SmallCaliberCentral

1. Hillary wins the Democratic Party nomination for President of the United States.

2. Naturally, she wants to choose as her running mate someone with a lot of knowledge and experience in government and foreign affairs, someone who is a seasoned campaigner who could bring a lot of strength to the ticket. Who better than Bill, her husband?!!!

3. Hill and Bill go on to win the election in November and the Democrats maintain control of the House and the Senate.

4. Hillary is sworn in as President on January 20, 2009. The next day, after all the inauguration parties are over, she calls a press conference to make an announcement: she is resigning as President!!! Bill, as the Vice President, immediately becomes President!!! This is all perfectly legal under the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, for it states that "no person may be elected as president more than twice".

Bill is not being elected for a third term but is merely serving out the remainder of Hillary's term---all 4 years of it.

5. But wait! There's more! The following day Bill calls a press conference to make an announcement. He has chosen someone to fill the now-vacant office of Vice President. Guess who he picks? Why, Hillary, of course!!!

6. And one last thing, Bill could resign just before the elections and that would make Hillary the incumbent President. She could run for re-election and we could do it all over again and she would never serve out her two terms...Bill could be President for life....

I thought this was supposed to be a family friendly site

Thats not even funny Melvin, but I know what your saying. I really don't think it matters how gets in for preident now the way things are going. I don't know how it's going for the fest of you guys. But here in the last month the 3 bigest employer's have shut there door's for good. That left 75% of the people with no job's in a town of 7,ooo. You can't even buy a job around here. I sure hope it ain't this bad for the rest of you guy's. But i sure don't see things getting any better for a long time. Sorry guys I know no one wan'ts to here things like this.

Melvin, that is an interesting, if not horrifying senario. One reason that it does not scare me though.....It would require Hillary to GIVE UP POWER. Something I'm sure she would not do. heck, I'm not sure she is physiologically capable of giving up power!
Scary proposition? Yes. But when you really think about it, what would be the difference between 4 more years of Bill and 4 new years of Hill?
If she gets elected, her VP will likely be the least of our problems.

Thanks Melvin...

Now I think I need a prescription for some blood pressure and sleep meds!!!

what you need to worry about is obama! he was born to a muslim father, raised by a muslim step-father, attended a (radical) muslim school in indonisia, wether or not he's claims to be christian or not! my view is at the very least he has muslim sympathies, ladies and gentlemen be afraid, be very afraid!

As for me and my house, I think we need another AR-15!

I heard the bill as vice once before, but someone claimed that he would not be able to run as vice just because if something happened to hillary , he would be president for a third term . So let's just hope he is unable to be the running mate simply for that reason. Anyone know for sure?
Besides I don't think they like each other enough for them to run together. bill just wants to get back into the white house so he can turn the oval office into an oral massage parlor for chubby interns .
None the less, I think Melvins scenario is scary enough to urge everyone hear to vote!!!!!!!!!!!

The possibility of a third term for Bill would not keep him from being VP. The constitution only states that you may not be elected for President more than twice. There is no mention of being appointed due to assassination, illness, etc.
But at this point Crazy2 is right. Obama is going to be the problem.
Did anybody else hear that he signed the treaty that would ban all small arms, worldwide???
OMG here it comes. I wish there was a Smilie for quaking in my boots.
Buy all the guns and ammo you can, as soon as you can.
I'm not usually an alarmist but I don't think McCain has a chance in heck.

I have been following the primaries closely. I sort of like John McCain. I agree with Rugerdogdog. I do not think McCain has a real good chance against Obama. I would sure like to know what exactly his stand on gun control is. I don’t think any of the hopefuls are delineating exact positions at this time, but rather talking in platitudes. Maybe Ray from Texas knows if he is involved in his campaign. I hate to rely on internet mumbo jumbo. I have read that he voted for the assault weapon ban, but who knows if it is true or not? If any one has some verifiable information, please pass it on. I did hear Obama say in one debate when asked about gun control that he was not going to take anyone’s guns away, but that is all I have heard from him.

One thing I can figure out for myself is that right or wrong a lot of people are fed up with the way things are going now. If they were not, Obama would not be where he is now.

My thoughts are not an endorsement for anyone. I believe that a calm political discussion is appropriate on this site if it concerns our rights as gun owners. If we do not discuss and defend our rights there will be no need for this forum in the future. I also think that there should be a separate forum category for this subject matter. We are at a crossroad in our history and it should not be ignored.

I agree that this subject matter should have it's own area so as to not pollute the forum that I visit to discuss the 204 ruger. If you want my views on the subject I will quote a message that I sent as a private message to another member. I handled it that way so as to avoid arguing with you guys about political bs in a forum that I rely on for my info about my 204. I have learned a lot about the 204 and reloading from this site and I don't want to give that up for some political discussion that is best held elsewhere and rarely is handled in a constructive manner. I tend to successfully avoid political and racial rhetoric at the range. I have to accept those differences in beliefs for the good of the shooting community.

Since you asked, I will share this quote. I sincerely hope that no one is offended by this, as I would rather not alienate any of ya'll based on my or your strongly held political beliefs. This is, I believe, the central theme of Obama's message. We have to put aside petty bickering and work to understand the concerns of our fellow Americans so as to find common ground on which to build our solutions.

