Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide (AP)

[Thomas Rogers]

You know its Frank when the name calling comes out, and he uses fictitious characters as examples to prove his point.



TJR

 

[user 64972]

[Broken External Image]:

 

[Frank screwyourednecks]

During the Vietnam era. BY HIS OWN ADMISSION, Nugent stopped all forms of personal hygiene for a month and showed up for his draft board physical in pants caked with his own urine and feces, winning a deferment. Creative! But cowardly.



Hey TJR Nugent is real and I call it like I see it. The only problems that some have with what I say are persons who cant handle being shown how truly wrong they are.



Have a good holiday. I know I can be proud that day. Can you and Nuge??

 

[Mark K 2]

Don't call all liberals and democrats anti-gun. I'm a Democrat and I'm pro-gun.



I'll admit that I'm honestly baffled by some gun owners that almost obsessively keep buying and stockpiling guns. But then, I'm baffled by people who collect dozens of cars or hundreds of knick-knacks or teddy bears. Anyway, I've known of a couple of guys around here who've built 1000 sq ft additions to their homes just to store their guns. They're not level-headed collectors who'll gladly tell you about their prized Sharps M1863 rifle and its history. They're just accumulating guns for the sake of having guns.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Frank, I wasn't talking about Ted. Reread your post. You'll figure it out.



TJR

 

[Bud Williams]

They're just accumulating guns for the sake of having guns.

He is ready for an event like 2012 or Book of Eli...nothing wrong with

being prepared....:fire:



Stockpile water too!

 

[Les]

Even cross dressing Klinger served his time in the Military

You know its Frank when the name calling comes out, and he uses fictitious characters as examples to prove his point.

Hey TJR Nugent is real and I call it like I see it. The only problems that some have with what I say are persons who cant handle being shown how truly wrong they are.

Here you go Frank, being shown how truly wrong you are.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Les can read and type (and think). Sorry to be sarcasitic, and I am not picking on Les. I thank him for connecting the dots for Frank. Many folks here do what Frank does often...get so heated up and emotional about a topic they can't (or don't) read and understand before they speak (er, type).



That is why it is important to think before one speaks. Or, said another way:

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

 

[Bud Williams]

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9b_ZwJtEC_g&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9b_ZwJtEC_g&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

 

[Kevin Lang]

He is ready for an event like 2012 or Book of Eli...nothing wrong with

being prepared...

In Book of Eli, guns were common, but ammo was scarce. Just nit-pickin'.

(Surprisingly it was a good Denzel movie. Never though that would happen.)

 

[Robert Thomas]

"What is the origin of the expression nit-picking?"



"A The phrase comes from the task of removing the tiny eggs of lice (nits) from someones hair and clothing, a tedious activity that required close attention and care. The word nit, which could also refer to the eggs of other insect parasites such as fleas, has been around in the language for as long as we have records (it appears in Old English around 825 as hnitu, but it has relatives in most European languages and has been traced back to an Indo-European root, so ancient has been the association of such pests with human beings).



But what seems a little odd is that the figurative sense of nit-picking, of petty criticism or fault finding, is modern. The Oxford English Dictionary records it first only in 1951, in the form nit-picker, in this helpful explanation from Colliers: Two long-time Pentagon stand-bys are fly-speckers and nit-pickers. The first of these nouns refers to people whose sole occupation seems to be studying papers in the hope of finding flaws in the writing, rather than making any effort to improve the thought or meaning; nit-pickers are those who quarrel with trivialities of expression and meaning, but who usually end up without making concrete or justified suggestions for improvement. The first of these two slang terms has died out, with the second taking on much of its meaning."



Can we get a little guy for "Fly-Speckers" :banghead::banghead:

 

[Les]

(Surprisingly it was a good Denzel movie. Never though that would happen.)

watch "Training Day"...

 

[Kevin Lang]

watch "Training Day"...

Didn't want to touch that after seeing Man on Fire, and that other movie where Denzel is partnered with Gene Hackman as the XO on a submarine. (Crimson Tide IIRC)

Can we get a little guy for "Fly-Speckers"

Well, I'll meet you half way and say I was being punctilious .

 

[Thomas Rogers]

"Training Day" was actually quite good, IMHO. Ethan Hawke had a really good performance in that flick. It wasn't your typical Denzel movie.



I think it came out well before "Man on Fire"...which if memory serves had Dakota Fanning...still awaiting a good movie with her in it.



TJR

 

[Kevin Lang]

Dakota Fanning...still awaiting a good movie with her in it.

You'll be waiting a LONG time. I think she's like Natalie Portman in that she could only have made a good movie as a young child, and she's out of that age range, and didn't have that young



Wasn't Fanning in that egregious movie Push?



I didn't care for Training Day. Pretty meh. Better than Man on Fire though. Book of Eli had a decent plot, a decent post-apocalyptic atmosphere (it stood out in a sea of similarly set movies), and decent acting.



It had the feeling of the classic dystopian future movies of yesteryear, but with higher production values, a more visceral feel, and demonstrating that Denzel might not survive in the box office via the urban market alone.

I think it came out well before "Man on Fire"

I don't know the chronological order by theatrical release, but I know that I saw Man on Fire first. As well as 1995's Crimson Tide.

 

[Robert Poole]

I had read the book" Man on Fore" by AJ Quinnell. the book is awesone, if they had followed the book rather than being creative the moovie would have been awesone.





Y'all have a good one



Bob

 

[TrainTrac]

:back2topic::fire::

why the gun is civilization



Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, thats it.



In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.



When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.



There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that wed be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the muggers potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiatit has no validity when most of a muggers potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and thats the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.



Then theres the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones dont constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon thats as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldnt work as well as a force equalizer if it wasnt both lethal and easily employable.



When I carry a gun, I dont do so because I am looking for a fight, but because Im looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I dont carry it because Im afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesnt limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equationand thats why carrying a gun is a civilized act.