JohnRich

News: Obama administration moves to aid Syrian opposition Link: http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/03/06/obama_administration_moves_to_aid_syrian_opposition I thought Obama and his liberal supporters were opposed to the U.S. meddling in the affairs of other countries? First Libya, now Syria. And yet the liberals remain silent without so much as a peep in protest.

I saw that. What a bummer. I apologise for any inconvenience. I'll see if I can find the article elsewhere and try it again. It was kinda interesting. See: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=kochs+brothers+are+trying+to+seize+control+of+the+libertarian+think+tank+cato&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1

How is the Volt different from other hybrid cars from other manufacturers that seem to be selling okay? Why is it just the Volt that is unpopular?

I am but one of many people here who is concerned with gun rights. On my first page list of threads in this forum, out of 50 subjects, 9 of them are about guns, and only 3 of those were started by me.

You have to read more than just the Constitution to understand how those words came to be that way, and how they were intended to be interpreted. Start with the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, available in any college bookstore. The gun-o-phobes like to make hay out of the fact that the Supreme Court didn't rule that the 2nd Amendment was an individual right until just a few years ago. The explanation for that is that past generations have always understood it to be that way, and thus there wasn't any argument over it. It only became an issue because gun-o-phobes tried to rewrite history and claim that it was different from what everyone had always understood. Fortunately, they didn't get away with it. If you're not going to bother doing some research to answer your questions, then folks here are just going to quit listening to repeating the same complaint over and over again.

You really need to do more historical reading on this subject. Where you're going wrong on the above statement is to believe, apparently, that the mliilitia and the people are separate entities. They aren't. The people ARE the militia. They are one and the same. Even now in modern times, most state constitutions define a citizen militia, consisting of all able-bodied males between the ages of 18 and 45, and are subject to call-up in the event of threats or disasters. The next argument usually put forth is that the state National Guard units have replaced the militia these days. Not so. There are two classes of militia; one is the Guard, and the other is the "unorganized militia" consisting of the citizenry. They are both militia, and are both comprised of the common citizens. YOU are probably a member of your own state's militia, and don't even realize it. Fortunately, the Brits gave up on invading and occupying us, so they haven't had to call up the militia's in a while, but the concept is still valid.

The irony is that governments have immunity from prosecution for that type of thing - they have no duty or obligation to protect you. And yet these are the same folks denying citizens the means to protect themselves. Go figure!

Yes, the general principle here in Texas is that if you see something happening to someone else, and if you were in the victim's place and would be legal to shoot, then it's also legal for you to shoot as a third party to save the victim. And that makes perfect sense to me. California lawmakers, maybe not. A lot of those folks seem to prefer to have more victims, rather than more people acting to save others. So just look the other way and pretend it's not happening, don't get involved, and mind your own business!

Make donations to the Second Amendment Foundation. They might be working on it as we speak. Even if the 9th Circuit (California) rejected the challenge, that would be okay at this point. Because then there would be differing rulings in two federal districts, which would make the issue ripe for clarification from the Supreme Court. And the pro-gun folks would win there.

Yes, which is rather odd since it's legal to ship long guns via U.S. Post Office. So you have to bring your firearm in a package and walk right past the "No Guns" signs on the front door. And then hope the heck the mail clerk knows it's legal, and doesn't call the cops. I had to stand there for about 15 minutes once while the clerk went in back and looked up the rules in a book. I kept expecting the SWAT team to appear...

Yes, that's the thinking of the people that come up with those goofy laws. The problem is that the right to self-defense should not be contingent upon your odds of being attacked. EVERYONE should have the right to defend themself with armed force if they so choose, regardless of their odds of needing it, because no one ever has a guarantee of being completely safe. Crime can strike anyone, anywhere at any time.

Navy Seal, Vietnam Veteran, Husband, Father, Purdue University, Civil Engineer, Owner of Bethlehem Plumbing Co., Skydiver, All around good guy.

I would like to hear more about: 1) Clothing that plays back last night's sex telepathically, and; 2) Sex with alien chicks. Yeah, sex with aliens would definitely be a change to life as I know it. Isn't the Army going to be mad at you for revealing that you worked with them secretly. After all, it it was secret, then you weren't supposed to tell anyone.

Yep, a lot of places have had laws like that. Protecting cash, or a person carrying cash, with a gun, is considered smart. But protecting everyday people who aren't carrying cash, isn't allowed. And how dumb is that? People are more important than money.

Many states have had this restriction. This is the difference between what is called "may issue" and "shall issue". The "may issue" states say that a local sheriff can decide for himself whether or not a person should be issued a permit. And since sheriffs vary widely in their personal beliefs, that leads to uneven processing of applications. Whether you get a permit or not depends upon in which county you live. "Shall issue", on the other hand, says that if the applicant meets all of the criteria laid out by the state, then the sheriff MUST issue the permit. The local sheriff no longer has any personal input into the matter. And that means that processing is uniform statewide, and everyone gets the same consideration. And that's the way it should be. So this lawsuit was about forcing Maryland to switch from the discriminatory and uneven may-issue process, to the uniform and non-discriminatory shall-issue. This is an improvement from the citizens of Maryland.

Are you aware that Obama has actually already made air strikes on about 6 middle east nations?

