TMF

I feel the same. The military isn't for everyone, and there are other ways to serve and support your country in a time of war. What has always irritated me are the folks who speak with such conviction that have no intention of backing it up. Granted, amongst most of my associates we have done our part, so generally I'm not socializing with folks that haven't, but on those occasions when I'm around someone I've just been introduced and they want to bring up my service and talk about how we need to kill "all those people over there" I'm secretly bubbling under the surface wanting to ask them, "Well, you're young enough. If you feel so strongly about it why don't you put on some damn boots, grab a rifle and go join those that have a sack." Nothing against folks with opinions on foreign policy who have no desire to serve in the military, but I've just met too many chickenhawks that beat their chest about killing ragheads or whatever that received their education on war from their Xbox.

Well, that wasn't quite what I was getting at with my explanation. Yes, the extremists are usually the biggest offenders of their religious code, especially related to sex and controlled substances, but when it comes to the last Prophet, Mr. Momo, they take that seriously for some reason. I know it is illogical, but attempting to apply logic and reason to an illogical people who are unreasonable by nature is an exercise in futility. Just take my word on it, they aren't watching it nor is it readily available in this part of the world. The best way I can explain it is that when they are engaging in sins related to their weaknesses as humans (such as porn, sex, lying, boozing, sheep raping) they justify it somehow by blaming things like temptation, and they'll make up for it with other deeds or something... like blowing themselves up for magic Momo. But when it comes to the actual Prophet, believe me they take that stuff seriously. Anyone possessing that kind of stuff would be dragged through the streets and beaten to death if the mob gets him before the popo. Many of these countries have the death penalty for blashemy as well. That extends to this movie... especially now. If you remember back a few weeks to the story about the mentally handicapped little girl who was being held on blashemy charges for using a few pages of the Quran as tinder? Remember random angry mob that tried to publicly execute her? They take insults to the religion seriously. Engaging in all the temptations that Momo told them not to, well, it's okay if it's in God's blind spot. Anyone here that has been around Afghans and watched them through thermals while they're on guard know exactly what kind of sick people they are, despite what Momo told them not to do with their peckers. I guess I'm just pretty sheltered then. I'd only heard about this in Astan or in Thailand jokes from Marines and PACOM guys. Nonetheless, any culture that openly accepts this kind of stuff is in my book cultures I'm okay with hating.

I agree, the law should read differently. Luckily it hasn't been misused, as far as we know. But that is not to say that it couldn't some day. I kind of ride the fence on this one; the status quo works, but it isn't the definitive answer. I don't expect it to change though. Not until someone actually misuses it.

Hmm... maybe I don't understand the complexities here, but when I was a single Soldier during the Bush administration I absolutely paid taxes, even with the modest paycheck of an E-4 who makes around 1,300 a month in base pay (if I remember correctly). I still paid income tax, getting a return of around $200 from what I paid in, which would have been somewhere in the range of 3K for the year. And then I remember the first time that, not only did I not pay income tax, but I actually got money back from the gov. This was as an E-7 making pretty decent wages. The tax return was due to my being deployed to a tax-free zone for the majority of the year. It was nice, as I put the entire return in our IRAs to make up for the SS that won't be around when I'm older. I did, however, feel pretty guilty for not paying my share. Had the gov required me to pay more in taxes, or had I not qualified for such a return, I would not be upset. I felt, for the first time, like I took something I didn't deserve. Somehow I doubt that many people on the gov teet feel that way. For them it is a sense of entitlement. I don't know numbers, so I don't know who exactly Romney was referring to. I know that our system is broken though. We are not a society that will allow mothers and their children to sleep on the streets, or our elders to suffer in their final years. But we have to acknowledge that the system allows for very lazy people to take advantage of the rest of us. I don't know what the fix is, but I do know that a system that rewards laziness and pits the non-earners against the earners is a doomed system. We have to acknowledge that. We have to make changes. That means that we're going to have to say things that hurt people's feelings. I pay a stupid amount in income tax now. I wouldn't have a single problem with the astronomical amount the gov takes if I thought it was being used properly and I wasn't being taken advantage of. It is, after all, my money.

I wish I had something to add but I was young and drunk the last time I was there, so I don't remember the names of all the places I was kicked out of. I do remember McGuire's though. It was pretty authentic food and great beer selection. I had a good time renting a pontoon while there and nailing channel cat during the day on the intercoastal. You just have to do the stupid Florida safety thing to rent a boat there.

