Which Presidential Candidate Best For Pool

[ShootingArts]

guns and violence

I am Jude's "average guy" I have had guns very near to hand or on my person for over thirty-five years when conducting my business. There have been many times when I was able to keep talking and eventually defuse a situation because I had a gun. Faced with a great physical disparity in force I would have had little choice but a preemptive strike using whatever was at hand that could be used as a weapon before would be attackers could assault me had I not had the final option of using a gun. It is worth noting that in the vast majority of these situations nobody ever became aware that I was armed.

The average citizen should have the right to be armed. Most still do not choose to carry but it puts a real damper on assaults of all kinds when the would be perp's are aware that anyone they choose to target might be armed.

Hu

Thanks, Jude. I honestly wasn't sure if you knew about the current state of the laws in my old home state of New York. Actually, I wasn't sure just how restrictive the laws were there these days, and thus did a few minutes of research to find out.

Very few people believe in "absolute freedom" in regards to guns, as it is illegal throughout the US for felons to possess guns, for instance.

As for the NY subway, a good many years ago a friend mistakenly got off at the wrong station, and when he realized it, the train had already left. His back was to the tracks, and about ten thugs slowly started to encircle him. He's a rugged looking fellow, about average height and build, with a rather metallic voice. His face looks like he's been through a few fights. He slipped his hand into his jacket and left it there, and stared the thugs down, and said coldly, "Don't try anything..." and calmly walked through them. They parted to let him through and thankfully nothing happened. BTW, he doesn't own a gun, and also didn't have one with him...

Flex

 

[chefjeff]

As for pool, Gambling 911 gave the endorsement to Ron Paul as he voted AGAINST the internet gambling control law. The others have "plans" to "fix" the uncontrolled internet.

Hu had a good point, though. Whichever statist reaches the oval office, the economy tanks further. This could re-fill the pool halls with unemployed hoping to make some food money. Is that "good" for pool? Not really, but familiar, I suppose.

Jeff Livingston

 

[corvette1340]

It really doesn't matter what happens with the internet gambling act or what law is put in place. Anything short of banning websites, which will never happen, is just a futile attempt to halt internet gaming. If you have any kind of common sense and know how, it is just as easy to get monies to and from internet sites as it was before the law. New sites will continue to make it legal to deposit onto these sites. It may say you bought a prepaid card or show up as a financial intermediary on your statement but in actuality you are depositing on a gambling site and there is nothing they can do about these loopholes. If the government was smart they would stop trying to close avenues and just regulate and tax it. They are missing out on millions of taxable dollars through internet gaming. As for the people that they say are going into debt and losing everything they've got because of internet gambling, I say that those suckers would eventually lose everything anyway. A sucker is gonna be a sucker. It's not mine nor your fault that John Q. loses his mortgage money playing internet poker.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

I am Jude's "average guy" I have had guns very near to hand or on my person for over thirty-five years when conducting my business. There have been many times when I was able to keep talking and eventually defuse a situation because I had a gun. Faced with a great physical disparity in force I would have had little choice but a preemptive strike using whatever was at hand that could be used as a weapon before would be attackers could assault me had I not had the final option of using a gun. It is worth noting that in the vast majority of these situations nobody ever became aware that I was armed.

The average citizen should have the right to be armed. Most still do not choose to carry but it puts a real damper on assaults of all kinds when the would be perp's are aware that anyone they choose to target might be armed.

Hu

I understand what you're saying and I respect that however, I still find the concept alarming. I wouldn't want a gun in my house nor would I feel comfortable knowing someone in a bar could have one. Like I said, the middle-ground we currently have suits me because I know you can't just walk into a store and get one.

This is how I feel and I understand not everyone feels this way. I've lived in New York City my whole life, been in as many uncomfortable situations as anyone else. I've been to the tough schools, walked through the tough neighborhoods. I've hung out in the seedy poolrooms. I don't like guns and no matter how the second amendment is interpreted, I'm still not going to like them.

Seriously, I'm not here to validate my opinion or change someone's opinion. I'm just saying my opinion can't be changed.

 

[ShootingArts]

guns in homes and bars

Jude,

Every time you go in a larger bar or pool hall you can be almost certain that some people are carrying guns. If they are carrying guns in places that make a major portion of their income selling alcohol they are carrying illegally in most if not all states, whether they have a concealed carry permit or not. More outlaws than law abiding citizens will always be armed, I believe it is only fair to adjust the disparity in force a bit.

Guns in the home are an interesting subject, my three children had multiple firearms in the home from the time they were infants and two guns were loaded at all times. Every time I left home or returned I had a large money bag in one hand and a loaded .357 in the other. They knew the gun was loaded, they knew where it was kept, and they knew it was dangerous and strictly off limits. They were shown the guns and allowed to handle them very young so there was no curiosity factor tempting them to break rules. This worked very well for me and my family.

