TMF

Is this supposed to energize the conservative/tea party vote and offset Romney's left of center history? Is it working?

It was reference to a high density of something... as in "In Clarksville I can't swing a dead cat without hitting an Asian Massage Parlor or cash advance place." I was so used to hearing it when I was younger that it didn't seem odd to me nor had I visualized the absurdity of swinging a deat cat by its tail, until a coworker heard me use that phrase and brought attention to it. Then I was like, "huh, I guess I never thought about it."

"Can't swing a dead cat without..." That was one my Grandma used to say all the time and my favorite one I've ever heard.

Obviously you can read, but I don't believe you are comprehending any of it. Point out anything in my posts that suggest curtailing anyone's rights. The problem is folks have no common decency, and somehow confuse rights with what is decent. But hey, if someone insults you or your lived ones in the most vile manner then you have no place to get upset because they have the right to do so, right?

When I was much younger I was a security guard on the 3rd shift. It was awesome being a student, 'cause I could do all my homework on the clock in the radio room watching cameras. I had a radio in there that I kept on and would call in on the very early morning radio shows to compete in contests. We also had a station that would do the "100th caller wins" stuff in the middle of the night. I would compete in these almost everyday and won all kinds of concert tickets and crap that I didn't need over the course of a year. Half the time I would opt not to claim the prize 'cause it wasn't worth the trip into the city. If it was a good concert or movie premier I'd go. Other than that, I've never played the lotto or scratch off stuff because it is overwhelmingly bad odds. Never seemed logical to dump money into that stuff.

Yeah, the story is disjointed. I was expecting a happy ending but was disappointed.

Where is all this freedom of speech garbage coming from? No one is suggesting throwing out the 1st Amendment because of some "occupy everything but a job" crowd. I fully support the right of them to say what they want. Hell, I've even supported the right of the Westboro nuts to protest Servicemembers' funerals. That doesn't mean I don't think they are vile, tactless piles of excrement. Who ever put this up has no decency and should be ashamed of themselves. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Christ sakes, it seems every time someone is an a-hole people are screaming about how they have this right or that right. Well no sh*t you have rights, but you're still and a-hole. Everyone has rights but no one has responsibility.

Yeah, I took that into consideration. That paired with the canned pro-2A statement could suggest he was looking for trouble (and being a lawyer). But then I think of a story my mom was telling me when she was in a Walmart with a couple of her quilting group pals when one of them points out a holster peeking out under a man's shirt in line. Mom described one of the old ladies freaking out, asking the other two if they should call police. My mom was like "so what, I have one in my purse right now" and the woman was shocked. I'm gonna give him the benefit of the doubt for the time being and figure that perhaps the three folks who saw the weapon were in the same group and one probably pointed it out to the rest and they made a big deal out of it. If it turns out that this lawyer has a history of such things then I'll change my mind and lump him in the category of "he who will not be named". I'd say his name but I don't want to anger the TGO gods.

Considering that the previous burglars stole several firearms during the crime, it would be safe to assume that they would be armed when coming back for more. He deserved no warning shot. He should have been a stain.

I dunno, doesn't seem like there is enough info there to suggest that he was looking for trouble (other than the fact he is a lawyer). Maybe he printed and someone noticed, or perhaps his shirt came up too far when he was reaching into his back pocket for his wallet. My interpretation from the story was that the police were pissed that he was armed at all based on their initial comments saying it was a "bad choice" to be armed in a theater. That tells me they were just pissed that this guy was carrying and they rolled him up just to spank his pee-pee. This is why I don't plan on going to the movies for a very long time. It seems the same people that are outraged that someone would carry a gun to protect themselves are the same people that freak out at the thought of someone coming in and shooting up the place. That doesn't make any sense.

Guess that makes sense. I've always kept my trigger finger above/north of the trigger well on both my pistols and M4. It just seemed more natural and easier to transition to the trigger. I've seen lots of folks who stretch their finger outward across the trigger well (the way described in the AD scenario) and it always looked forced and uncomfortable... something that would be difficult to train my finger to do in all situations. I've never considered that would create a higher likelihood for an AD, but it makes sense that it would.

I bought mine in a private sale when I was 18. I also lived in an apartment complex in an area where young people are known to get shot by the neighborhood watch. I don't know if I would feel comfortable selling a firearm to a young person though. I know they have a right, but I just wouldn't be comfortable with it. I would have to know the person.

That is true. It just seems so outlandish. I'm curious what circumstances must exist before an officer is permitted to enter your body looking for drugs. Certainly it can't simply be an intuition that justifies such a thing. I tell ya, I'd be going to jail for a list of charges if a cop tried to enter my a$$hole looking for drugs.

I thought vertical grips on a pistol AR is a no-no and required a stamp.