It's disrespectful, but would we expect different? I get just as irritated when I see the same in reverse, as in someone plastering anti-Obama stuff all over an American Flag. Or when someone doesn't take their hat off when the National Anthem is playing, or they yap on their phones during it. Or how 'about the ones that talked a tough game on 9/11 but had no intentions of ever strapping on boots and taking the fight to the enemy? That was very irritating as well. Yes, disrespectful and irritating. But they are Americans, even if they don't know how to be good at it.

I would love to invest the extra cash sitting around into my own business, but this guy scares the crap out of me. Really, I am proof that folks will not make risks in small business because of Obama. His words scare me because I think he might very well follow through.

Hmmm, well I guess if we didn't they'd be free to expand their retaliatory war against "Whale and Dolphin.". - South Park reference.

That hasn't expired yet?

I haven't been following news on it so I don't know what the defense is up to, but the prosecution did this for a reason. Since the lack of DNA doesn't prove anything it is safe to assume the purpose here was to use the information to debunk an argument made by the defense or at least prevent them from even wanting to use it. These trials are all about small victories to shape the perception of the juror. Without this evidence the defense could argue that Martin was grabbing Z's gun. The onus is not on the defense to prove that true, it is on the prosecution to prove it isn't. The Casey Anthony trial shows all that. The defense can come out with whatever wild story they want. If the prosecution hasn't done their homework to counter and disprove those assertions, the jury has no choice but to have reasonable doubt. So, really this isn't news. Just another day in the lives of lawyers doing what they get paid to do.

I used to practice the one handed racking in a different life. Not hard to do for the folks with a hard holster like a serpa or kydex. It still can be done without either with a little practice though on the larger frame pistols. Would be pretty difficult on those mouseguns since they're so tight.

It doesn't prove anything, but it will restrict the defense from using the argument that Martin was trying to get Z's pistol. The defense could still argue it, but the prosecution could effectively neutralize it as far as the jury would be concerned.

Meh.

I've been to 15 countries and have worked closely with several dozen folks of varying nationalities. I can say, without a doubt, that despite all of our racial issues we are the most tolerant and accepting country I am aware of by comparison.

Yes, and not far back you crowned yourself morally superior to those that would use deadly force to defend what is theirs. You missed the point completely regarding the defense of property and the choice not to be a victim. Insurance is not in the decision matrix. Value of the property is not in the decision matrix. The only thing that is in the decision matrix is the legality of the force used. If that was taken away, some of us would sleep fine killing a thief to protect their property. You may not have it in you to do the same, but spare me the lecture on your moral superiority.

Oh, I guess I just keep misreading the OPs question. Apparently he was asking if someone would use deadly force regardless of the law. I must be taking his question literal and not interpreting it to mean something completely different than what he asked. My mistake.

I didn't say that. I was referring to specifically to posts which reference insurance as a reason not to intervene at all. The law says I can't shoot someone for stealing my stuff. But that doesn't mean I have to stand by and allow it to be stolen, insurance or not. Insurance is not an argument, period. I've heard this in regards to intervening into a burglar stealing your car: "a car ain't worth getting killed over... blah blah". Well, perhaps to some who are complicit in being victimized that's okay. And you know what? It's okay to me too when those folks are victimized. If they aren't willing to fight to keep what is theirs, well I don't feel bad when they lose it. To me, it has little to do with what is being stolen and more to do with my refusal to be a victim. Folks who seem to think that is just silly can think that, and I'll go on thinking they are a yellow coward.

Technically it seems that you could do that in TN as well. Probably the reason it doesn't happen is because an officer would lose his job after getting his peepee spanked by the judge for being an incompetent boob. I assume it will be the same in Florida. This isn't going to suddenly make all LEOs in FL put on stupid caps and start rolling up people that are legally carrying.

I thought all the stories I heard were bull until I was sitting down having tea in an Afghani Officer's office and he decided to show off a video of a young boy dancing around in ladies clothes in a room full of old Afghani men clapping and cheering. The worst parts of this experience is that the officer was proud to show it off and we had to act like we weren't completely disgusted by this. Later my terp explained that they have boys that they groom from a young age for this practice by making them as feminine as possible. The obvious solution to this sick society: ALLOW YOUR WOMEN TO BE FREE. THEY WILL LET YOU BANG THEM IF THEY WEREN'T AFRAID OF BEING PUT TO DEATH FOR IT!!! It absolutely blows my mind that the irrational fear of women becoming powerful and usurp the power of men could create such an environment that it is socially acceptable to dress boys like women and screw them. I don't understand. I just don't understand.

