lost_n_confuzd

I agree, and the same for every women who has ever falsey cried rape, which is apparantly what Jamie Leigh Jones did. I don't think most men fit that bill and think women are "fair game". You're exaggerating.

I also think first degree murder was a bit harsh considering we don't know what his intentions were. Good If not already, hopefully he'll clean up his act before he ends up dead like the first one. Good riddance, imo. People really should read up on self defense laws within their states. I hear so many comments (in other forums too) along the lines of "you can only shoot till they pose no threat", "one bullet should stop them...", "shoot them in the leg", etc... that logic is absolute hogwash. You shoot till they're dead and you do it the first time you shoot. In a way, its all about instances. If you leave then come back and the person no longer poses a threat, you can't shoot. However, if it takes emptying the gun in the first instance to kill the robber, your'e in the right.

He should have shot more rounds to begin with, killing him the first time, then he'd be in the right. But since the robber no longer posed a threat he was clearly wrong.

Hmm. Do you think that giving the federal government more power over these cases would help overall? No. I think having the states not violate one's rights would help. That states should be do as they wish within reason and as long as whatever course they take does not vilolate a person's rights without due process. I agree. Both sides have pretty much they said the mentally ill should and should not have guns depending on the outcome of evaluation.

As far as personal firearms, I have not needed a gun either, and likely will not need one. But in the event that I do need one for self defense, food, etc.. I'll be able to own/have one, which I already do. I prefer a bow

Aside from the Stargates

I agree, as long that is determined by a psychiatrist and not just a judge or concerned family members. Of course, family members can assist the psychiatrist and give them a better behind-the-scenes view.

No, it is not. Someone in my family was diagnosed as being schizophrenic. He would have audible and visual dillusions; hearing his wife having sex in voice mails, seeing her on T.V. and in magazines, and even thought she was getting kickbacks from Obama (not sure for what, he never would say). Anyways, it got to the point to where he would search the house for cameras and mics, had a room full of clippings and articles that he thought involved her and had a map of all the places she had visited for sex parties. He went through many computers a year because he thought they were hacked, the magistrates knew him by name because he'd drop by weekly to show them new "evidence" against his, now ex, wife. When it came to his wife, reailty was blurred, but he was never deemed to be violent, never threatened anyone, and this whole time kept his gun collection with no problems. He still thinks his ex-wife was a nympho that received kickbacks from Obama and believes all of his past dillusions were real, but since he's been medicated he no longer acts on them (clippings, searching for mics, etc...) or has any new dillusions that I'm aware of. My point is that not everyone with a mental illness who has dillusions is a threat, in fact, that vast majority are not. So why take away their firearms? Now, as lawrocket said, if someone has a history of violence that is deemed serious enough or has demonstrated the intent to harm themself or others, then yes, their right to possess guns should be taken away. Edit: I'm all for reinstating their right after whatever reasons for initially taking them away has been mitigated.

From the OP's source: Assuming I was a cop, I don't see how my ability to be decisive in a similar situation could be changed by finding out after the event that I was videotoped.

That's true; I saw it on a documentary once. You've been on a role lately...

Colbert's show on Bill's comment... http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/370183/january-06-2011/bill-o-reilly-proves-god-s-existence---neil-degrasse-tyson

Did anyone consider the tone and setting of the two videos? The Bush vid was filmed in Iraq where the President was a bit more "down to earth". The troops were allowed to shout and make noise. The Obama vid was filmed at Camp Lejeune -- In the states. CNN was there, it was more of a formal meeting. The Marines were told to STFU at the POA, they couldn't have cheered even if they wanted to. Different settings require different tones.

What does a 9-volt battery and an asshole have in common? - -- --- ---- ----- ------ ------- -------- --------- ---------- ----------- ------------ ------------- -------------- --------------- ---------------- ----------------- ------------------ ------------------- You know you shouldn't put your tongue on it, but you'll give it a try at least once.

I'd get rid of them.

Well, a marine mom bumper sticker with the EGA on it is obvioulsy showing her pride in her son or daughter. Sort of like the Marine wife bumper stickers. I don't think I would look down of Private Joe's girlfriend for wearing an EGA on her letter jacket. Common sense applies. Yeah, there's some exceptions, but it still takes a douche to wear unearned military awards/badges.

So you're cool with people who have never been in combat wearing small replica combat action ribbon pins on thier business suits? Is a small Eagle-Globe-and-Anchor lapel pin cool for persons who where never Marines? Maybe Marine jump wings and scuba bubbles as a bumper sticker would look cool? People would think they're Recon I'm not debating the legality of wearing this shit; I'm just saying it takes a douche to wear unearned military awards and badges (pins, bumper stickers, etc...). Lapel pins, replicas, bumper stickers, the real deal; they shouldn't be worn if not earned.

Negatitory. He may have the "right" to wear it, but he don't have the right to wear it. Catch my drift? Legality aside, there are some things you just don't do. Wearing military decorations and awards that you have not earned is one of those things you just don't do, period. I have a Pararescue badge that a buddy gave me a few years ago. Sure, I can legally wear it, but it's just one of those things you don't do. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it, but if I knew of someone wearing an EGA lapel pin that was not ever a Marine, they would definately lose credibility with me. Yeah, before someone throws out the wild "what ifs"; there are some exceptions (i.e. wives). It is one thing to wear a t-shirt with a logo, it is another to wear a pin on your suit.

For my own edification....he was found guilty of violating house rules, but wouldn't breaking these same rules also be "crimes"? Either way he should not have been applauded. Public = breaking laws, penalty, no applause Congress = breaking rules, slap on the wrist, applauded

That picture is priceless

Port side shower up, starboard side shine 'em up has a whole new meaning

He's also a douche-canoe to the 27th degree.

Yeah, that really is a lot of awesomeness for one state. I mean, we're riding on back to back SEC and NAT championships for the State. But yeah, I bet the NCAA is going to have AU under a microscope. Hopefully they'll disinfect everything ASAP

Your'e right. We're just not used to it as much. Have any tips?

I haven't hunted in a few years and started back this year hunting Quantico Marine Base, VA. I've seen a few mount-worthy bucks, but they've all been out of bow range. This is my first season with archery so I'm still learning the ropes. On the plus side, does don't count against one's bag limit if hunted in archery only areas (main side, residential, etc...). Yeah, the freezer's full, but still would be nice to bag a buck before the season ends.

Seriously, dude? Good luck finding an answer to that one. But here's a start; none of them.