TMF

I love me some Southwest. I wish they flew international. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Muy bueno, cabron! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sure, but proving something which at one time was not accepted is not proof of a black panther. It just isn't. Until there is real evidence, it doesn't exist. Just like Bigfoot. Back to my original reason for my post, it was to discount the notion of killing a large cat in self defense. I do believe there is a strong possibility of mountain lions in East Tennessee, however rare they may be. My point was to illustrate that they must not pose much danger, since there is no REAL evidence of anyone being attacked. The most dangerous creature in the woods walks on two legs. If mountain lions are officially listed as being present in TN, there will be no limit to the number of bubbas going out to try and kill one and say it was self defense. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When I hear hooves I assume it's horses, not zebras. Once again, there is zero compelling case for this mystery animal other than the desire for it to exist. If you replaced "black panther" with "Bigfoot" it would have the same credibility, based on the lack of any tangible evidence. Scratch that, there's actually video evidence of Bigfoot, and reliable if you ask a Sasquatchologist, so that puts our panther one rung down from Bigfoot. I'm a skeptic by nature. It's based on a lifetime of experience dealing with other people. When being skeptical of something, I utilize my internal assessment matrix which catalogs indicators. This story does not pass the smell test. I have never once been proven wrong when accessing my skepticometer. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would not count this as reliable one bit. Single source reporting with no physical evidence to back up the claim. I might be inclined to believe the story if people didn't make terrible eye witnesses. He either made it up, or was being chased by a small black bear. Younger ones are incredibly skinny making their legs appear longer than on a normal bear. The other part would be that there is more evidence of flying saucers and Bigfoot than there is for the existence of a black panther. With today's technology equipped society, there would be photographs, video or trail cam pictures by now. In Florida we have only 200 panthers in the whole state, yet FWC gets them on trail cams quite frequently. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You have a better chance of being ass raped by chupacabra than being attacked by a cougar in TN. I wouldn't worry about it. On that note, this "motive" of self protection against threatened and endangered animals is the excuse bubba continually uses to justify shooting rare animals. The Florida panther is extremely endangered, yet some idiot put a crossbow bolt through one's skull last year, likely using the "it's coming right at us" excuse, when the animal likely posed no danger. Not saying it's impossible, but find me the last reported case of a large cat in the wild attacking a person in the eastern United States. I don't buy it when some trigger happy idiot makes the claim it was self defense. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You get DQ'd for happy finger?  So long as the weapon was pointed in a safe direction while taking the slack out of the trigger, I don't see it being a safety issue.  I've been through several shooting schools where they instruct you to draw the weapon from the holster and immediately point it down range toward the target to try and instill the muscle memory, in case the enemy is closing distance on you and you must fire before getting the weapon up to position three (essentially firing one handed from the hip).  Due to the logic behind this, we're instructed to already begin taking slack out of the trigger between position 3 and 4.  With heavy triggers (like Sigs and Berettas) sometimes people pop early, which results in a thrown shot, but in a safe manner.  This isn't a negligent discharge.  There was never really a word for it back then, so instructors just called it happy finger, and it was fine.  I don't see the big deal, since it isn't unsafe.

  Nicky beat me to it on the well armed Swiss Guard, but if we want to take a historical view of it, many Popes of the past commanded papal and mercenary armies which certainly had weapons, and even bang sticks.  Unless the current Pope is willing to declare that those previous Popes are burning in hell, then he can't really reconcile his statement on firearms (weapons).  Then again, there's that whole papal infallibility thing, so maybe what he meant was that anyone, with the exception of the Pope, is held to this standard of possessing firearms (weapons) being a disqualifier as a Christian.    His statements were specifically directed at firearm manufacturers and those who invest in them, and he called them hypocrites if they consider themselves Christians.  Perhaps it's bad to make firearms (weapons) but totally okay to use them?  I dunno.    Perhaps he could explain his statements in the context of Pope Benedict, who was in the Hitler youth.  I'm pretty sure they were teaching those boys more than building campfires and making snares.    ETA:  I do my best not to say derogatory things regarding the beliefs of people; I don't care if a person worships a cow, the moon, or a child rapist like Muhammed or David Koresh.  My only issue is when people like that point their finger at others and run their hypocritical mouths.  Much the reason for my distaste for leftists.  So on that, the current Pope can go eff himself in the eye. 

