This is very funny!

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

If you vote for Joe, your second amendment rights will be under attack. Choose wisely.

---

Online gun sales are protected by the second amendment?

Pacfanweb said:

---

Civilized said:

---

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

If you vote for Joe, your second amendment rights will be under attack. Choose wisely.

---

Online gun sales are protected by the second amendment?

---

Gun sales are gun sales. Everything else is sold online. Guns should be, too.

Plus...that's just a first step, at least as they see it. The left absolutely, 100% wants to get you guns...that's the endgame. Maybe not you. Maybe not every single senator and representative. But the left overall? Yes, that's exactly what they want, ultimately.

That's why the NRA types fight against every proposed change so hard. If they thought the left was actually sincere about "Let's just ban assault-type rifles or high capacity magazines and that'll be the end of it forever", they'd probably agree to it.

But they know that's not the endgame.

Now other actions like mental health checks and waiting periods and just enforcing current gun laws....most people would be for that.

---

Trump rolled back Obama mental health check legislation.

Evidently the NRA and gun lobby consider Americans receiving Social Security checks for mental illnesses and those determined to be unfit to handle their own financial affairs to be great possible customer...errrrrr, I mean, gun owners.

The slippery slope argument is impossible to substantiate. How can we, when the NRA and gun lobby resist even reasonable attempts to keep guns in the hands of those that can responsibly and safely own them under the guise of those reasonable actions being too broad?

If everything is too broad, nothing meaningful ever gets done.

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

The right of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

I think those words are pretty clear.

---

Carter did not take my weapons, neither did Clinton, neither did Obama and neither will Biden! The same talk was heard with each however! The NRA lies almost as much as Donald John Trump......almost.

The right to bear arms is specifically and plainly called out in the Constitution.

For those that don't like that, the Founders provided a way to amend the Constitution.

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

The right of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

I think those words are pretty clear.

---

You can't buy a shotgun or rifle until you're 18.

You can't buy other types of guns till you're 21.

You can't buy machine guns manufactured before 1986.

You can't operate an unlicensed gun shop out of your basement.

And on and on.

Any law regulating gun ownership infringes on certain people's rights to buy or own certain types of guns.

Civilized said:

---

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

The right of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

I think those words are pretty clear.

---

You can't buy a shotgun or rifle until you're 18.

You can't buy other types of guns till you're 21.

You can't buy machine guns manufactured before 1986.

You can't operate an unlicensed gun shop out of your basement.

And on and on.

Any law regulating gun ownership infringes on certain people's rights to buy or own certain types of guns.

---

And I'm against all of those restrictions you listed, and more. Those are unconstitutional infringements.

For instance, the requirement of a permit for a handgun is a blatant violation of the 2nd Amendment. You don't need permission for something you already have the RIGHT to do.

ciscopack said:

---

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

The right of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

I think those words are pretty clear.

---

Carter did not take my weapons, neither did Clinton, neither did Obama and neither will Biden! The same talk was heard with each however! The NRA lies almost as much as Donald John Trump......almost.

---

Only because Republicans have stopped the Democrats. If the communist Dems had no opposition, they would already have banned basically everything, as has already been done in most socialist European nations.

Many far Left Democrat run cities and states already ban handguns and "assault rifles".

Biden's campaign advocates a "buyback" of "assault weapons". The Democrats pushed through a federal ban on "assault weapons" in 1994. They are going to try to do it again.

GuerrillaPack said:

---

ciscopack said:

---

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

The right of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

I think those words are pretty clear.

---

Carter did not take my weapons, neither did Clinton, neither did Obama and neither will Biden! The same talk was heard with each however! The NRA lies almost as much as Donald John Trump......almost.

---

Only because Republicans have stopped the Democrats. If the communist Dems had no opposition, they would already have banned basically everything, as has already been done in most socialist European nations.

Many far Left Democrat run cities and states already ban handguns and "assault rifles".

