Obama will be assassinated if he wins...

[badnarik]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

From my understanding the second range where gained the 191 ss (sharp shooter) was a range with a longer distance. Back then, not all ranges were uniform as they were today.



I found this in Wiki, I can get my books out of storage to confirm this, but it should also be confirm able through the Warren Report.

I would be interested to know how it was set up back then if you can get that information easily. I spent 6 years in the Marines and shot at several different ranges. All of them had firing lines at 200, 300, and 500 yards. Kennedy's head probably looked like a beach ball to Oswald.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by badnarik

I would be interested to know how it was set up back then if you can get that information easily. I spent 6 years in the Marines and shot at several different ranges. All of them had firing lines at 200, 300, and 500 yards. Kennedy's head probably looked like a beach ball to Oswald.

I can probably grab some books out of storage on the weekend if you want to wait that long.

I don't think that those books cover range construction though

I do know that when I served up here there were range inconsistencies and conditions and they took those into account.

For example Wainwrights range was considered to be more difficult then the range at Sarcee because of the wind conditions over distance.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by badnarik

I would be interested to know how it was set up back then if you can get that information easily. I spent 6 years in the Marines and shot at several different ranges. All of them had firing lines at 200, 300, and 500 yards. Kennedy's head probably looked like a beach ball to Oswald.

Unfortunately beyond the type of rifle that Oswald used, I haven't been able to dig up much on the power of the scope that he used. But yeah, if you sat at the window that Oswald shot from, rested your arms on the sill and looked at the distance, hitting Kennedy wasn't an extraordinary shot.

[badnarik]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I can probably grab some books out of storage on the weekend if you want to wait that long.

I don't think that those books cover range construction though

Don't worry about the books. I thought maybe you had the range information handy.

Oswald shot his 212 score likely on the same range where I qualified in boot camp 35 years later.

He was in second battalion then became a radar guy and went to Japan. That's all eerily familiar to what I did.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by badnarik

Don't worry about the books. I thought maybe you had the range information handy.

Oswald shot his 212 score likely on the same range where I qualified in boot camp 35 years later.

He was in second battalion then became a radar guy and went to Japan. That's all eerily familiar to what I did.

Funny thing about Oswald, he was dishonorably discharged, never rose above the rank of PFC, but he took his exams for promotion to Corporal and passed those with flying color.

Out of curiosity, just to get some perspective, do you remember your rifle qualification scores?

[Shawnski]

Not sure if Obama will be assassinated, but it's a pretty good bet that if he gets into the Whitehouse an intern will turn up dead due to choking.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Actually, the United States Supreme Court made the correct decision. The whole abortion discussion is about the rights of one individual, that being the pregnant woman. She has the right to control what happens to her, and to her body. If she so elects to have any procedure that affects her body, that is her constitutional right. The fact that she carries a fetus is irrelevant, as that fetus is NOT protected under the constitution.

By letter of the law, the constitution protects all American citizens and legal residents. A fetus is NOT considered an American citizen. It is not considered eligible for citizenship until it has a registered birth certificate, so the baby must be born to be afforded rights and protections of the United States constitution as an identified citizen. Until that point, that fetus is still considered part of the mother, who has complete choice of control over her body, unless under the age of majority.

CalgaryBornAgain stated "They were/are only suppose to interpret the Constitution; Not add to it." In fact, if Roe v. Wade were over-turned, and protections for unborn fetuses put into the constitution, the document would indeed be changed to support the moral or religious beliefs of one segment of the population. The constitution is just fine as it is, especially when it comes to individual freedoms. No further amendments are required, especially ones that limit the decisions that citizens can make in regards to their own bodies.

BTW, you disagree with this and institute constitutional protections for a fetus, you completely open the door to challenges for any illegal that enters the country. Because you afford rights of a citizen to an unborn fetus, any woman carrying a fetus in the United States is carrying a United States citizen. You can't boot the illegal because that fetus has been designated a US citizen. You think you have an illegal problem now? Just wait for stupid legislation like that to be implemented.

Oh, I'm not arguing that it wouldn't be a mess, and that a woman has a right to control her body. That's why I said it might be something left untouched. I just said he's opposed to Roe v. Wade because he's against judicial legislation, not some redneck agenda.

Of course, if you murder an illegal alien, its still murder... no different than if it was a signed and sealed American citizen, even though the US Constitution does not guarantee their rights. That's something that the pro-lifers might point to.

As well, they might also claim that a pregnant woman is sharing her body with another life, which they consider valued, therefore it would be unlawful to destroy it... sort of in the same vein as the Endangered Species Act (1973). Not everybody cares about the status of Endangered Species, but enough did to have legislation on their protection...I'm not so sure that the "not a recognized person" concept would hold up too well in a prolonged debate, since they wouldn't have to declare a fetus as a person to protect its right to thrive.