Absolutely. But the anit-Momo stuff would never, ever makes its way into the market. For some reason that would not be okay. Little boy porn is A-okay though, so long as they're dressed like a woman. For all the sh** I talked about Iraqis, Afghanis have to be some of the worst, backward people on the planet.

If he sees that you are carrying a weapon, absolutely he can stop you and inquire about the weapon. Since it is a crime to carry, if an officer observes you carrying then he has PC. Of course, the encounters I've heard of the cop always asks if the individual has a permit, which is the end of the issue unless the cop wants to disarm him (which is BS and should be addressed with the department when that happens).

Theory vs. Reality (an old one, but certainly relevant in any time): A young boy needs help with his grade school paper so he decides to ask his father. "Daddy, I have to do a paper on the difference between theory and reality. Can you help me?" The father responds, "Well son, do you know what those words mean?" "Yes, but I could use an example." The father thinks for a minute then tells his son to run upstairs and ask his sister if she would sleep with a complete stranger for 1 million dollars. The kid goes upstairs and comes running back down, "Daddy, daddy, she said she would!" The father then tells the kid to go into the kitchen and ask his mother if she would sleep with a complete stranger for a million dollars. The kid goes to the kitchen and comes back, "Daddy, daddy, she said she would too!" The father says, "There you go son. Theoretically we are sitting on 2 million bucks but in reality we're living with a couple of whores."

The first ones I saw were in Iraq around 2005ish, before airsoft became a big thing for the Xbox'ers that didn't have the balls to enlist. We were just going from point A to B in the city when I saw a few kids chasing each other with very realistic looking pistols, so I'm like "WTF". One of the other guys in the truck said he's seen them in the market before being sold. My next thought was how jacked up the parents were considering the security situation and how trigger happy the ING, CF and random security forces were. I'm sure there were dozens of kids that got ventilated over those things. I mean, I'm not the most trigger happy person I know, but I woulda mowed those kids down had they been pointed at us.

Once again, we're not talking about revenge and vigilantism. We're talking about defending what is yours. I don't like the fact that I can't use a firearm to do that. Based on your assessment, I shouldn't be able to run down the person and forceably take back my property, since it would require violence to do that. Well, as far as I can tell there isn't a law against not allowing someone to take your property. What's the difference if I have to use my firearm to do it? The fact that he might die as a result? I don't see why that matters. All that should matter is that my property is being taken by force and I'm trying to retrieve it. If I have no other options other than to shoot the person to get it back, I should be allowed to do so. I don't see how that has anything to do with vigilatism or vengeance. And this last part is not directed at you Makiaveli And insurance? WTF does that have to do with ANYTHING??? What's mine is effing mine. My insurance won't replace my two vehicles, which are completely paid off and in very good condition with low mileage. No. Insurance will only give me the depreciated value, so that means that I have to go out and buy another new vehicle using the down payment from the insurance, and then pay for the rest. That is at least 10-15K out of pocket to replace it. Or I could use that money to buy a used vehicle, that will undoubtedly be not as reliable as my current one. The point here is, insurance is not in the decision matrix when it comes to protecting my property. What's mine is effing mine. I won't be violated or victimized if I have the means to prevent it. I'm sorry that folks seem to think they are morally superior and extend their judgement based on that. Let me extend my judgement. If you don't want to protect your property you aren't morally superior to me, you are a damn coward.

No, I would say that "devout" is in the eye if the beholder. I would reason to bet that the vast majority of the "extremists" (usually males between 15-30) are the worst offenders in terms of forbidden behavior in their chosen religion. Ironic, huh? Some of the best places to collect on the al Qaeda types ain't at the local mosque. This is experience talking and not just theory. The point I was making before had nothing to do with how pious the extremists are; it was about the level of government intervention into their lives, as well as the level of involvement of the community. First off, they're probably not going to attempt to access this stuff anyway, as they're not known for seeking out information to combat ignorance. They are okay with just being pissed without knowing why. Secondly, if one did obtain copies of such a film he would be risking jail or potentially death, depending on what country he resides in. Not to mention that a neighborly angry mob can be spun up on a moments notice to knock down Haji's door and drag him through the streets upon information about him possessing anti-Momo material, regardless of his reasons for having it. And then you have to consider the general sneakiness of the Arab culture, and how willing one is to rat their neighbor out to the authorities for reasons ranging from attention to disputes dating back generations. Then there are the Internet restrictions. Everything good is blocked. That includes anything depicting Momo. In fact, especially anything depicting Momo. Next time I travel through a Muslim country I'll attempt to access this thread, and I bet I won't be able to do it. So, based on all these reasons it's safe to say that very few, if any, of the general population in these countries have even seen it.