "guns kill people", I have a 9mm about 2' from my head everynight loaded and it has yet to kill me. My wife has a .32 about 2' from head everynight and the last time I checked she was still breathing, although snoring loudly. Before one can "make rules" on guns one should be at least a litle bit knowledgble about them and that is not a snide remark made toward you. I know of no gun that does not drop at 1000 yds (3000 ft) as you described a high powered rifle. Now I am all for training and responsibility. As far as your "guns should have a title" comment they basically do now. The last few I've bought had a form with all my info sent in to the Gov. and the the sales slip which must be kept in case of theft or other.The form has the S/N and description and the records must be kept forever by the licesened gun seller which in itself if proving a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frydguy79 Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 I have decided to RUN FOR PRESIDENT. My platform will be Education, Limiting Government Spending, Ending PORK, Limiting Campaign Contributions, just to name a few. Since I hardly sleep at night, I will work on explaining my Platform and post it hear. Once that happens, I will encourage anyone to ask Questions (please be serious) and I will work on answering them. My Campaign Slogan will be "SUPERCHARGING GOVERNMENT FOR BETER PERFORMANCE". David T. Hawkins David i think it is great that you are willing to step up to the plate, as in a year or two eveerybody in the nation will running from our current one and we will need one on the ballott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dh777 Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 BTW - what would happen if I did only have 3 rifles and I inherited 3 from my father and 3 from my grandfather. They are not antiques or anything - they are relatively new rifles so I don't think they would fall under your "collector" status. Let's just for grins say they were nasty assault rifles; but they have been handed down to me. What an I suppose to do with that. Hand them over to you or have them confiscated? What kind of government is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torch40 Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 " I also believe that Since all States receive Government Funding, that each State should be Audited every 3 Years to make sure they are not wasting the Money and that it is used on what it is supposed to be used for." Sounds a lot like total Federal control over the states. Exactly how are you proposing to "audit" the states? Who gets to decide what the "money is supposed to used for"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hawkins Posted February 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 A .22 is a small caliber varmit/plinking rifle one might use to defend their place from coyotes, skunks or other nuisance critters or just general for fun target shooting since it's cheap. As I said "under the right conditions" (which would be extreme) it will go 1.5 miles but it is not designed to do so. A .303 British can shoot through a tree trunk with the FMJ's I have. It was a rifle handed down to me through the family so would I go out and buy one? Probably not. I'm more of a shotgun/smaller caliber person but the fact still remains that if a person wants to buy one why should they be restricted just because someone does not understand the need? There are lots of things in this world not needed and opinion should never come up in enforcing the constitution. And before one says "guns kill people", I have a 9mm about 2' from my head everynight loaded and it has yet to kill me. My wife has a .32 about 2' from head everynight and the last time I checked she was still breathing, although snoring loudly. Before one can "make rules" on guns one should be at least a litle bit knowledgble about them and that is not a snide remark made toward you. I know of no gun that does not drop at 1000 yds (3000 ft) as you described a high powered rifle. Now I am all for training and responsibility. As far as your "guns should have a title" comment they basically do now. The last few I've bought had a form with all my info sent in to the Gov. and the the sales slip which must be kept in case of theft or other.The form has the S/N and description and the records must be kept forever by the licesened gun seller which in itself if proving a problem. Thanks for the lesson, Greatly appreciated. I still say Ban Personal Ownership of all Full Auto and Machine Guns. I still believe in having Transferable Titles with every Gun just like with cars. I will let up on the Number of Guns but will increase the Penalty for the use of a Weapon in the commission of a Crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hawkins Posted February 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 " I also believe that Since all States receive Government Funding, that each State should be Audited every 3 Years to make sure they are not wasting the Money and that it is used on what it is supposed to be used for." Sounds a lot like total Federal control over the states. Exactly how are you proposing to "audit" the states? Who gets to decide what the "money is supposed to used for"? Federal Money is already dictated on what it is used for.......Roads, Education, etc....... It is not supposed to be used for Personal political agendas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dh777 Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 ......but will increase the Penalty for the use of a Weapon in the commission of a Crime. That's already been done I don't think you can increase it any more - just need to enforce existing laws, not make new ones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hawkins Posted February 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 That's already been done I don't think you can increase it any more - just need to enforce existing laws, not make new ones Yeah, we have the 10-20-Life Law here......... I would also add that, if you are a convicted Fellon and in possesion of a Gun, you go back for Life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.