I don't think this would cause more harm than good in their business. I would assume the majority of their patrons are Christians already, based on the profile of the average gun store customer in TN. Of the small percentage that aren't Christian, I doubt a significant number of them will be so offended that they choose not to shop there. Recalling back to the Chick Fil A fiasco, despite a media assault on the founder of Chick Fil A, they did more business that month than many of their competitors combined. I was more annoyed that I couldn't get one of my beloved chicken sandwiches from there because I didn't want to wait an hour for it. This marketing ploy will likely energize folks who otherwise may not be inclined to go gun shopping, but will be motivated to support a business that isn't afraid to say things which may be presented by the media as offensive. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hmmm, I wish they would have left a reference on that page for their numbers to better explain that, but the assumption would be a patient being admitted with the flu and developing pneumonia as a complication? I dunno. That number seems extremely low considering what I've heard in news stories over the years. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Motorcycles, guns and tattoos are clearly wrong crowd indicators. I must run with a rough crowd. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  Oh, I doubt that is a statistic even possible to determine.  I guess you could estimate if you knew the number of people who get vaccinated each year and bounced that off the percentage of effectiveness and number of deaths from the flu, adjusted to remove the deaths of people with compromised immune systems (that wouldn't be valid data to enter).   So if half of the number of those who die from the flu don't have compromised immune systems we have a number of 18,000.  If 30% of Americans get vaccinated and the median effectiveness percentage of the vaccine was around 55%, you'd get just shy of 3,000 people.  But that equation was with unknown numbers... just illustrating an example.  The number could be more or much, much less. 

  In the link I posted is said 36,000 people will die this year from the flu, and 210,000 will be hospitalized.

  The effectiveness changes from year to year and different depending on your age bracket, if I remember correctly.    I never had the flu (maybe when I was a kid) until a few years ago.  The whole time I was in the Army I had to get one each year, but after I got out I got kinda lazy about it.  I missed two years in a row, then caught it last year.  It was f'ing miserable.  I wouldn't put it in the same ballpark as a cold.    I suppose I got lazy because I'd never caught it before, and figured if I caught it I could just tough it out.  Well, I don't want to tough it out ever again, and now that I understand that by getting the vaccine, I'm helping prevent the deaths by not being a carrier, I'm all for it.  You'll never know how many people you saved by getting a vaccine, but considering the number of people who die or are hospitalized due to the flu, you are certainly saving others from a great deal of pain. 

Just to add, over 30,000 of your fellow Americans will die this year from the flu.  Many of them will be people with compromised immune systems who depend on herd immunity to protect them from contracting the virus.  Since a good chunk of us here will get cancer at some point in our lives and will undergo chemo treatment, you might want to at least do some research on these vaccines to better understand them.  I'm sure if your kid was getting chemo, your opinion on getting a simple vaccination would drastically change.   http://www.healthline.com/health/flu-shot-side-effects#FluShots1   http://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/10-flu-myths

  I've always been a fan of medical science, but I've never been a vaccine crusader until recently.  My cousin, who is in her 20s, was diagnosed with an extremely aggressive and rare type of breast cancer earlier this year, and was stage 3 at time of diagnosis.  This changed my whole outlook on the subject of vaccines, as going through chemo destroyed her immune system.  We've been very careful, and luckily she didn't get sick.  It more than I can say for some of the people she met during her treatment.   For all the unfounded mistrust, not rooted in science, that people have for vaccines, I would like to believe they'd be willing to research and gain some knowledge after seeing a 7 year old child with cancer die from something that could have been vaccinated against in a healthy person.  Or they would just default to whatever random government conspiracy they cling to in order to justify their decision.

  That's not how it works.  The flu virus doesn't get "stronger" by any means, it simply mutates.  The flu vaccine is like a medical whack-a-mole.

  This is impossible with modern flu shots.  If your wife gets sick after getting the shot, she likely contracted the flu virus before or shortly after getting the shot.  It takes a week or two to be effectively protected.   My son caught it last year and this year.  Last year he caught it before shots were available, and this year just before he was supposed to get it.  Had he gotten the shot last week, he still would have gotten sick, and a lay person would attribute that to the flu shot.  That isn't how it works.   ETA: The vaccine isn't 100%.  Not even close.  So many people get the shot and get the flu anyway.  This tends to be the argument for not getting a shot, which actually makes the flu spread even worse.  If people would simply do a little research and accept that science holds more water than wives tales, we might save a few thousand lives this year.

My wife and daughter already had their shots.  My son was supposed to get his at school this week when they were doing them there.  He caught the flu sometime last week and was down for 4 days.  Neither my wife or daughter caught it from him.  I know the perception is that the flu shot is not that effective when you just look at the percentages, but the more people who get the shot, the less it spreads.  It's math.

  Oh you don't know what Hilldog is rocking underneath those pant suits.

Valar morgulis. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are you suggesting a Jewish person might lie about their faith in order to get that 5% discount? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ask and you shall receive. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  You must be a buzzkill sitting around a bonfire with rednecks telling tall tales.

  I don't see how such an event could be permanent.  We constructed this modern, intricate grid in less than a century.  We have more know how than when we started.  Also, after reading One Second After, I did some reading on how devastating an EMP attack or extreme solar event would be against our grid.  From what I gathered, it would not be as it is presented in literature and on Alex Jones sites, with all electronics and the power grid being fried.  I'm no expert on the subject, but I've read conflicting articles on it, and it seems the articles which play down the threat are well written by people who seem to have a firm grasp on what they're talking about, whilst the articles which predict doom and gloom are written by people who sell ad space to prepper websites, and present opinion as fact.  Just my observation.