A few years back I considered the guns I owned. The bulk of them were sporting equipment, used for one form or competition or another. A few were primarily plinkers and (four legged)varmint guns, and exactly one was for behavior modification if such was needed. Sure, other guns could be used for social activities but so could a baseball bat, a telephone, and dozens of other things around a home. My guns are mostly tools or sporting equipment.

Hu

I understand what you're saying and I respect that however, I still find the concept alarming. I wouldn't want a gun in my house nor would I feel comfortable knowing someone in a bar could have one. Like I said, the middle-ground we currently have suits me because I know you can't just walk into a store and get one.

This is how I feel and I understand not everyone feels this way. I've lived in New York City my whole life, been in as many uncomfortable situations as anyone else. I've been to the tough schools, walked through the tough neighborhoods. I've hung out in the seedy poolrooms. I don't like guns and no matter how the second amendment is interpreted, I'm still not going to like them.

Seriously, I'm not here to validate my opinion or change someone's opinion. I'm just saying my opinion can't be changed.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

Jude,

Every time you go in a larger bar or pool hall you can be almost certain that some people are carrying guns. If they are carrying guns in places that make a major portion of their income selling alcohol they are carrying illegally in most if not all states, whether they have a concealed carry permit or not. More outlaws than law abiding citizens will always be armed, I believe it is only fair to adjust the disparity in force a bit.

Guns in the home are an interesting subject, my three children had multiple firearms in the home from the time they were infants and two guns were loaded at all times. Every time I left home or returned I had a large money bag in one hand and a loaded .357 in the other. They knew the gun was loaded, they knew where it was kept, and they knew it was dangerous and strictly off limits. They were shown the guns and allowed to handle them very young so there was no curiosity factor tempting them to break rules. This worked very well for me and my family.

A few years back I considered the guns I owned. The bulk of them were sporting equipment, used for one form or competition or another. A few were primarily plinkers and (four legged)varmint guns, and exactly one was for behavior modification if such was needed. Sure, other guns could be used for social activities but so could a baseball bat, a telephone, and dozens of other things around a home. My guns are mostly tools or sporting equipment.

Hu

Hu, your life is completely different than mine so it's important you hold your own opinion. To balance things, I'll do the same. I think that's what's beautiful about a democracy.

 

[ShootingArts]

agreed

Hu, your life is completely different than mine so it's important you hold your own opinion. To balance things, I'll do the same. I think that's what's beautiful about a democracy.

Jude,

I fully agree with each being entitled to our opinions and am making no effort to change yours. Just explaining a different world. I was born on a farm and have lived most of my life in rural or small town areas. Guns have been an almost daily part of my life for as long as I can remember.

Hu

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

Jude,

I fully agree with each being entitled to our opinions and am making no effort to change yours. Just explaining a different world. I was born on a farm and have lived most of my life in rural or small town areas. Guns have been an almost daily part of my life for as long as I can remember.

Hu

Yeah, I realize and that's actually what makes the issue so complex AND it's the beauty of the 10th Amendment. It's simply not an issue the Federal Government needs to address. States should be able to handle gun legislation.

 

[9 on the snap]

I am a big fan of Bush.

 

[iba7467]

States should be able to handle gun legislation.

Individual states should be able to handle alot of legislation. I haved stayed out of this discussion as it is purely opinion, but I will voice mine now:

Conservative - I believe every individual has rights (those born and not yet born); I believe if a criminal comes into my house armed anyone in my home should not bother to care whether the criminal would have used it or not and should shoot to kill

Republican - I believe my money should be my own; I do not believe I owe the unwed mother with children by six men anything just because she couldn't get herself out of that environment; I believe it is unfair that I have worked hard and earn a good living and have to pay for something others get for free because they have not

Anti-Big Gov - Our country has not been a democracy since it's inception. It is in a best a loosely unified republic (with strict punishment for any state that feels otherwise)

Seeing the ridiculousness of presidential platforms - Very little of any candidate's platform will continue throughout the general election. Every candidate will further water-down their stands to please a larger percentage of the public. Once in office, the power of the president is not nearly what it was originally intended by the original balance-of-powers (read president is an icon). Alan Greenspan had far more influence than every president combined during his term as Chair of the Federal Reserve.

 

[jay helfert]

The last statement is just ridiculous Jay. The man has more education and more money through successful business dealings than Fatboy, KT, you, and I combined. It's like saying someone can't shoot pool just because you don't like them.

His business history is fairly well known. He booked his share of losers, and was gifted with the one big winner he received (Texas Rangers minority owner), courtesy of dear old Dad.

 

[jay helfert]

Once again, if you do not read the REST of the constitution, and only the second amendment as you have, then you won't understand WHAT it amends!!! Obviously you haven't read the REST of the constitution!

I feel like I'm talking to a wall.