Biden's campaign advocates a "buyback" of "assault weapons". The Democrats pushed through a federal ban on "assault weapons" in 1994. They are going to try to do it again.

---

Do those same socialist European nations have a constitution that grants its citizens the right to keep and bear arms?

Civilized said:

---

GuerrillaPack said:

---

ciscopack said:

---

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

The right of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

I think those words are pretty clear.

---

Carter did not take my weapons, neither did Clinton, neither did Obama and neither will Biden! The same talk was heard with each however! The NRA lies almost as much as Donald John Trump......almost.

---

Only because Republicans have stopped the Democrats. If the communist Dems had no opposition, they would already have banned basically everything, as has already been done in most socialist European nations.

Many far Left Democrat run cities and states already ban handguns and "assault rifles".

Biden's campaign advocates a "buyback" of "assault weapons". The Democrats pushed through a federal ban on "assault weapons" in 1994. They are going to try to do it again.

---

Do those same socialist European nations have a constitution that grants its citizens the right to keep and bear arms?

---

We have the 2nd Amendment... but that doesn't stop the Marxist Democrats from violating the constitution and banning guns in various Democrat-run cities and states.

Whether those socialist European nations have/had a constitutional protection for gun rights or not, the point is that the communist Left are totalitarians/tyrants who aim to disarm and subjugate the populations they rule, stripping people not only of their right to defend themselves, but also their rights to freedom of speech, to own property and enjoy the fruits of their labor, etc.

Pacfanweb said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Pacfanweb said:

---

Civilized said:

---

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

If you vote for Joe, your second amendment rights will be under attack. Choose wisely.

---

Online gun sales are protected by the second amendment?

---

Gun sales are gun sales. Everything else is sold online. Guns should be, too.

Plus...that's just a first step, at least as they see it. The left absolutely, 100% wants to get you guns...that's the endgame. Maybe not you. Maybe not every single senator and representative. But the left overall? Yes, that's exactly what they want, ultimately.

That's why the NRA types fight against every proposed change so hard. If they thought the left was actually sincere about "Let's just ban assault-type rifles or high capacity magazines and that'll be the end of it forever", they'd probably agree to it.

But they know that's not the endgame.

Now other actions like mental health checks and waiting periods and just enforcing current gun laws....most people would be for that.

---

Trump rolled back Obama mental health check legislation.

---

Come on, man. That's not true, at least not as you're representing it. Or you don't know what was actually done.

From CNN:
Fact check: Did Trump make it easier for those with mental illnesses to buy guns?

Critics were quick to point out that Trump signed a bill at the beginning of his presidency reversing a regulation under President Barack Obama that banned certain people with mental impairments from buying firearms.
Facts First: It's complicated. The Obama administration's rule, which took effect two days before Trump's inauguration, restricted people who required help managing government benefits and had a mental impairment from buying guns. That includes those with eating disorders, cognitive impairments and depression. Multiple disability groups, along with the American Civil Liberties Union opposed the regulation.

This now-removed rule did not alter federal law which prohibits individuals "who (have) been adjudicated as a mental defective or (have) been committed to any mental institution" from owning a firearm.

---

Men who own handguns are 8x more likely to die of gun suicides than men who don't own handguns, and women who own handguns are 35x more likely than women who don't.

Anorexics are 50x more likely to die of suicide than the average American.

The eating disorder piece sounds crazy at first until you realize that eating disorders and depression are inextricably linked. And we already knew that gun ownership dramatically increases the odds of suicide.

A big part of the Obama legislation was intended to reduce self-harm. That's not a bad thing.

My broader point is that the NRA/gun lobby/right's support of reasonable controls to keep guns in safe hands is purely theoretical lip service.

Chuck Grassley's line that the government should have to prove a specific individual is likely to be violent in order to restrict their ability to buy a gun says it all. That's what the NRA/gun lobby/right want. The government having to prove someone is likely to commit violence creates impossibly high legal and logistical hurdles.