Here is the message I sent in a pm.

"Let me know when you find a candidate that agrees with you on every issue, is honorable, wise, an intelligent communicator, and is electable to the office of POTUS.

I won't argue my position on the 204 ruger forum. The whole point is that it is off topic and insulting to fellow shooters to deride the political views of others on a shooting forum. There are appropriate venues for political debate.

BTW, I have little fear that the democratic party is going to waste a lot of time on gun control when they have so much mess to clean up from the current administration. Have you noticed that we are in a budding energy crisis with a collapsing dollar, compromised privacy rights and an economy that is too closely tied to borrowing from the communist Chinese. I'm not sure why all these other fears are ruling the discussions when these are screaming for our attention.

When we get bored with digging ourselves out of that mess, we can address education, health care costs, energy conservation, and regaining our leadership in the field of scientific research.

Clinton wasted his political capital on that stupid "gays in the military" thing. I sure hope Obama is smarter than that. He hasn't said a single thing about gun control in his hundreds of speeches. If he pursues it after the election there will be an appropriate explosion from the right.

There are however, many millions of Americans that just don't understand the whole gun rights issue. We need to present ourselves thoughtfully. I find that usually there is no intelligent discourse from gun owners. They usually just attack the gun control people with insults and threats, which is not at all effective in delivering the message that it is actually the government that people should fear and not the millions of gun owners.

I've been a gun owner almost my whole life and even I get attacked by people on the basis of my political beliefs. That's fine as long as it doesn't happen while I'm looking to share shooting info with other shooters. We would be better served by supporting each other and finding ways to make the uninformed majority more comfortable with our use and ownership of weapons. Just being right about the 2nd amendment is no guarantee that a fearful majority will not be successful in limiting our rights to bear arms."

He does not want our guns. He just wants us to not be able to afford to shoot them.

He is all for this. >> http://www.isra.org/email_alerts/alert_02122008.html

Glen wrote:He does not want our guns.

Thats not quite true Glen

Barack advocates a ban on the sale or transfer of ALL semi automatic firearms. That would presumably include pistols, shotguns and rifles.
McCain wants to ban just some semi autos. Once again, presuming its just the "evil" ones. For now anyway.
Hillary would smile gleefully if she could eradicate every gun in the country and at the same time neuter every male.
She's still quite mad at old Bill.

As I see it both the Pubs and Dems can mess up the country equally when it comes to most issues. Two totally different messes but messes just the same.
That leaves me the 2nd Amendment issue. Sure wasn't dealt a winning hand in this game.

I see more and more posters on quite a few forums contend that the Dems just wouldn't have time to disarm Americans because theres just too much other work to be done.
I'd like to remind everyone all those gun/ammo bans they've been marching through the Houses for decades is still out there in all its nefarious intent. They just gotta pull it out of a drawer and reintroduce it. No work involved.
Probably would be some of the fastest bills run through the process in years if the Dems control it all.

I'm thinking of stocking up on musket balls. Maybe I'll finally learn how to shoot before they get around to banning muskets.

That very well could be true. I won't pretend to know everything. The way I read him is that he supports serialized ammo & a gov't tax hike at will on ammo. Thus effectively reducing the number of gun owners & effective guns. Thats just my take on him.

And there is no clear cut choice in this election. None of them are worth a darn in any sense of being "Of the people, By the people & for the people". The Presidency has become a high stakes game of poker for only the wealthiest & they are playing with donators money. That in & of itself should be illegal. They should have to pay their own way from start to finish. They are gambling with fundraisers money & have exactly nothing to lose financially but everything to gain. The Presidency is so far removed from reality anymore that it will never return to what it was meant to be.

I agree that a political forum, if we can all agree to keep it out of the mud, could be very interesting.
In the interest of full disclosure, my first choice would have been a little to the right of Fred Thompson. Or Ron Paul without the horrible foreign policy.
With all due respect to RayfromTX, I think it is irresponsible as a gun owner to think "they" will be too busy to pass horribly restrictive gun control. All it would take, with a Democrat congress, is for Pelosi, Schumer, Feinstien or the like, to introduce a ban and run it right through knowing that they have a President that would love to sign it. I know I have way over simplified the process but also remember that the UN treaty is still sitting up there and would only require a glance from Congress and a signature from Obama to become Constitutional.
My point being that the far left has always had a vehement desire to ban guns. With even a narrow majority in Congress and a Democrat Pres I'll wager dollars to doughnuts that they will put the issue in front of the falling dollar, energy independence, the war and any other front-page-today issue.
Besides, the stakes are too high. I would hate to elect a "candidate for change" in HOPES that they don't gut the 2nd Amendment.
The specter of loosing our guns, of really loosing the 2nd Amendment, will probably be enough to cause civil unrest the likes of which we have never seen. BUT, I wish it didn't have to come to that.

Have to agree with Rugerdog, I do not listen to Rush Limbaugh, but couldn't help it this past few days, and I agree with him also, when he said, paraphrased, that the liberals (press and politicians) are snakes...they can't be trusted...they will turn on you...they will bite you. I've lived with the political unrest of Chicago/Cook County dallying with the 2nd for some time, and state senator Obamasama was right in the middle of it. What has happened/ing to Kalifornia and the Republik of Illinois can easily spread to the rest of the states.