kbordson

I'm using the box figuratively not literally speaking. Your using what kind of box again I think she's wondering if someone will check her box? (seriously though... "relationship" - mutual understanding of respect of the other persons desires, hopes and ambitions. Doesn't have to relate to sex. Doesn't have anything to do with a ring - or a box. Just has to do with respect)

Not enough info. You didn't list the dose of the pill. Your tolerance to the meds/alcohol. Your weight. Your liver function. Your general health. Just because one person might be able to get away with mixing them doesn't guarantee that you would be able to. and with consequences like respiratory depression and death.... think about it.

But... I wasn't able to give him any specific data or research (although... I'm sure a few guys would sign up for that study). Just "general knowledge".... cuz doesn't everyone know about the pineapple juice? edit to add (cuz I wouldn't want to disappoint): Semen - Table 3 shows a dominance of Na and Cl... but just cuz something's salty doesn't mean it should smell like bleach. Bleach - Sodium Hypochlorite (NaOCl) But... per this MSDS sheet So you might not want them to be similiar

Diet does DEFINATELY affect semen composition and .... um... taste. I tried to do a pubmed search on the topic of diet and semen and for some reason there weren't a whole lot of studies on the taste. But... from a non-medical prespective, try some pinapple juice. It's supposed to help. (so I've been told)

Are you trying to say that this is a complex issue with lots of room for education and intellectual growth?! (sorry... the sarcasm just kinda slipped out )

What's REALLY good!! Vanilla ice cream, fresh raspberries and milk. pour just a little milk on the ice cream and it crystalizes the "crust." Way cool!!

HEY!!!! Girls can break a sweat, too. Besides, it could help with upper body strength for those rear riser turns If I was coming down a week earlier, I would have been happy to have helped.

Yup!!! Rum and Ice Cream for everyone!

Could you explain what that bottom button would be for? I'm sure many men don't understand it's purpose.

Chocolate chip cookie dough icecream or bourban street sundae icecream. And to drink with it: Rum (dark, light, coconut, O3) Wine, liqueur, Irish Cream, and others.....

I know. But... it seems that to make a point when calculating revenue from legitimate sources and using reasonable values.... some people just get their feelings hurt. I guess it comes down to - when you're used to driving Hyundais (and trust me, I saw one on a website once or some guy told me that they are nice cars so, therefore they are nice cars)... you can't possibly understand why someone would price an Escalade so high. Well... especially if all my friends have hyundais... so the average value of a car must be $X. And with that logic, the Automobile industry (or maybe just one company... or maybe just one model of one make) isn't big enough business to generate marketting strategies or understand how to sell the product by promoting that this is faster or more reliable or better.... because to try to understand that mindset, we would first have to associate it with a non-constitutionally protected privelege or even an illegal business. AND... if you understand all of that, then tell me what we do about firearms regulation, cuz I'm not smart enough to follow this debate. edit to add... and Mike, the special in the kitchen is BURNT eggs.

(Honestly... If this were true debate, I'm thinking I should get a point of personal privilege here. Especially with how you guys just make me want to go to the kitchen and burn eggs.)

OK... enough about who you know that might have a shiny pretty gun... the point I was trying to make before being taken off topic was that the simple question of "Are .50cal's 'necessary'?" is just that. Simple. I brought up the fact that business (big or small) is about sales and marketting. So just ONE type of rifle or one cheap shotgun or one kind of caliber isn't acceptable. We, as a people, tend to think that new is better and want to one-up the jones. (even if the Jones have a firearm worth more than your car). I made an intelligent post on the different options available (#144 on page 6 if you're interested)... and all that is bickered about is how the firearms industry is like the drug cartel, the defination of "Big Business" and the cost of someone shotgun?! This is why congress can't get anywhere.... Discussing the philosophy of guns is a big picture thing (yes... I did say big... I hope that doesn't offend or frighten anyone) Yet everyone wants to focus on the little things.

Seriously... I think my contacts in the industry are a bit more intelligent on this topic than you are. If you choose to buy the lesser cost ones, good. Enjoy! Have fun. But don't assume that everyone else has the same standards that you do.

If you want to take the time... calculate the average of this page and get back to me with your math. Some people pay more for their firearms. It's all about the level of quality you want.