(not that I necessarily agree with these arguments)

Like I said, its a mess, a very big mess... and I think if I'm McCain, I let that one go.

[Vulcan]

What I remember of the Kennedy assassination , besides the shock and sense of loss, is that the powers that be released very little information and stuck to there simplistic story. I never heard any plausible motive other than laying it on a wacko Communist. Even the Warren Commission, which the public awaited for answers, released little and locked the records for years to come. The public were treated like mushrooms and so lots of conspiracy theories came out, even accusing LB Johnson and Texas oilmen of orchestrating it with Oswald working for the CIA. This subsequent distrust was probably one of the reasons for the 60's youth rebellion.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Oh, I'm not arguing that it wouldn't be a mess, and that a woman has a right to control her body. That's why I said it might be something left untouched. I just said he's opposed to Roe v. Wade because he's against judicial legislation, not some redneck agenda.

Of course, if you murder an illegal alien, its still murder... no different than if it was a signed and sealed American citizen, even though the US Constitution does not guarantee their rights. That's something that the pro-lifers might point to.

Again, to consider the termination of a fetus "murder" they would first have to define that the fetus was a living entity, capable of supporting its own life, thus being considered a person and afforded the rights under the United States constitution. The constitution would have to be altered to afford rights to the unborn fetus.

As well, they might also claim that a pregnant woman is sharing her body with another life, which they consider valued, therefore it would be unlawful to destroy it...

Problem there is that the fetus would have the be considered life, and alive, again capable of sustaining its own life, to be afforded this protection. I guess that if someone has a tumor growing in their body, or is the host to a parasite, medicine is no longer able to remove those entities. God forbid someone has a parasitic twin that needs removal.

Also, you want to write into law that the body is to be protected in every way? Great. Then the relgious whackos will be able to outlaw body piercing and tatoos too. Same with boob jobs and any cosmetic surgery, even the stuff to fix disfigurations. After all, the human body a testament to god, and altering it any fashion is a blasphemy.

sort of in the same vein as the Endangered Species Act (1973). Not everybody cares about the status of Endangered Species, but enough did to have legislation on their protection...I'm not so sure that the "not a recognized person" concept would hold up too well in a prolonged debate, since they wouldn't have to declare a fetus as a person to protect its right to thrive.

Holy reaching Batman. That is one of the most ridiculous arguments I have ever seen proposed in the abortion debate. Now the unborn fetus is an endangered species? I can dismiss that argument in two words. Human overpopulation. The human race would never fall under the auspices of the endangered species act. NEVER.

Again, why would an unborn fetus be afforded the rights of the constitution when there are living, breathing people walking around that are not afforded any rights what so ever? And again, where do you draw the line? An illegal who walks into the country then has a legal right to stay in the country. You are affording the rights of citizenship and legal resident alien status to the fetus, so you must afford that same status to the mother and father. If I can figure out these loopholes, and the arguments to beat the crap out of this legislation in the seconds it takes to type this post, what will a real law firm do?

(not that I necessarily agree with these arguments)

Like I said, its a mess, a very big mess... and I think if I'm McCain, I let that one go.

You're right. They should just let it go. The constitution is fine as it is. It requires no messing with, especially to appease one particular religious faction.

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by Azure

Secret Service are not going to be involved.

Sounds like a movie...actually.

Exactly. That is why the chances are so slim.

[Ice]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Actually I was thinking of someone from Idaho or Montana. Mainly because so many extremist groups set up shop in these two States.
They like the big open spaces with low population and little policing. Not too many black folk around either.

The white supremecist groups in Idaho and Montana are a far bigger concern than the racist rednecks of the South, IMO. They've devoted their life to trying to eliminate color and now have generations of kids who have grown up not knowing anything different. Those people scare the hell out of me. They've bred hatred and there's no changing their mind.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Holy reaching Batman. That is one of the most ridiculous arguments I have ever seen proposed in the abortion debate. Now the unborn fetus is an endangered species? I can dismiss that argument in two words. Human overpopulation. The human race would never fall under the auspices of the endangered species act. NEVER.

Again, why would an unborn fetus be afforded the rights of the constitution when there are living, breathing people walking around that are not afforded any rights what so ever? And again, where do you draw the line? An illegal who walks into the country then has a legal right to stay in the country. You are affording the rights of citizenship and legal resident alien status to the fetus, so you must afford that same status to the mother and father. If I can figure out these loopholes, and the arguments to beat the crap out of this legislation in the seconds it takes to type this post, what will a real law firm do?