News:Md. Gun Law Found Unconstitutional "A federal judge has ruled that Maryland’s handgun permit law is unconstitutional. "In an opinion filed Monday, U.S. District Judge Benson Everett Legg says a requirement that residents show a “good and substantial reason” to carry a handgun infringes their Second Amendment right to bear arms."Full story: CBS Baltimore You don't need to "show a good reason" to be allowed to exercise a constitutional right. You get to exercise them for any reason, or no reason at all. Imagine if you were required to show a good reason in order to be allowed to vote. Or to show a good reason in order to write an editorial for the newspaper. Or to show a good reason before being allowed to go to church. It's enough to just say; because I want to do it, and it's my constitutional right. Kudos to the Second Amendment Foundation, which continues their long string of successful gun law challenges.

Feel free to jeer and throw popcorn at them for their insensitivity to your personal enjoyment of a movie experience. This movie's advertising stressed that the characters were real Navy Seals, not just actors. That made the impact more real than most movies, because some day there actually could be a military funeral for any one of those men. They're still out there, performing dangerous missions for our country. There was also, in the credits at the end of the movie, a list of Navy Seals who have died in combat since 9/11/01. It was scrolling too fast for me to read all the names, so I just read one column out of two, and counted. I seem to recall there were 26 names in that one column, so that would be about 52 Navy Seals KIA total. That too made the funeral scene more real than the standard Hollywood movie.

A good example of gun-o-phobia, whereby armed victims are considered to be "criminals" themselves. Charges were dropped: http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/02/23/charges-dropped-against-nh-man-who-fired-gun-to-stop-burglar/ He never should have been charged in the first place - it was legitimate self-defense.

Yeah, but an unscrupulous cop can claim "probable cause" for just about anything. I was once getting a traffic ticket in Alabama. He requested permission to search, and I refused. The cop then claimed that I appeared to be nervous and that he could see a vein in my neck pulsating. He used that as an excuse to call in his backups, lock me in the back of his police car, tow my car off the highway to their lot, and search it. Finding nothing, they brought in a drug sniffing dog. Still found nothing. He was a Deputy Barney Fife type... The moral of this story is that just because they legally need probable cause, doesn't mean they can't just lie and invent it on the spot.

Ha! That's a good line, and a typical justification for more gun laws. I can see it now. Since gun registration already exists in Chicago, we just need to extend it to all 50 states. Since ammo purchase registration already happens in Los Angeles, we just need to extend it to all 50 states. In other words, everywhere there's a restrictive gun law, in no matter what entity, you're for expanding it to everywhere. And while advocating this, at the same time you claim that you're not pushing for new gun laws. You're a friggan' riot. Your obfuscation has been exposed, and even the most naive reader here can now realize the stupid games you play with your words. You're not fooling anyone.

Military funerals are not fiction. And anyone who has ever attended one for a friend or family member will likely get tears when they see one repeated in a movie. One should not make light of that response. If you don't respect it, it just means you haven't experienced it yet. If you're really lucky, maybe you'll never have to learn to cry at a movie funeral. *sigh* (my post in support of Jumperdude's action did not post.) Bullshit. This military funeral was fiction. Even though it was based off of a lot of support by the Teams, it is still a suspension of belief. I am still active duty, and been for years. I have attended real Military Funerals with my Grandfather's (Battle of the Bulge) 101st Airborne (Army), Two uncles (Vietnam) and three Active Duty Iraq/Afghanistan Funerals at Ft Rosecrans and other non-national cemetaries, and a few others(family acquaintances) who served cold-war, Korean war .ect. . . I have the damn Ceremony down by heart. A work of fiction isn't real or as heartfelt. When you serve almost two decades, maybe you will understand. Movies just don't cut it and never will. You served before. Don't you remember talking to your Wife about how you want your funeral arranged if you bought it? Creamated or buried? Which cemetary, or by your family plot? The wills? The stress and the look in her eyes during the whole dam conversation? Tell me a damn move moves you! Thank you for your service. Given your experience, I would think you would understand what I said. You're not necessarily crying for the fictional death of the movie character, you're crying because the scene reminds you of real life military funerals, for real people. Yes, some movies move me. That scene at the beginning of "Saving Private Ryan" made me cry like a fucking baby. The funeral in "Act of Valor" did make tears well up in my eyes. The movie "Taking Chance" with Kevin Bacon was actually painful to watch for the whole friggan two hours. And I just lost a friend yesterday who was a former Navy Seal in Vietnam, so I'm fixin' to cry again. And I'm not ashamed to admit it. Then again, maybe I'm just a big fuckin' cry-baby.

That sounds like an excellent idea to help you learn about things, get to know people, and be accepted by the group. Kudos! Too many people just show up, pay their money, jump, and then leave. Much harder to learn that way, when you don't hang around and get involved with things and people.

Have you ever wondered why skydivers drink so much at the end of the day? Well, all that high speed freefall creates airflow over the skin that literally sucks the moisture right out of your pores, much faster than it would normally be ejected by sweat alone. This leaves jumpers with a hydration deficit. And therefore, that moisture must be replaced as soon as possible to return the body to it's natural state of liquid equilibrium. And that's why skydivers can't wait to get a beer at the end of the day. It's actually a medical necessity.

They seem to be telling researchers of a particular type, in a tongue in cheek manner, that they should go jump out of a plane without a parachute.