WOW! Those are some extremely high averages. I would cut those numbers in half, except the shotguns I would multiply by .333 I own four shotguns and have never spent $1500 on one. I don't own a rifle that cost $1000 new not counting optics.(7 total). I was averaging ALL the firearms and rifles in that class. Including the 30k shotguns. Just cuz some are cheap, doesn't mean all are.

Actually, it's not that big, compared with corporate America. A few years ago it was said that civilian gun sales in the U.S. amounted to $5 billion per year. That's from all gun makers, combined. That's also the same gross sales as the garbage company I used to work for (BFI). Compared with most big companies, all the firearms makers, even combined as an industry, don't amount to much. I've heard the saying "the way to make a small fortune in the gun business is to start with a large fortune"... but I wouldn't be so flippant to write off the capital gain and revenue generated by the industry. I did a search and here, I found statistics on firearms production for 2004. Per the ATF, there were 728k pistols, 294k revolvers, 1.325mil rifles, 731k shotguns and 19k misc firearms produced for the year. That would be a total of 3 million firearms. (and the fine point on the first page notes that totals are only for 75% of manufacturers). If we give and average sale cost of $800/handgun, $1000/rifle, $1500/shotgun, then that would give a total sales of 2 billion on firearms made only in that year... not including any of the sales on firearms from resales. And.. if you include all the ancillary equiptment in the field (clothing, ammunition, equiptment, reloading,...) Cabela's alone had a total revune in 2005 of $1.8 billion. (yes, it's dirty math because it includes the profit from firearms sales as well) So maybe it is close to the $5 Billion in commercial revenue (that you hadn't referenced)... but I still wouldn't consider this listing to be all "mom and pop ." *and you were accusing Kallend of sidelining the discussion?! AGAIN - the main reason that I brought up the business aspect of it was to show that it's NOT just one simple question ("Are .50cal's 'necessary'?"). But if you want to bicker about your defination of "big business"... go ahead and lets sideline this discussion - my first argument: Merriam-Webster - by that defination, the Firearms Industry IS big business.)

LEGAL is an fairly arbitrary switch that the govt. can turn. The govt. implemented "prohibition" despite the economic consequences to the liquor industry. Legal one day, illegal the next, big business... But... at this point in time.... your argument is not comparing like to like. If the government imposed a "prohibition" on guns then the big business of the firearms industry would be as comparable as the drug cartels... but currently. Nope. Not equal. And the point of my post was not just about the big business of guns... but the multifaceted argument of this topic.

Your point isn't a good counter argument. Which drugs? Cocaine - used to be legal. (even the "special ingredient" in Cocoa-Cola). Yes, now it is illegal and you're right, the government has no hesitation with that big business. What about other drugs.... Codeine? Controlled, but can be legal. Viagra? Prescription, but not illegal. Aspirin? Over the counter and...nope, not illegal. Do the pharmaceutical companies have governement control? Yup - called the FDA. But you can still go to the local GNC store and buy "herbs" and "suppliments" without FDA control. Does the firearms already have government control? DUH. BATF. But... Jim can still buy Tom's rifle (in most states as long as it's not across state) But the big difference is that you are trying to parallel LEGAL firearms to drug because they are both big business. Not apples to apples. Try LEGAL firearms to LEGAL cars or LEGAL big macs or LEGAL meds. Your argument might make more sense.

What I think is funny is when parents limit their childs options by saying "oh... johnnie... you won't like that. Here, have a hot dog." And not only assume that the child won't like it, but set a presidence for the child refusing to try new stuff. What's up with that!?

But... our society does not run on necessity. Commerce and trade is about creating a desire and using that desire to keep advancing sales. If everyone could only have one .22 rifle... would that keep Colt in business? maybe? ok, how about Colt and Glock? Colt, Glock, HK? Colt, Glock, HK, Steyr-Aug? Accuracy International? Remmington? Caspian? Smith & Wesson? Winchester? Browning? CZ? Armalite? ParaOrdnance? Bushmaster? Olympic Arms? Dakota Arms? You get the point. So they have sales and marketing to generate the desire to have bigger, better, faster.... same as in any field of commerce. And the firearms business is HONESTLY big business. (SHOT show's coming up... trust me... it's BIG) Government involvement in business can be bad... but it can be good as well. We just have to decide - as a society- what level of government interference we want. Personally, I don't want a fat and happy congressman telling Dakota Arms that... nope, can't make that gun anymore - so they need to lay off a third of their employees. OK - so they get another job.... Where? They're in South Dakota.... not a lot of options there. Or maybe the new law is they can only sell so many guns/year? As a stockholder or owner of the company... I would be down right pissed!! Would they tell MickeyD's... 'you can only sell 2million big macs this year'? If you think of this as trade and commerce, then you would think that if society didn't want guns... then the companies would go bankrupt. But.... Smith and Wesson (SWHC) looks to be doing quite well. So ... government interference in business/commerce/trade, government interference in personal possession/rights/collections/hobbies/hunting, personal safety v. society fears, this question as a lot more angles than just "are .50cal 'necessary'?"