Could the Obama legislation have been crafted in a more tailored or elegant way? Sure. But very, very little legislation is perfectly crafted. Cull it. Tailor it. Rework it.

But roll it back with no reasonable replacement? That's just playing to your base and is a clear sign you're not supportive of the intent.

Did you miss this part? That tells you the legislation was crap.

Multiple disability groups, along with the American Civil Liberties Union opposed the regulation.

Civilized said:

---

Pacfanweb said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Pacfanweb said:

---

Civilized said:

---

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

If you vote for Joe, your second amendment rights will be under attack. Choose wisely.

---

Online gun sales are protected by the second amendment?

---

Gun sales are gun sales. Everything else is sold online. Guns should be, too.

Plus...that's just a first step, at least as they see it. The left absolutely, 100% wants to get you guns...that's the endgame. Maybe not you. Maybe not every single senator and representative. But the left overall? Yes, that's exactly what they want, ultimately.

That's why the NRA types fight against every proposed change so hard. If they thought the left was actually sincere about "Let's just ban assault-type rifles or high capacity magazines and that'll be the end of it forever", they'd probably agree to it.

But they know that's not the endgame.

Now other actions like mental health checks and waiting periods and just enforcing current gun laws....most people would be for that.

---

Trump rolled back Obama mental health check legislation.

---

Come on, man. That's not true, at least not as you're representing it. Or you don't know what was actually done.

From CNN:
Fact check: Did Trump make it easier for those with mental illnesses to buy guns?

Critics were quick to point out that Trump signed a bill at the beginning of his presidency reversing a regulation under President Barack Obama that banned certain people with mental impairments from buying firearms.
Facts First: It's complicated. The Obama administration's rule, which took effect two days before Trump's inauguration, restricted people who required help managing government benefits and had a mental impairment from buying guns. That includes those with eating disorders, cognitive impairments and depression. Multiple disability groups, along with the American Civil Liberties Union opposed the regulation.

This now-removed rule did not alter federal law which prohibits individuals "who (have) been adjudicated as a mental defective or (have) been committed to any mental institution" from owning a firearm.

---

Men who own handguns are 8x more likely to die of gun suicides than men who don't own handguns, and women who own handguns are 35x more likely than women who don't.

Anorexics are 50x more likely to die of suicide than the average American.

The eating disorder piece sounds crazy at first until you realize that eating disorders and depression are inextricably linked. And we already knew that gun ownership dramatically increases the odds of suicide.

A big part of the Obama legislation was intended to reduce self-harm. That's not a bad thing.

My broader point is that the NRA/gun lobby/right's support of reasonable controls to keep guns in safe hands is purely theoretical lip service.

Chuck Grassley's line that the government should have to prove a specific individual is likely to be violent in order to restrict their ability to buy a gun says it all. That's what the NRA/gun lobby/right want. The government having to prove someone is likely to commit violence creates impossibly high legal and logistical hurdles.

Could the Obama legislation have been crafted in a more tailored or elegant way? Sure. But very, very little legislation is perfectly crafted. Cull it. Tailor it. Rework it.

But roll it back with no reasonable replacement? That's just playing to your base and is a clear sign you're not supportive of the intent.

---

Imagine that... people who are suicidal might decide a gun is the best way to do it. Wonder what the likelihood that a person who slits their wrist is a razorblade owner? This is one of the dumbest statistics I've ever read. No points are awarded - we are all dumber having read that.

Gun ownership on the left has shot up since 2016. Democratic politicians may find they have less support in their own caucus for gun control. I'm sure they'll still look to enact some minor regulations but it's going to be much harder to enact sweeping restrictions

Civilized said:

---

Pacfanweb said:

---

Civilized said:

---

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

If you vote for Joe, your second amendment rights will be under attack. Choose wisely.

---

Online gun sales are protected by the second amendment?

---

Gun sales are gun sales. Everything else is sold online. Guns should be, too.

Plus...that's just a first step, at least as they see it. The left absolutely, 100% wants to get you guns...that's the endgame. Maybe not you. Maybe not every single senator and representative. But the left overall? Yes, that's exactly what they want, ultimately.

