jfields

Can? I have a 55 gallon drum at the ready.

Exactly! [sarcasm] Welcome to Disorders du Jour, how may we help you? Here are today's specials: ADHD - get it quick, because it doesn't do anything for very long. OCD - special of the day, every day, because we like doing it over and over. Depression - Don't worry about choosing, just wallow in a big bowl of this. All our dishes are dairy-free, because you've probably also decided you're lactose intolerant, and we cater to your every whim. One Day Only - Free Meds with Every Order! (Sponsored by Eli Lilly, makers of Prozac.) [/sarcasm]

That is not a redneck palm pilot. It has to be an imitation. A REAL redneck palm pilot would have at least one of the two words spelled incorrectly.

Funny, for someone in med school.

The funny thing is that if you are careful with your meal planning, you can cook and eat real food for pretty damned little.

Hey, Merrick! Haven't seen you post in awhile. Pammi finally let you have a breather from the sweathshop routine? Or did she just have you tied to the bed the whole time?

http://www.fool.com/Specials/2001/sp011224.htm Investing, skydiving and debt management, all rolled into one.

My website is way out of date, but some of the stuff is fairly timeless... http://www.jennandjustin.com/invest-articles-compounding.asp Illustrates the effects of compounding and why simple savings accounts don't really cut it.

Absolutely, I still have savings. I max my 401k, Roth IRA, my wife's 403b, her Roth IRA, etc. Own a home, so I'm building equity, instead of paying rent. One car is paid, the other has a minimal payment and decent interest rate. The credit cards generally get paid in full every month. I want to have plenty of money to skydive when I am old, grey(er) and retired. Not only that, but I'd like to be able to travel around and do it all over the world.

That is false. Plain and simple. You can't tell me what I believe in, based on an arbitrary decision you have made. You are not me. I do not believe in God, or any form of supreme being, yet I believe in inalienable rights. Every person has the right to attempt to do whatever they want. The practical limitation of that is that there is more than one person on the planet, so they only have that right until it intereferes with another person's equal right to do what they want. The problem is that human interaction brings people together, and they don't always agree on things. That is human nature. Our laws are a collective attempt at creating guidelines for behavior that protect our rights, while conversly limiting the impact we can have on the rights of others. When people violate the laws, the collective whole sees it appropriate to take some of the individual's rights away. Imprisoned felons don't see their rights, as codified by law, as inalienable, considering most of them have been taken away. And I have little objection to that. Their fundamental, inalienable human right to try to do what they want is unhindered. They might not be successful, but they can try. That is where rights as defined by laws interact with "inalienable human rights". The two sets of rights are not identical. The laws are a rough approximation of what we think the human rights should be, and vary over time, and by location. No need to quote patriotic verses at me. I know how my rights were earned. I served in the military and took part in the maintenance of my rights. I also believe, as does the Supreme Court, that the right to own a gun is linked to supporting those rights, be it in the military or the police. I agree that the term "militia" has changed in meaning. I don't believe the usage of the word in the second amendment means what it does today, nor does it mean every citizen. But we've been over the second amendment in detail before. We just disagree on that "right", as on many others.

I think the laws and enforcement should be tougher. But not every responsible citizen wants to be put in the role of "armed defender of justice". I don't want to be forced to go to a range to hone my skills of marksmanship. I don't want to be forced to sink my money into firearms. I don't want to keep guns around the house when I have children. None of those are really necessary if the people with the guns could just refrain from trying to shoot me. An individual non-police, non-military citizen's "Right to bear arms", which is debateable in itself, does not infer an obligation to bear arms. My right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" has no strings that say I must arm myself to retain those rights. It is up to others not to infringe, as it is my duty not to infringe on the rights of others. It is really pretty simple, and much more fundamental than the morass of second amendment arguements we've been in on the forums.

Yes. I'm not that dense, despite what some people think. Everyone always get stuck on the guns vs. no guns issue. I'd be happy to take my chances with looser gun laws, IF people who misused guns for criminal means were either killed or given life with no parole upon conviction. I agree that the criminal intent is a bigger fundamental problem than the means, of which guns are only one. With a huge percentage of the population behind bars or 6 feet under, it would be a lot safer than it is now, without the restrictions on firearms. Of course, that won't happen. And if it started to, we'd all bitch about the tax burden imposed on the "law-abiding citizens" to support them in jail or the cost of their appeals process. Or we could just ship them all to Australia. Whoops, the Brits beat us to that one. With a zero repeat-offender rate, I think we would be a lot safer. That is the other factor in the gun control debate. But since we can't be that Draconian about gun users, we'll have to address the guns themselves.

Whatever. Just not people, okay? And Clay will get pissed if you shoot his girlfriends, even if they are sheep.

