davjohns

That's one of my intruder alert systems. Combined with the alarm system and the night lighting, it announces that the range is open and targets are about to present themselves. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Guns! Guns! Guns! Oh, and boobies.... I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Discombobulated always makes me think of boobs. But then, many things do. How about bugabear? Codswallop? Fiddlesticks. Going back to the Muppets - Menumenum. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I am a HUGE fan of training. I would fully support government training in firearms. We once did that. The organization was the Civilian Marksmanship Program. It still exists, but the government cut it away to prevent the appearance of approving of firearms training. Go figure. I would be glad to see a program of civilian training that leads to a license. But the same legislation that creates that program would have to come with recognition that civilian firearms ownership is an absolute right. And possession of that license should allow someone to walk into a gun store and walk out with most anything they want. If it prevents nuts, criminals, and those intending evil from getting firearms, I'm all for it. It does not have to infringe on the rights of the law abiding. But nobody is trying to make that happen, are they? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I can't say I disagree with that position. More so, do you trust people who can't balance a budget or even pass it on time to answer these great questions of life? I don't. I seem to recall Ben Franklin being attributed with a quote that said the only thing worse than democracy were the governments we had tried before. Let's not pretend democracy or republic is perfect. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Wendy and I went through this in a thread last year and agreed we do not have the answer. Personally, I think it is best to err on the safe side and not abort. But, I understand the arguments and justifications in favor. As to Catholics...yes, they are playing an interesting game. They are using the legal definition they reject to defend themselves. I do not approve. Of course, this is the same game used by people who think taxes should be higher, but don't send in extra money. I'm also confused by people who object to the death penalty for a clearly dangerous person, but support aborting a partial born child. It seems to be a facet of human nature that our actions just don't meet our ideals. Churches are made up of humans, why should they be different? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Ethnocentrism. They taught this in PSY 101 when i was in school. They don't seem to teach it anymore. Not sure why. I've seen it's footprints in human behavior my entire life. It seems to me if everyone were more aware of it, we could avoid it's pervasive influence. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Fair enough. That wasn't the part I was looking at, but you couldn't know what was in my head. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Personally, I don't even like three round burst. But it is actually very practical for close quarters home defense. Full auto is generally useless to all but the most skilled. And the most skilled control the bursts to three or four rounds, so what's the point? But my point is, how is personal defense in close quarters different from personal defense in close quarters? Whether you are LEO or John Q, the bad guy is a bad guy, close quarters is close quarters, personal defense is personal defense... I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Here we go... 1. I'm not sure there are many benefits to being married. There are certainly none that can't be easily replicated. In my home state, the spouse automatically inherits, but dying without a will is not a good idea anyhow. So, prepare a will and that issue is gone. In my state, being the spouse doesn't give one the ability to make medical decisions; only a written medical directive does. It used to be a tax liability to get married. That was fixed, but there are still some liabilities. You are generally better off NOT being married in the US. The only 'benefit' to legal marriage that I know of is that one party can't leave the other party and take all the assets (generally). The down side to that is the two parties can not go their separate ways without government approval. 2. I think marriage is a 'right' like paying taxes is a 'right'. Not sure why you would fight for it. If you want to spend your life with someone, do it. Why do you need government's blessing? 3. Screw 'em. Let them be miserable like the rest of us. 4. I'm not even sure why the government is still involved in marriage. Let people come up with legally binding civil contracts defining what they want their marriage to be and how it will be handled if it dissolves. Get rid of divorce courts and save us tax money. 5. Some religious leaders are claiming marriage is a religious institution. OK. Some religions allows gay marriage. What are you going to do now? 6. Legalize gay marriage and you have to legalize plural marriage on the same grounds. More so. Plural marriage is biblical, ok with many religions, and has as long a history as humans. Hell, statistics tell us many marriages are already plural and one person just doesn't know it, yet. 7. What were we discussing? lol I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

"DHS and its components have a requirement for a 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is required." This is a very interesting quote from the requirements. How does this differ from home defense? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

You mean this isn't a thread about working out biceps? Rats. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I'm working on it. Give me a chance. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I have a very thorough understanding of how the government works in the USA, thanks. Then I wager you are ahead of many who are working in it. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Gary Dotson...looked up the story. Certainly plenty of blame on the girl. More on the police and prosecutor. Agents of the government that is so virtuous that ordinary citizens need never worry or own firearms as a counter to tyranny. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Before or after a background and mental health check? lol...if I'm giving you a firearm worth hundreds of dollars, I don't need to do a check. I know you. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Are you trying to be funny? Because you're not. Tink's life was in serious jeopardy. I can't believe you actually made a joke of such a serious thing. Someone on this forum has finally succeeded in offending me. I'm leaving. But I'm doing so in a huff! I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

And why are you awake so early on a Saturday anyhow? Go back to bed. You're cranky. lol I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

OK. We are going to have to disagree on this one. I don't see any nefarious intent on the part of the legislator. I think it will work as written without hurting victims, but could have been better. You see it as a conspiracy. I continue to attribute most government fuckery to incompetence or laziness rather than actualy malice. I just don't think most of them are smart enough to be criminal masterminds or master manipulators. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I'll go along with that. While I very much doubt the NRA has a stated goal of increasing gun sales, more guns make it harder for the government to ban them. And manufacturer interests and NRA interests certainly travel well together. Personally, I have given firearms to friends who did not own one. I like knowing they can protect their families. I like knowing we can share a sport together. I like knowing they are a citizen and not a subject. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

And if her motivation is to just put every physical shred of it behind her, and keep her rapist out of her life forever, and assure she never has to be traumatized again by having to face him in court, and the helper knowingly aids in that? That could easily be enough to trigger prosecution under the statute, especially in combination with an ambitious, politically partisan DA. No, I think the potential for abuse remains far too great. If her motivation or that of her assistant is what you describe...no crime. The INTENT must be to destroy evidence. Not to put the incident behind her. And since it would be incredibly difficult to convince a jury that the intent was destruction of evidence when everyone expects a victim to try to put it behind her, it would be virtually impossible to prosecute a victim. You know that. I agree that it could have been worded better. It should have included something saying, "This law will not be construed to...". But it was clearly not written for the purposes your initial post claimed. What you copied and posted was a blatant lie. I don't hold you responsible. I presume you didn't actually read the law. Or if you did, you were already expecting the worst due to the article and missed the true meaning of the words. You're a smart guy. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

You're killing me, Andy. You're focused on the actus reus. The point is the mens re. It says the intent must be to destroy evidence. If the girl's intent is to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy, no issue. If the friend is helping her put trauma behind her, no problem. It's only the person who is trying to destroy evidence that is committing a crime. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

This proposal is just as preposterous as the assault weapons ban feinstein proposed. Both are equally ludicrous. Ignore the lies. Read the actual bill. It makes it criminal for a rapist to coerce the victim to get an abortion to destroy evidence. It does not say the victim can not get an abortion. Legally, it is clear enough. But it could have been written just a little better to keep lay people from getting carried away. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Ah, You're a Literalist. Excellent. Makes Andy all googly inside. Like a cat with catnip. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.