That's why the NRA types fight against every proposed change so hard. If they thought the left was actually sincere about "Let's just ban assault-type rifles or high capacity magazines and that'll be the end of it forever", they'd probably agree to it.

But they know that's not the endgame.

Now other actions like mental health checks and waiting periods and just enforcing current gun laws....most people would be for that.

---

Trump rolled back Obama mental health check legislation.

Evidently the NRA and gun lobby consider Americans receiving Social Security checks for mental illnesses and those determined to be unfit to handle their own financial affairs to be great possible customer...errrrrr, I mean, gun owners.

The slippery slope argument is impossible to substantiate. How can we, when the NRA and gun lobby resist even reasonable attempts to keep guns in the hands of those that can responsibly and safely own them under the guise of those reasonable actions being too broad?

If everything is too broad, nothing meaningful ever gets done.

---

Both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris has talked about gun confiscation...

https://www.statesman.com/news/20200314/fact-check-does-video-show-joe-biden-threatening-to-take-guns

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/of-course-kamala-harris-supports-gun-confiscation/

IseWolf22 said:

---

Gun ownership on the left has shot up since 2016. Democratic politicians may find they have less support in their own caucus for gun control. I'm sure they'll still look to enact some minor regulations but it's going to be much harder to enact sweeping restrictions

---

Would be interesting to see what kinds of guns and what proportion of the increase was from new gun owners vs. existing.

Regardless, sweeping reforms are not getting passed anytime soon, they don't have the requisite support from left to overcome the near universal opposition the right.

Pacfanweb said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Pacfanweb said:

---

Civilized said:

---

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

If you vote for Joe, your second amendment rights will be under attack. Choose wisely.

---

Online gun sales are protected by the second amendment?

---

Gun sales are gun sales. Everything else is sold online. Guns should be, too.

Plus...that's just a first step, at least as they see it. The left absolutely, 100% wants to get you guns...that's the endgame. Maybe not you. Maybe not every single senator and representative. But the left overall? Yes, that's exactly what they want, ultimately.

That's why the NRA types fight against every proposed change so hard. If they thought the left was actually sincere about "Let's just ban assault-type rifles or high capacity magazines and that'll be the end of it forever", they'd probably agree to it.

But they know that's not the endgame.

Now other actions like mental health checks and waiting periods and just enforcing current gun laws....most people would be for that.

---

Trump rolled back Obama mental health check legislation.

---

Come on, man. That's not true, at least not as you're representing it. Or you don't know what was actually done.

From CNN:
Fact check: Did Trump make it easier for those with mental illnesses to buy guns?

Critics were quick to point out that Trump signed a bill at the beginning of his presidency reversing a regulation under President Barack Obama that banned certain people with mental impairments from buying firearms.
Facts First: It's complicated. The Obama administration's rule, which took effect two days before Trump's inauguration, restricted people who required help managing government benefits and had a mental impairment from buying guns. That includes those with eating disorders, cognitive impairments and depression. Multiple disability groups, along with the American Civil Liberties Union opposed the regulation.

This now-removed rule did not alter federal law which prohibits individuals "who (have) been adjudicated as a mental defective or (have) been committed to any mental institution" from owning a firearm.

---

I imagine Obama made an executive order and this was not done legislatively. That means it was just a rule and not a law.

The 2nd amendment was put into the Constitution to give the populace recourse against an over oppressive government and self protection. It was not there for hunting as Joe Biden always claims. It used to be you could own anything the government had like a cannon and then slowly real weapons of mass destruction(as technology has gotten better) have been banned for the public. You can actually buy like 50 caliber machine guns, but you have to go through almost a year process of mental health evaluations and getting the correct licenses and permits. It's very expensive to do it, but it can be done if you have the money and not a mental health worry. I know golfer Greg Norman had one and I believe Glenn Beck has one too.