I didn't say that a human fetus would be protected under the Endangered Species Act, but that a similar piece of legislation could be made that protects their right to thrive, especially once it hits a certain growth period. It has nothing to do with citizenship, since you're not saying a fetus is a US citizen, you're really just giving them a similar status to a protected animal, who also have no official legal status, just the right to thrive and survive. As well, those status-less aliens are still afforded the right to not be murdered, even if the government denies their existence.

Also, there is proof that a fetus does have brain function and by the end of the second trimester, can support itself with help by modern medical equipment... while that would be no reason to ban abortion, it would be enough to at least ban second trimester abortion. One could also say that banning second trimester abortion does not go against a woman's right to choose, because she had the chance to within the first 3 months of her pregnancy, and chose to do nothing. (the majority are first trimester anyway, but there's still a lot that creep into the second).

There are significant reasons why an outright ban on abortion shouldn't happen... especially when one looks at the demographics of abortion and crime rates... but a law like that would not be as easy to pick apart as you believe... but like I said, perhaps best unlegislated.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

What I remember of the Kennedy assassination , besides the shock and sense of loss, is that the powers that be released very little information and stuck to there simplistic story. I never heard any plausible motive other than laying it on a wacko Communist. Even the Warren Commission, which the public awaited for answers, released little and locked the records for years to come. The public were treated like mushrooms and so lots of conspiracy theories came out, even accusing LB Johnson and Texas oilmen of orchestrating it with Oswald working for the CIA. This subsequent distrust was probably one of the reasons for the 60's youth rebellion.

Yet the last three assassination attempts on Presidents have been:

1) a wacko disciple of Charles Manson

2) a wacko trying to impress radical friends and

3) a wacko trying to impress Jody Foster

What's far less wacko is that a Communist would want to shoot up JFK at the height of the Cold War. That's actually a story you can believe compared to the others.

The white supremecist groups in Idaho and Montana are a far bigger concern than the racist rednecks of the South, IMO. They've devoted their life to trying to eliminate color and now have generations of kids who have grown up not knowing anything different. Those people scare the hell out of me. They've bred hatred and there's no changing their mind.

Worry less about what they believe and more about the combination of their beliefs and the likeliehood they probably have some pretty good shots at long range among their ranks.

If they made a try for Obama, it probably wouldn't be the amateur hour gong show the last three attempts on Presidents have been.

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Ice

The white supremecist groups in Idaho and Montana are a far bigger concern than the racist rednecks of the South, IMO. They've devoted their life to trying to eliminate color and now have generations of kids who have grown up not knowing anything different. Those people scare the hell out of me. They've bred hatred and there's no changing their mind.

Its no different in the southern states. There are still communities in the south that are hardcore white supremecist. When I lived in Florida there was one about 10 miles from where I worked, and it was an entire community. Here in Arizona its not quite as prominent, but still exists in a very big way. A guy up my street has his garage filled with the flags and posters and crap, and HE works for the state. That mindset is not retricted to one or two states. Its everywhere down here. The interesting thing is that it has become so socially unacceptable to think that way that it has driven it underground and out of the public's eye. On one had its good, as it restricts recruitment efforts and lets the movements die on the vine. On the other hand its bad, as it forces them to get better organizated to promote their views and in turn makes law enforcement's job that much difficult.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

I didn't say that a human fetus would be protected under the Endangered Species Act, but that a similar piece of legislation could be made that protects their right to thrive, especially once it hits a certain growth period. It has nothing to do with citizenship, since you're not saying a fetus is a US citizen, you're really just giving them a similar status to a protected animal, who also have no official legal status, just the right to thrive and survive. As well, those status-less aliens are still afforded the right to not be murdered, even if the government denies their existence.

Again, a ridiculous proposition. That would mean that you establish a protected zone in the womb of every woman, and remove the personal control of the body from each and every woman. That is a direct restriction of their rights as guaranteed under the constitution.

What's next? The religious right gets to decide that masturbation is a crime and get to impose a no touchy zone between every man's legs? After all, every single spermatezoa is a potential human being! We can't restrict their rights to hook up with that ovum and create an other gob of goo that could turn into a god fearing human. Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great, when a sperm is wasted, god gets quite irate! Great, we can call it the Python Proxy and it can reside in the Penial Code.

Also, there is proof that a fetus does have brain function and by the end of the second trimester, can support itself with help by modern medical equipment... while that would be no reason to ban abortion, it would be enough to at least ban second trimester abortion. One could also say that banning second trimester abortion does not go against a woman's right to choose, because she had the chance to within the first 3 months of her pregnancy, and chose to do nothing. (the majority are first trimester anyway, but there's still a lot that creep into the second).

