warpedskydiver

My friends great uncle was a retired wiseguy with IBM. Don asked him for some advice from his vast experiences in life, he was 84 yrs old when he had to move to a nursing home, he had lung cancer. So he called Don close and, Don Said yeas uncle Guido? Guido whispered, never fry bacon naked!

Never berate the 1st Sgt. You must prove he is a tool before ever demeaning him, he earned that right.

Anyone interested in proof of my cooking skills can either show up for a meal, or get references from Rainbo, Gene03, or anyone else who has eaten at my house, or at the DZ when it is not freezing cold outside. Cooking on a coleman stove can be a challenge.

I love it when you guys see the humor of my statements.

I have all of you beat, I can cook most anything, and no matter what you do I can win. One smack to the back of your heads with a cast iron skillet, and the only thing you guys will be making is baby noises in a nursing home.

I would like to apologize for my interest and skills with a firearm. In the future I promise to never defend the life of an anti-gun person, I would not want their hurt feelings on my conscience.

Second Amendment: A Citizen’s Right By Fred Dalton Thompson, 1/2/2008 Here’s another reason why it’s important that we appoint judges who use the Constitution as more than a set of suggestions. On Nov. 21, 2007, the Supreme Court decided to hear the case of District of Columbia v. Heller. Six plaintiffs from Washington, D.C. challenged the provisions of the D.C. Code that prohibited them from owning or carrying a handgun. They argued that the rules were an unconstitutional abridgment of their Second Amendment rights. The Second Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, provides, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The District argued, as many gun-control advocates do, that these words only guarantee a collective “right” to bear arms while serving the government. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected this approach and instead adopted an “individual rights” view of the Second Amendment. The D.C. Circuit is far from alone. The Fifth Circuit and many leading legal scholars, including the self-acknowledged liberal Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, have also come to adopt such an individual rights view. I’ve always understood the Second Amendment to mean what it says -- it guarantees a citizen the right to “keep and bear” firearms, and that’s why I’ve been supportive of the National Rifle Association’s efforts to have the DC law overturned. In general, lawful gun ownership is a pretty simple matter. The Founders established gun-owner rights so that citizens would possess and be able to exercise the universal right of self-defense. Guns enable their owners to protect themselves from robbery and assault more successfully and more safely than they otherwise would be able to. The danger of laws like the D.C. handgun ban is that they limit the availability of legal guns to people who want to use them for legitimate reasons, such as self-defense (let alone hunting, sport shooting, collecting), while doing nothing to prevent criminals from acquiring guns. The D.C. handgun ban, like all handgun bans is necessarily ineffectual. It takes the guns that would be used for self protection out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, while doing practically nothing to prevent criminals from obtaining guns to use to commit crimes. Even the federal judges in the D.C. case knew about the flourishing black market for guns in our nation’s capital that leaves the criminals armed and the law-abiding defenseless. This is unacceptable. The Second Amendment does more than guarantee to all Americans an unalienable right to defend one’s self. William Blackstone, the 18th century English legal commentator whose works were well-read and relied on by the Framers of our Constitution, observed that the right to keep and bear firearms arises from “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation.” This view, reflected in the Second Amendment, promotes both self-defense and liberty. It is not surprising then that the generation that had thrown off the yoke of British tyranny less than a decade earlier included the Second Amendment in the Constitution and meant for it to enable the people to protect themselves and their liberties. You can’t always predict what the Supreme Court will do, but in the case of Heller and Washington, DC’s gun ban, officials in the District of Columbia would have been better off expending their efforts and resources in pursuit of those who commit crimes against innocent people rather than in seeking to keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens who would use them only to protect themselves and their families - And that is why appointing judges who apply the text of the Constitution - and not their own policy preferences - is so important.

I never said anything regarding the fact that this current adminitartion is always right, nor above fucking up. But lets face it, both sides are playing against us.

You should learn more and speak less. oh yeah, and obviously you equate jump numbers to intellect

Deflagration is not an explosion.

Go away...sheesh

I do not claim o be an expoert in gun powder. But what does that have to do with the gun related death toll in this country? I don't know but you keep telling me that it explodes, so show me how that happens.

I looked and it is not listed, OH BTW your second link sucks ass.

I will help you out so you will not humilate yourself. IT BURNS, IT DOES NOT EXPLODE You have to contrict it in an enclosed space sufficent to build pressure.

So tell me how you get gunpowder to explode, type it really slow so us less learned people will understand your great intellect.

Do you know what gunpowder actually is? I know, why don't you look that up on wiki too.

I am not going to read that, I know more about explosives than you will ever learn, and if wiki claims that gunpowder is an explosive, whoever wrote it needs to remove their heads from their asses. Do you actually know anything about firearms, explosives, or gunpowder? BTW try and get gunpowder to explode. Just try it. We are not talking about blackpowder either. That is unless you think gangstas are holding people up with a brown bess musket.

Because we all know the democrats have nobody involved with oil companies and big business. OK I follow that logic.

Yep, if they are just poor and hungry let them have it. Now if it appears that it is for profit, bust their ass on the spot.

And or Real Dolls. Of course in some countries they just use sex slaves.

If we already find pre-purchase checks to be constitutional (which we do) then making the check an EFFECTIVE check instead of a worthless, useless ineffective, toothless check will not affect anything. So tell all of us your grand plan to stop all people who would use a gun to commit a crime. IN DETAIL Do not illude to what others have done, tell us every measure you would take, and I will show you why it does not work.

Like I give a crap.

They could force us all to get the same haircut, or likewise send one mormon to every houshold in america, and then they would drink all our beer. If they sent two mormons, they would pour all our beer down the sink.

The oven?

Hey you could always tie the thing to a tree and fire it from a distance!