Read it to me mommy.

 

[9 on the snap]

My Daddy always told me: "Son the best Presidents are the dead ones in your wallet." I really didn't understood this, but agreed. When I started working I started to get it. The more money you have the better government you get. I try to vote for the guy who is gonna cut my taxes the most, and is handgun friendly. He who allows me to keep more of my money to gamble on pool, see this ain't NPR afterall, and appreciates my constitutional right to protect my bankroll: gets Joe's vote. The bottom line is ALL politicans are liars for the most part, they kinda have to be to get elected.

Thank you, and may God continue to bless America, at least my part which is doing pretty good.

Joe

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

My Daddy always told me: "Son the best Presidents are the dead ones in your wallet." I really didn't understood this, but agreed. When I started working I started to get it. The more money you have the better government you get. I try to vote for the guy who is gonna cut my taxes the most, and is handgun friendly. He who allows me to keep more of my money to gamble on pool, see this ain't NPR afterall, and appreciates my constitutional right to protect my bankroll: gets Joe's vote. The bottom line is ALL politicans are liars for the most part, they kinda have to be to get elected.

Thank you, and may God continue to bless America, at least my part which is doing pretty good.

Joe

Actually, I'd rather not get involved DELETED POST

 

[Jaden]

Wrong Jay.

The Second Amendment addresses number one the importance of having a well prepared militia (i.e. Army) to protect our country. Guess what, the current Republican President has done away with that. Our Army is all overseas, and what's left behind couldn't defend us against Cuba if they wanted to invade our shores. That's a joke, but not far from the truth.

Number two it addresses our right to bear arms. I think by now, everyone (including all the bad guys) are well armed in this country. The best armed populace in the world by far. No one will get their legally obtained weapons taken away, it just may get harder to buy assault rifles/pistols and the like. As it should be.

You turned a joking thread into a political argument, so I'm going to answer. You are WRONG about the second amendment. It's SOLE purpose was to provide the PEOPLE of the nation with the ability to start over and prevent totalitarian control by the governent in the event that the government that they established failed to work. The second amendment had NO OTHER purpose. They did not want arms control to be established by the government to secure their power and take away the rights of the citizens, which is exactly what has been happening. The government has established that they have total control over the citizenry and that the citizens are only empowered by a corrupt political system that they can physically do nothing about. They have convinced the majority of the American public that they have to work within a corrupt system for change when that is completely against what the founding fathers intended.

 

[Cuebacca]

What background about Obama is questionable? I don't know. Maybe his lack of time in office and the questions raised regarding his militant muslim upbringing (rumor thus far, but enough to be worry some). I think he is scarry because he is a good speaker, but it is hard to tell if there is anything else there.

It's just dirty pool, as usual.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

 

[9 on the snap]

Actually, I'd rather not get involved DELETED POST

I thought that was a great post, and I agreed.

 

[catscradle]

Teddy Roosevelt according to the Brunswick adds.

 

[9 on the snap]

Teddy Roosevelt according to the Brunswick adds.

I agree, but in Florida you must be a member of his Bull Mouse Party to vote for him in the primary.

 

[jay helfert]

You turned a joking thread into a political argument, so I'm going to answer. You are WRONG about the second amendment. It's SOLE purpose was to provide the PEOPLE of the nation with the ability to start over and prevent totalitarian control by the governent in the event that the government that they established failed to work. The second amendment had NO OTHER purpose. They did not want arms control to be established by the government to secure their power and take away the rights of the citizens, which is exactly what has been happening. The government has established that they have total control over the citizenry and that the citizens are only empowered by a corrupt political system that they can physically do nothing about. They have convinced the majority of the American public that they have to work within a corrupt system for change when that is completely against what the founding fathers intended.

I refer to my post #53. which contains the actual wording of the Second Amendment. It speaks about the peoples right to have a militia and keep and bear arms. By definition a militia is an organized armed force, not a bunch of guys with guns under their bed.

I'm not sure what I'm missing here. If you are talking about banding together in posse's like David Koresh did in Texas and some survivalists have done in Idaho, I say fat chance. They are only going to get themselves killed, if they take on any branch of our government.

If that's the purpose of the Second Amendment, then it is hopelessly outdated. If the purpose is to be allowed to form state militias, then that is another matter entirely. Many states have their own armed forces, i.e. the Texas Rangers and the California National Guard. I believe this was the intention of the framers of the Bill Of Rights.

In the meantime, I doubt there are many states where you cannot buy and own weapons today. And it's been that way for as long as I know of. I've never had any trouble buying a 12 gauge repeating shotgun or a 30.06 rifle or a .357 magnum. All are pretty potent weapons for a citizen to own.

I feel safe in my home and am quite capable of protecting myself. Can I or a thousand just like me overthrow the government of the United States, if we consider it oppressive. No way, so now what's the point you are trying to make.