Skip to comments.NRA ad campaign portrays Kerry as poodle ("That dog don't hunt.")
Posted on 09/29/2004 4:03:42 PM PDT by harrycarey
click here to read article
Don't know if you saw this one.
Thanks for the ping.
Some really good photoshop stuff here, eh?
Chad is probably such a stuck-up, elitist liberal who's never been further west than Washington DC that he's never heard of the "that dog don't hunt" turn of phrase.
"It's amazing that the leadership of the NRA would attack a lifelong hunter," said Kerry spokesman Chad Clanton. "John Kerry has been hunting since he was a young boy."
We know. So does the NRA.
John Kerry has been hunting heiresses since he was a young boy so he could grow up in the manner to which he would like to become accustomed.
I haven't seen his first "bag", but based on the appearance of his second, looks aren't a criteria in getting a trophy in his little hunt - just bucks - as in money, not deer.
If the AR-15, and by implication the M-16, is only fit to hunt "varmints like prairie dog", why is this weapon the US main battle rifle? Can't the US do better than a varmint rifle.
When hunting terrorists.....a varmint rifle would be ideal...
My mini poodle is a Republican just like his owners. His name is Freedom't Rocket..Rocky for short. He's a Alpha Male.
The intent of combat rifles is, generally, to wound the enemy soldier so that his compatriots have to spend the time and effort to pick him up and patch him up. Hence the prohibition against expanding ammo in the Geneva Conventions.
Interestingly enough, the poodle was originally bred as a sporting dog. And Democrats used to be patriots, too.
I don't know anything about dog breeders, but miniature breeds of any dog seem to appeal to alot of people, so I could only surmise that demand would dictate.
I like akitas myself. Different strokes...
That's also a good analogy of the debates.
President Bush is in the 'working class' category.
Kerry is in the 'show class' category.
Here's what I was thinking of with respect to the military's use of ball, rather than expanding, ammunition:
The United States did, however, sign the Hague Convention 1907, Article 23(e) which forbade: "...arms, projectiles, or material (sic) calculated to cause unnecessary suffering." As a result, US snipers used M-118 ammo, a "Match" version of M-80 ball. (7.62×51mm 173-grain solid-tipped boat tail).
In late 1985, the Judge Advocate General wrote an opinion which affirmed that expanding ammo was legal for the US to use in operations "not involving the engagement of the armed forces of another State" (like counter terrorist operations, for example).
There are those who disagree:
David Crane at "defensereview.com"
The following article was written and published in June, 2002.
It's no secret that the performance of both the M4 Carbine and its 5.56x45mm caliber have, so far, been somewhat less than outstanding in the war against Al-Queda forces in Afghanistan. In short, the enemy hasn't been dropping quickly enough when they are hit.
The M-16 spits out a bullet that weighs 65 to 85 grains. By comparison .38 Special pistol bullet weighs 158 grains. The M-16's "throw weight" is less than, to a little more than, half of a common civilian pistol.
Terrorists are "varmints", to be sure, but they are much more dangerous than a prairie dog and need more rifle than the M-16 to bring down.
My understanding of "battlefield" weapons has been that you want the round to seriously injure the bad guy, but not kill him. The logic being that the serious injury creates more advantages for you and more disadvantages for the enemy than a dead soldier...
This may not be true in a war against terrorists...
That's almost a hundred years old. Two World Wars and countless lesser conflicts have produced millions of dead soldiers and made such noble agreements meaningless when only one side intends to comply.
...an opinion which affirmed that expanding ammo was legal for the US to use in operations...
My disparagement of the M-16 has nothing to do with ball or expanding ammo, but with caliber, ball weight and ball velocity. The M-16's ammunition, in my opinion and experience , has too little weight, too small a caliber, and too much velocity for its effective use on the battle field.
The Pentagon has focused too much energy on keeping our casualties low with protective devices such as body armor, than they have in providing adequate offensive weapons such as a suitable infantry rifle. AAMF, the body armor is a consequence of the deficiencies of the M-16/M-4
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.