Now can the public get F-22's and other weapons that have secret technology? No, because it could fall into the wrong hands and that would take away an American advantage. I have no problem with that being the case, but laws on firearms should be very limited.

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

Pacfanweb said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Pacfanweb said:

---

Civilized said:

---

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

If you vote for Joe, your second amendment rights will be under attack. Choose wisely.

---

Online gun sales are protected by the second amendment?

---

Gun sales are gun sales. Everything else is sold online. Guns should be, too.

Plus...that's just a first step, at least as they see it. The left absolutely, 100% wants to get you guns...that's the endgame. Maybe not you. Maybe not every single senator and representative. But the left overall? Yes, that's exactly what they want, ultimately.

That's why the NRA types fight against every proposed change so hard. If they thought the left was actually sincere about "Let's just ban assault-type rifles or high capacity magazines and that'll be the end of it forever", they'd probably agree to it.

But they know that's not the endgame.

Now other actions like mental health checks and waiting periods and just enforcing current gun laws....most people would be for that.

---

Trump rolled back Obama mental health check legislation.

---

Come on, man. That's not true, at least not as you're representing it. Or you don't know what was actually done.

From CNN:
Fact check: Did Trump make it easier for those with mental illnesses to buy guns?

Critics were quick to point out that Trump signed a bill at the beginning of his presidency reversing a regulation under President Barack Obama that banned certain people with mental impairments from buying firearms.
Facts First: It's complicated. The Obama administration's rule, which took effect two days before Trump's inauguration, restricted people who required help managing government benefits and had a mental impairment from buying guns. That includes those with eating disorders, cognitive impairments and depression. Multiple disability groups, along with the American Civil Liberties Union opposed the regulation.

This now-removed rule did not alter federal law which prohibits individuals "who (have) been adjudicated as a mental defective or (have) been committed to any mental institution" from owning a firearm.

---

I imagine Obama made an executive order and this was not done legislatively. That means it was just a rule and not a law.

The 2nd amendment was put into the Constitution to give the populace recourse against an over oppressive government and self protection. It was not there for hunting as Joe Biden always claims. It used to be you could own anything the government had like a cannon and then slowly real weapons of mass destruction(as technology has gotten better) have been banned for the public. You can actually buy like 50 caliber machine guns, but you have to go through almost a year process of mental health evaluations and getting the correct licenses and permits. It's very expensive to do it, but it can be done if you have the money and not a mental health worry. I know golfer Greg Norman had one and I believe Glenn Beck has one too.

Now can the public get F-22's and other weapons that have secret technology? No, because it could fall into the wrong hands and that would take away an American advantage. I have no problem with that being the case, but laws on firearms should be very limited.

---

I'd love to sit in the cockpit of one of the those F22 fighters

WolfQuacker said:

---

Imagine that... people who are suicidal might decide a gun is the best way to do it. Wonder what the likelihood that a person who slits their wrist is a razorblade owner? This is one of the dumbest statistics I've ever read. No points are awarded - we are all dumber having read that.

---

No need to be glib about manners of suicide.

The obvious point is that people in crisis can be saved if they don't have immediate access to a fatal tool. Suicides are often preceded by multiple failed attempts/cries for help but if a gun in used in one of the first attempts, there's often not another chance to intervene. And if there's a gun in the house or they've just bought a gun, there's a greater likelihood that's the tool they choose, rather than less-lethal means.

The risk of suicide by gun is also highest immediately after the purchase of a gun, which is in an indication people buy guns expressly to kill themselves. Trying to intervene and reach that subset of the American gun purchasers is a reasonable goal.

If assessing how to keep guns out of the hands of Americans in mental health crisis is seen as a slippery slope, what wouldn't be?

Pacfanweb said:

---

Did you miss this part? That tells you the legislation was crap.

Multiple disability groups, along with the American Civil Liberties Union opposed the regulation.