I personally agree with you that abortion after the first trimester is wrong on most accounts, but it is not my position to judge the motivations of the mother. That is a decision that only she can make. That is somethng that she will have to reconcile between herself, her conscience and her god. There is no room for anyone else, or their opinion, in that equation.

There are significant reasons why an outright ban on abortion shouldn't happen... especially when one looks at the demographics of abortion and crime rates... but a law like that would not be as easy to pick apart as you believe... but like I said, perhaps best unlegislated.

The thing that really pisses me off about the whole issue is the contradiction the religious right shows in the big picture. They demand that mothers do NOT abort their babies, but never for a second consider the circumstances the mother finds herself. The same clowns that stand on high and scream about abortion are the same clowns that yell the loudest about taxes and killing off welfare. How the hell do so many of the single mothers manage to take care of their babies when they are unemployable, couldn't afford the childcare if they had jobs, and don't have a social safety net to fall back on? Sure, lets crank out thousands of babies that mothers can't take care of. The lack of thought is just mind boggling.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Again, a ridiculous proposition. That would mean that you establish a protected zone in the womb of every woman, and remove the personal control of the body from each and every woman. That is a direct restriction of their rights as guaranteed under the constitution.

What's next? The religious right gets to decide that masturbation is a crime and get to impose a no touchy zone between every man's legs? After all, every single spermatezoa is a potential human being! We can't restrict their rights to hook up with that ovum and create an other gob of goo that could turn into a god fearing human. Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great, when a sperm is wasted, god gets quite irate! Great, we can call it the Python Proxy and it can reside in the Penial Code.

HA! Well, I'm sure the pro-lifers are thinking up something more ironclad than that... to be honest, I'm just throwing ideas half-cocked for the sake of argument (not sure why I even got into this either, I'm not even on that side).

I personally agree with you that abortion after the first trimester is wrong on most accounts, but it is not my position to judge the motivations of the mother. That is a decision that only she can make. That is somethng that she will have to reconcile between herself, her conscience and her god. There is no room for anyone else, or their opinion, in that equation.

I agree in principle. I agree with a Woman's right to choose. However, I think by the second trimester, one should know whether or not they are going to have a child or not.

The thing that really pisses me off about the whole issue is the contradiction the religious right shows in the big picture. They demand that mothers do NOT abort their babies, but never for a second consider the circumstances the mother finds herself. The same clowns that stand on high and scream about abortion are the same clowns that yell the loudest about taxes and killing off welfare. How the hell do so many of the single mothers manage to take care of their babies when they are unemployable, couldn't afford the childcare if they had jobs, and don't have a social safety net to fall back on? Sure, lets crank out thousands of babies that mothers can't take care of. The lack of thought is just mind boggling.

And that is where I completely agree. I remember seeing a pro-life rally that made my stomach turn. There was a complete absence of women aged 15-40. It was all 55+ people with their grandchildren. I definitely see that hypocrisy... don't abort the child, but don't even think about leeching off the state, and keep that child away from crime, despite the fact that being a single mother likely places them in the lowest income zones, and with higher crime rates.

Its easy to be a critic when it doesn't affect you.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

HA! Well, I'm sure the pro-lifers are thinking up something more ironclad than that... to be honest, I'm just throwing ideas half-cocked for the sake of argument (not sure why I even got into this either, I'm not even on that side).

Nice pun! Give that man a red square!!!

[badnarik]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Funny thing about Oswald, he was dishonorably discharged, never rose above the rank of PFC, but he took his exams for promotion to Corporal and passed those with flying color.

Out of curiosity, just to get some perspective, do you remember your rifle qualification scores?

I was in the low expert range for my first 5 qualifications. I don't remember the exact scores but I don't think I ever shot above 225 or below 220 for those years. My last year I dropped to 218 which is a sharpshooter like Oswald, just below expert. I choked on the 500 yard line, which is usually the easiest because you are firing from the prone position.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

I know you want people to be PC on this and all, but lets not forget that areas in the "South" reap this on themselves.

I mean, the whole concept of civil war reenactments is mindboggling and really only serves to further stereotypes.

I don't want people to be PC.

Racism is not a 'southern' thing, 'only.'

In other words, there are 'northern racists' as well....if we're going to start making ######ed claims like that.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Actually I was thinking of someone from Idaho or Montana. Mainly because so many extremist groups set up shop in these two States.
They like the big open spaces with low population and little policing. Not too many black folk around either.

But they're not from the south!

That can't be!



I know EXACTLY who you're talking about.