MMMMMM Pie Savoury pies Bacon and egg pie Butter pie Chicken and mushroom pie Corned beef pie Cottage pie Kalakukko Meat pie Meat and potato pie Pasty Pizza pie Pork pie Pot pie Potato pie Scotch pie Shepherds' pie Stargazy pie Steak pie Steak and ale pie Steak and kidney pie Steak and mushroom pie Steak and cheese pie Potato-top pie Mince pie Mince and cheese pie Sweet Pies Apple pie Banoffee pie Banana cream pie Blackberry pie Blueberry pie Boston cream pie Cherry pie Cheesecake Chess pie Cream pie Custard pie Dutch apple pie Key lime pie Lemon meringue pie Lemon pie Mince pie Mock apple pie Peach pie Pecan pie Pumpkin pie Rhubarb pie, Strawberry-rhubarb pie Shoofly pie - a pie filled with molasses Sugar pie Sweet Potato Pie me like pie

ppppssst.... look at post #13 by IcarusNeededAAD

I .... umm..... once really disappointed a guy in high school. Started chatting with him. Good guy. I invited him back to my house for a game of Pente.... and he was a bit annoyed when we got to the house and then he realized that I really just wanted to play a game of pente and talk and get to know each other....

To ease the tension a bit... I just want to say that both JohnRich and Richards have the right idea - just different perspectives. The true benefit of this thread, of the NRA, of the Brady bills types is the ability to discuss, to debate and to try to HONESTLY understand the other point of view. To learn. To grow. However, when the issue becomes this polarized, then there is less discussion and less understanding. People dig their heels in and refuse to listen, to think or to understand. That is NOT the solution. This isn't a simple question. Although it might seem a simple "Are .50cal's necessary?" There's a lot more to the question that those short words. Technological advancement and science has made it more "convenient" to destroy property and life. And the real question is "Are you, as an individual, capable of understanding the advancements and its implications?" Or "Are you willing to sit passively and let the 'smarter ones' / the government decide what you are capable of understanding?" I was watching Connections Vol 1 the other day (I love James Burke) In one of the series, he was discussing technological advancement (not related to firearms, per se, but in general). He identified four options that we have with regards to technology and "our" (the common person) lack of understanding. 1. Stop any advancement. Go back. Scrap it all. That way there is no difference between the technologically advanced and the man on the street. No guns. Not .50cal, not .223, not even 22's. Lets take it back to rocks and fire. We can still kill each other with that... but not as efficiently. Yes, we limit some rights, but then we don't have to bother with that thinking thing. 2. Limit growth and development to certain areas. Close off "high threat" research and prioritize the funding to "socially desirable" areas... but if it's my money, who the h#!! are you to tell me where to spend it?! 3. Stop all further R&D, and share the knowledge where we have it now. Let everyone have knowledge of how to make a sten (choosin that cuz they are rather simple guns) Kinda like the Amish... pick a date and say "everything from here back is ok to own"... but that's kind of arbitrary too. 4. Continue to allow guns to fire faster, bigger calibers, more accurate.... but understand why some might desire that improvement. Knowing that those can be applied in illegal manners, but trusting that those which own them legally aren't willing to sacrifice their right to pursue those paths. Again back to my prior post.... should Mr & Mrs Smith own an howitzer? Depends on their knowledge and understanding of it. Depends on how it would be controlled. Depends on MANY factors. Should they be able to run down to the 7-11 and pick one up? NO. But should it be absolutely and positively banned for only the military to play with? I don't think so. Just my thoughts.... so continue the debate