---

In this political climate, would the NRA/gun lobby/right get behind well-crafted legislation to keep guns out the hands of those in mental health crisis?

packgrad said:

---

It's absolutely a slippery slope. Anorexia has nothing to do with properly and safely owning a gun. I absolutely see anxiety and depression as slippery slopes as well. I guarantee they would try to tie it to prescriptions. I know several people that take a Xanax when they fly. I have friends that take medication to help them with stress. I 100% see the left trying to make it so these people could not own guns.

---

All legislation has the capacity to become a slippery slope. But we have a backstop for slippery slopes called the Supreme Court. It's in place for precisely this reason, to prevent legislative overreach and ensure the constitutionality of legislation. Gun ownership is no different than any other issue in that regard.

There are two questions here:

1. Should Americans in mental health crisis be a able to buy a gun?

2. If not, is there reasonable legislation that can be enacted to prevent them from doing so?

Civilized said:

---

WolfQuacker said:

---

Imagine that... people who are suicidal might decide a gun is the best way to do it. Wonder what the likelihood that a person who slits their wrist is a razorblade owner? This is one of the dumbest statistics I've ever read. No points are awarded - we are all dumber having read that.

---

No need to be glib about manners of suicide.

The obvious point is that people in crisis can be saved if they don't have immediate access to a fatal tool. Suicides are often preceded by multiple failed attempts/cries for help but if a gun in used in one of the first attempts, there's often not another chance to intervene. And if there's a gun in the house or they've just bought a gun, there's a greater likelihood that's the tool they choose, rather than less-lethal means.

The risk of suicide by gun is also highest immediately after the purchase of a gun, which is in an indication people buy guns expressly to kill themselves. Trying to intervene and reach that subset of the American gun purchasers is a reasonable goal.

If assessing how to keep guns out of the hands of Americans in mental health crisis is seen as a slippery slope, what wouldn't be?

---

I'm actually an advocate for keeping guns out of the hands of mentally unstable folks. But there has to be a lot of work done before you take away someone's constitutional right. My point was just that the "statistic" you quoted was the weak attempt to somehow coorellate gun ownership to suicide. And I'm not being glib about suicide - fi you want to discuss this topic you have to be able to say that it's natural that anyone who is suicidal might take what appears to be the fastest and most logical vehicle to do so, which most would lean towards a firearm. But if you are suicidal and don't have access to a gun, I doubt that's going to be the mitigating factor.

cowboypack02 said:

---

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

Pacfanweb said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Pacfanweb said:

---

Civilized said:

---

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

If you vote for Joe, your second amendment rights will be under attack. Choose wisely.

---

Online gun sales are protected by the second amendment?

---

Gun sales are gun sales. Everything else is sold online. Guns should be, too.

Plus...that's just a first step, at least as they see it. The left absolutely, 100% wants to get you guns...that's the endgame. Maybe not you. Maybe not every single senator and representative. But the left overall? Yes, that's exactly what they want, ultimately.

That's why the NRA types fight against every proposed change so hard. If they thought the left was actually sincere about "Let's just ban assault-type rifles or high capacity magazines and that'll be the end of it forever", they'd probably agree to it.

But they know that's not the endgame.

Now other actions like mental health checks and waiting periods and just enforcing current gun laws....most people would be for that.

---

Trump rolled back Obama mental health check legislation.

---

Come on, man. That's not true, at least not as you're representing it. Or you don't know what was actually done.

From CNN:
Fact check: Did Trump make it easier for those with mental illnesses to buy guns?

Critics were quick to point out that Trump signed a bill at the beginning of his presidency reversing a regulation under President Barack Obama that banned certain people with mental impairments from buying firearms.
Facts First: It's complicated. The Obama administration's rule, which took effect two days before Trump's inauguration, restricted people who required help managing government benefits and had a mental impairment from buying guns. That includes those with eating disorders, cognitive impairments and depression. Multiple disability groups, along with the American Civil Liberties Union opposed the regulation.

This now-removed rule did not alter federal law which prohibits individuals "who (have) been adjudicated as a mental defective or (have) been committed to any mental institution" from owning a firearm.

