TMF

I've been following this for quite some time. I'm really looking forward to watching actual grunts be represented in a movie. However, I'm not sure America is ready for a military hero who isn't a SEAL.

There's no state preemption law on knives, so it varies county by county. Of course, it hasn't been challenged in court yet, so I'm an unapologetic law breaker.

That is the manliest gun, ever. I'm ready to ditch my 30-30.

Please do us a favor and punish those who drive like idiots during these conditions.

Our water heater exploded a few months ago. The new water heater was our Christmas present and then some. Years ago, when my wife and I were newlyweds, the furnace went out on our house and it was two weeks of winter before we could get a new one installed. We pulled the mattress out to the living room to sleep, and kept a fire going for two weeks. While it was an inconvenience, I can't complain about the opportunity to share body heat!

Last week? Nah. Look at the icing; it's been exposed to extreme conditions. I'm guessing this was left in the truck and found under the seat after many years.

Iced honey bun... looks like "Tastycake" brand based on the packaging. I'm guessing, due to the icing breakdown, we're looking at 2-4 years. I'll go with 2011 production. Do we get booze if we guess right?

This movie should be a cautionary tale on why you don't mess with a man's dog.

What, the new ones? Nothing like doing PT and feeling like you're wrapped in a trash bag. When the army went to those I had already left the world of wearing silly things. I can't remember a time when I wore it.

I still call them disco belts. It's amazing how these were never a requirement, and suddenly it was impossible to do PT without one on.

I used to live off of Jack Miller a long time ago. It started to go south quick and we left that side of town. Seems like there is a body pulled out of there weekly now.

Preference. I've never found slutty women attractive.

They had weapons?  Of course they did.  They are in the military, and likely these were MPs, or whatever they call them in the Marines (a**holes?).  They're supposed to have guns.  So this is what I'm trying to understand:   1. Person on bike breaks law, ignores sign which tells them not to trespass on base. 2. Military police have guns. 3. Person is surprised to be fined and have their vehicle impounded for illegally trespassing onto a military installation. 4. Person is surprised that law enforcement have guns.   What makes people from California so ****ing stupid?  Is it genetic?  Brainwashing?  Lead in the water?

  The problem with Clarksville isn't so much the drivers as it is the roads not being prepped and not having enough plows.  I dealt with many winters up there, and I wouldn't drive on it.  Just a few years ago a storm hit just as I was leaving work.  It should have been a 10 minute drive home but it took an hour.  I witnessed somewhere over 2 dozen accidents on the way home, and probably as many cars stuck in the median after losing control.  The issue was it rained, then snowed and the roads weren't treated.    I don't care where you come from or what you drive, the laws of physics still applies.  I'm from Florida, but drove plenty in places where they get a lot more snow, such as Michigan.  I took my southern ass out driving after getting at least a foot of snow.  No problem at all.  In most parts of Tennessee, however, the roads don't get pre-treated and there aren't enough plows.  This is why it shuts everything down.  It's not that people are just all stupid.  I'll add, some of those wrecks were idiots in 4wd's, who were driving like a**holes because they thought everyone was stupid and their 4wd has some kind of magical powers which nullify the laws of physics.  It don't matter if you're in a 4wd or not; when you're on ice you are not in control, and you can't stop any quicker than anyone else.

Definitely looks like the type of gal who likes to have her hair pulled.

I'll take Robin Meade over this clap trap any day of the week. Robin can pull off the hotness without being slutty, and she's still able to do it at the age of 45.

I also have an unhealthy obsession with Robin Meade which is going into its 14th year. After intense deliberation on a deployment long ago, it was determined that I would sacrifice any finger, with the exception of the thumb, on my left hand in order to nail Robin Meade.

There would need to be a swimsuit competition to solve this issue.

Registering journalists will lead to the confiscation of journalists. You can have my Liz Hasslebeck when you pry her from my cold, dead hands.

Every scenario is different, and you can't broadly plan that this is what you need to do. If people can barricade, it is safer than trying to evacuate if you must go through the area the active shooter is in. Of course, if you cannot barricade, you'll need to evacuate. While my family comes first, the goal is to balance their safety and that of others. My wife and kids fall into the category of innocent and defenseless people, and they are most immediate to me, and therefore will receive my immediate attention. However, if I'm able to intervene without compromising their safety, then I will do that. Being a hero isn't the goal, and shouldn't be the goal. Preserving the lives of innocent people is the goal, and should be done by any means possible.

  There is no interpreting to it.  You were pretty clear.  In fact, you capitalized the word "SELF" to stress that you're only interested in protecting yourself.  Then you went into something about "obscurity" for some reason, which I could only interpret, based on the context, that this was in regard to not receiving recognition for being the "good guy with the gun."    I'm not sure what you're getting at in this post with this very specific scenario.  Obviously every scenario is different, but to just pick one scenario and use that as your reason why you wouldn't protect anyone is just silly.  No, if someone is on the other side of town in an active shooter situation, I'm not putting on my cape and tights and flying over there to save the day.  The very general scenario posed here is whether you feel the obligation to defend others in an active shooter situation.  Each situation is different.  The basic point is, are you willing to risk injury or death to yourself or potential legal and financial heartache?  Yes or no.  Based on your post, you are in the no column.  That is what we're addressing here.   If you or other people here find yourself in the "no" column, I'd take a hard look at yourself and consider if this is the kind of man you want to be.  Part of being a man is protecting the weak and defenseless.  That's just it.  That doesn't just apply to active shooters and Die Hard terrorist scenarios people like to wargame on the internet; this is broadly applied.  Part of the problem with this society is there are few men left; just a bunch of males.