No arguement from me. Just stick to hunting the 4-legged animals, okay?

We've been over this one in previous threads too. To be somewhat sarcastic, I lump all gun owners together in regards to my safety because I can't be shot by someone that doesn't have a gun. I can be shot by someone that does. I'm sure most people are very responsible with their guns. But the black and white distinction between "legal gun owners" and "criminals" is fictional if considered over time. There are numerous people that legally buy weapons, then end up killing innocent people with them. Law-abiding and criminal groups cannot be compared as if they were static entities. Of course the "criminals" do the crimes and "law-abiding citizens" don't. It is inherent to the definitions. But that doesn't take into account the migration between groups.

Heh. The truck would get plenty of deer, but buying new bumpers and quarter panels would get to be a drag. I tend to provide for my family at the local grocery store too, rather than killing and butchering animals. Not that I'm some animal rights activist or anything. It is just so much more convenient to buy meat all prepared. Most people see it that way, but I suppose some will argue that it is a second amendment right to shoot enough animals to have a herd in the freezer. Whatever....

Baby pee and poop isn't that bad. It doesn't really smell very much. I know that will change as she gets older. And as to the "crazy hours" part, I have yet to see it. Since birth on April 25, 2002, she has an unbroken streak of sleeping through the night. She is just the champ, I tell you! I'm spoiled rotten with her wonderful disposition.

He deals with what he has. When all you have is a short barrel, you use it.

Okay. Would you acknowledge that the main differences between handguns and rifles are portability and concealability? How would you compare the long-range accuracy of pistols and rifles? If you were to pick one weapon to use to hunt to reliably feed your family, what would it be? My money is on the rifle. You got me on the nit-pick detail, but do you agree that in general, rifles and shotguns have a more functional role on the average farm or rural area than handguns? The context of what I said was actually my agreeing that gun laws ought to fit the situations of the region, and that rural vs urban was a major issue.

Mark, I'll take some aspects one at a time. I'm fine with having laws that fit the regions. DC is different than Montana, without question. That applies to hunting rifles, shotguns, etc. Handguns are pretty much the same everywhere, as they don't have much hunting use. Their targets are generally people. The pejorative adjectives do nothing to support your case. You would object to being called a "Gun-toting warmongering reckless Republican psycopath", so let's both leave the insults at home and talk about the issues. We've been over that in other threads about a million times. It depends on how you look at it. I'm happy to leave the interpretation of that to the Supreme Court and abide by the laws, rather than taking upon myself to disagree and act as if I had a personal exemption from our country's laws. Sounds great to me, if the gun owners would leave me alone as well. I have no desire to interefere in people's lives. Equally, I would like to have a much smaller chance of being shot by someone that doesn't respect my right to be left alone. I hate to say it, but those links actually reinforce the negative stereotypes people have about "gun-nut whacko" people. Most moderate, sensible folks probably find them fairly extremist and disturbing. There are a number of issues with that. I'm not depriving you of your right to self defense. I would love to see sensible gun laws that weren't un-enforceable or impractical. But I question how far the need for firepower really applies to self-defense. In another thread, people questioned the "1 handgun per month" rule. How many handguns does it take to defend yourself? Earlier in the thread you challenged me on some children that died in a home violence incident with an intruder. I gave a number of examples of children killed by unsecured guns in the home. You never responded to those situations. How does the right to self-defense apply there?

First off, I'd ask for an impartial recounting of the events. The "Gun Owners of America" can hardly be called upon for an unbiased account. Anyway, here is a counterexample: And another: And another: So, when you asked: I'll retort the same thing. For every case where you can cite a minor using a gun to defend themselves in their homes, I'll bet you a case of beer I can cite a case where a minor was killed with an unsecured gun from someone's home. Hell, as sad as it is, I can probaby find two to every one you find. Good for my arguement, but sad the the dead kids. Would you honestly be able to look me in the eye and tell me that an unsecured gun in the home with young children presents no danger to them?

No! You can't be serious! Accepted and enjoyed. Thank you.

I totally agree. As you've probably seen in the numerous gun control debates, I'm in favor of both limiting public ownership and tough enforcement of smarter gun laws. Philisophically and practically, I just don't buy the "Guns=Freedom" and "Guns=Safety" arguements. They are both inherently flawed. I'm not that worried about my daughter seeing fictional violence in movies, as the nightly news has plenty of real violence to disturb her.

I disagree. While not "proof", they do show a correlation between the easy availability of guns and the use of guns in murders. You're right that it shows nothing about the overall murder rates. But ours probably is higher in general as well.

I wouldn't trust Cadillac to know what to do with 1000 HP. Ferrari or McLaren, sure, but not Cadillac. Besides, why buy some totally impractical car like that when for the same money, you could get something useful, like a King Air.