---

I imagine Obama made an executive order and this was not done legislatively. That means it was just a rule and not a law.

The 2nd amendment was put into the Constitution to give the populace recourse against an over oppressive government and self protection. It was not there for hunting as Joe Biden always claims. It used to be you could own anything the government had like a cannon and then slowly real weapons of mass destruction(as technology has gotten better) have been banned for the public. You can actually buy like 50 caliber machine guns, but you have to go through almost a year process of mental health evaluations and getting the correct licenses and permits. It's very expensive to do it, but it can be done if you have the money and not a mental health worry. I know golfer Greg Norman had one and I believe Glenn Beck has one too.

Now can the public get F-22's and other weapons that have secret technology? No, because it could fall into the wrong hands and that would take away an American advantage. I have no problem with that being the case, but laws on firearms should be very limited.

---

I'd love to sit in the cockpit of one of the those F22 fighters

---

They had one on static display a few years back at Wings Over Wayne. Big rope around it and a guard.

2 years later they had one that few a demo routine. Had already seen an F-15 and F/A 18's fly....the F-22 moved almost "unnaturally", in comparison. VERY impressive. And you could tell the pilot was not showing us everything.

Pacfanweb said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

I'd love to sit in the cockpit of one of the those F22 fighters

---

They had one on static display a few years back at Wings Over Wayne. Big rope around it and a guard.

2 years later they had one that few a demo routine. Had already seen an F-15 and F/A 18's fly....the F-22 moved almost "unnaturally", in comparison. VERY impressive. And you could tell the pilot was not showing us everything.

---

When we were in Alaska, the train from Anchorage up to Denali goes right through Elmendorf Air Force Base and there were several F-22's on the tarmac at the ready. Wish we had gotten to see one fly.

I used to interact with a lot of commercial airline pilots, many of them ex military. One guy was telling me and this was 2009 or so and he told me they were having dogfight trials at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada. It was 8 F-15's up against One F-22 in each trial. On the 3rd day, the F-15's finally got a kill.

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

Pacfanweb said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

I'd love to sit in the cockpit of one of the those F22 fighters

---

They had one on static display a few years back at Wings Over Wayne. Big rope around it and a guard.

2 years later they had one that few a demo routine. Had already seen an F-15 and F/A 18's fly....the F-22 moved almost "unnaturally", in comparison. VERY impressive. And you could tell the pilot was not showing us everything.

---

When we were in Alaska, the train from Anchorage up to Denali goes right through Elmendorf Air Force Base and there were several F-22's on the tarmac at the ready. Wish we had gotten to see one fly.

I used to interact with a lot of commercial airline pilots, many of them ex military. One guy was telling me and this was 2009 or so and he told me they were having dogfight trials at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada. It was 8 F-15's up against One F-22 in each trial. On the 3rd day, the F-15's finally got a kill.

---

Technology gives and takes away doesn't it?

That's crazy.

I was sorry the air show at Cherry Point got cancelled this year; getting down there to see the show and see the Angels perform every couple of years is great. Nothing like seeing jets perform up close.

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

Pacfanweb said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

I'd love to sit in the cockpit of one of the those F22 fighters

---

They had one on static display a few years back at Wings Over Wayne. Big rope around it and a guard.

2 years later they had one that few a demo routine. Had already seen an F-15 and F/A 18's fly....the F-22 moved almost "unnaturally", in comparison. VERY impressive. And you could tell the pilot was not showing us everything.

---

When we were in Alaska, the train from Anchorage up to Denali goes right through Elmendorf Air Force Base and there were several F-22's on the tarmac at the ready. Wish we had gotten to see one fly.

I used to interact with a lot of commercial airline pilots, many of them ex military. One guy was telling me and this was 2009 or so and he told me they were having dogfight trials at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada. It was 8 F-15's up against One F-22 in each trial. On the 3rd day, the F-15's finally got a kill.

---

That i would of loved to of seen