It just seems with 6 officers on scene one of them would raise a red flag if something was wrong. Probably something in this story is being left out or exaggerated. Although, one has to wonder if there is any truth to this story, how would it justify being detained and so forth and then being let go with no citation?

Well that's the problem, it already does. I've dropped thousands upon thousands in property taxes over years when I had no children in the education system. If it comes at a price of raising property taxes to reflect the increased operating costs then so be it. However, one would figure that the more kids in the district, the more money being generated through property taxes. Of course, we all know the answer to this riddle. It is the sh##bag parents that don't pay taxes, expect the schools to pay for lunches and so forth, while the responsible parents who are using their money on necessities are taken advantage of by a system that rewards parents who blow their money on booze and meth. The answer here isn't the teachers putting a "guilt" tax on the parents by sending their students home with a note asking for money. We know damn well that the crappy parents wouldn't consider paying it anyway, as that would cut into their Newport budget. So why should I? I won't voluntarily continue to put money into something when I know I'm being soaked. If it was a matter of every parent putting money in I would be the first to pay, but I'm tired of being made to feel guilty because I happen to have money because I'm responsible, and those who are sh##bag breeders are somehow exempt. Don't want to put money in? Great! Your kid can stay home and get a head start on their inevitable future of being familiar with weights, measures and metal bracelets.

Wow. They'd be better off working at Walmart. At least there they don't have to worry about getting shot or sued.

All the cool kids have 'em.

Don't see how this would be okay. Would be like Obama firing a Secret Service agent for "liking" a Mitt Romney page. http://news.yahoo.com/facebook-argues-free-speech-225008185.html Facebook users might want to be more careful about who and what they designate as a "Like" on the social networking site. As one deputy sheriff in Virginia found out, putting all your “Like†behind the wrong person could cost you your job. During a 2009 election, the deputy and some co-workers "Liked" the guy running against their boss for sheriff of Hampton, Va. Well, the incumbent won and promptly canned all of those who committing this egregious Facebook faux pas. The deputy sued to get his job back, but the courts ruled that clicking on the "Like" button is not protected free speech. Now Facebook and the ACLU are stepping in to argue that "Liking" a political candidate is a verbal and a symbolic expression of support worthy of constitutional protection. Obviously, neither James Madison nor Alexander Hamilton could be reached for comment. They might have difficulty recognizing the country they helped forge more than 200 years ago—still they probably would agree this case presents an interesting precedent regarding how the U.S. legal system recognizes social networking in the future. —Larry Greenemeier

I'm not a radical or anything, but I wholly support the formation of local militias. Mostly for the purpose of community continuity in the event of a natural or man made disaster. Of course, the problem is that local militias carry with them certain connotations of extremism towards government. I don't share those views as long as we have the power to vote our leaders out/in to office. Having grown up around many of these militia types due to family ties, I can say that I would have no desire to be associated with them. There is a section of my family that is so right wing they make Rush Limbaugh look like a Huffington Post blogger. Although outwardly they appear to be patriotic, I have yet to share an evening with them that didn't involve racist rhetoric or overt support for terroristic tactics against government institutions and famous liberal personalities. Not that I don't make jokes about wishing bad things on Rachel Maddow, but the difference is I don't mean it and have no intention of doing them under any circumstances. Perhaps it's different in Tennessee, but this has been my experience.

If someone just got some holes in them there is a good reason for it. If they are still alive it means they are still a potential threat and are going to be treated as such until authorities arrive. I don't much care about what happens afterward if I'm fearing for my life right now. People shoot folks in self defense all the time and don't do squat to help their assailant and they have no issues.

I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where I said I don't believe in the first Amendment. Could you point it out to me please where I said that? You don't seem to understand the distinction between rights and what is appropriate so let me explain it to you: I have the right to say whatever vile thing I want about your loved ones. That does not mean it is "right" or appropriate. This is not appropriate. The only talking going on about this is regarding how whacked out the occupy crowd is. Perhaps if normal people were interested in financial reform instead of extremists who are just envious of those with more money than them you would actually see change. However, as long as a bunch of lunatics are dressing like zombies, sh!ting in parks and hanging effigies from billboards don't expect people like me to jump on board.

WTF? He needs to sue this police department into the ground. They all pointed weapons at him when they discovered that he had a weapon in a holster? Then they want to know why he's armed? I'd say the fact that a crazy man went into a theater and shot 70 people is a pretty good reason to be armed in a movie theater. The world is losing its mind. They said he was uncooperative. Well, I imagine if a bunch of cops just drew down on me and then scolded me for legally carrying a weapon my responses would be limited to 4 letter words. Cops in New England must be pants wetting bitches.

.

Anyone change who they're voting for yet?