TMF

So I should be able to walk into a business and start cursing as loud as I want and the owners should have no recourse to have me removed from the premises? 1st Amendment.

Then don't go to that business. It is really that simple. Should I go to a black tie restaurant wearing board shorts and flip flops, then bitch that my 1st Amendment rights have been violated? Private property is private property; it don't matter how many combat zones you go to or how much better you think you can handle a weapon. If I was a business owner and didn't want guns on my property that's my business. Don't like it then don't go there. Boycott it, encourage others to boycott it, but invoking the Constitution is completely misunderstanding the purpose of that document.

Hahaha, Mac is a cult I tell ya! Y'all are always trying to get me to give up my Dell and drink the Koolaid.... I won't do it!

Wow, you'd figure that a city that's one of the most broke in America wouldn't be going out of their way to invite no-win lawsuits. This fella has got every lawyer in Detroit beating on his door. He's gonna get paid.

No, I just think its the direction we've been heading. Libs control the media and people can only be bombarded so much before they adopt a belief structure. Conspiracy, I don't think so. People just need to belong as much as they need people to think the way they do. This is evident in religion, politics, sports teams, diet fads, fashion, firearms preference, organic crap, scientology and Mac owners.

Let's continue to identify the obvious here. The media isn't going to report stuff like this because it ain't popular to report stories of black on white violence, especially if it is clear that it's racially motivated. The left runs the major media outlets. To do something unpopular in that community is to risk your livelihood. Isn't that what usually motivates people? For the same reason the media WILL jump on white on black violence; that is a popular story. Just look at these white supremacists that were rolled up in Florida. This isn't a story; these were amateur criminals and the charges were hardly reflective of people with means or opportunity to start a race war. Police departments might be apt to do the same thing. The folks that run these departments in big cities are just politicians hoping to hang on to power as long as possible. Why rock the boat and risk your livelihood? To arrest a bunch of punk kids for assault just to get lambasted by the media for racially motivated arrests? Not likely. I don't like it either. I don't like it because our society has clear double standards, and it wasn't long ago those double standards went the other direction. How soon folks forget. I don't see a "race war" or something like that ever happening. What I do see is a continued cycle of poor black kids being raised to resent whites because white people are the root of all their problems, which makes it okay to prey upon them. Major population centers will continue to devolve into Detroit-like areas and productive citizens will just move away. Funny that a lot of these mob attacks are taking place in cities that disarm the law abiding citizens.

You sorta have to talk to the police when they pull you over. If they ask a question I'm going to answer it honestly. If this man hadn't agreed to a search it wouldn't have changed anything. The cash alone would have given him PC, but he may have just called a K9 team which would most likely hit on the cash. Its not uncommon for cash to have trace amounts of cocaine on it. Besides, with 20 grand involved and crooked cops, its too easy for the handler to give queues to the dog to get a false response. They wanted the money and they got it. One day they're gonna do this to the wrong person and it's going to wake some folks up.

We have to prove our own money is legitimate? How is this legal?

I understand your concern, but that is based on a "maybe". Last I heard the Catholic church doesn't allow gay priests and the libs aren't changing that anytime soon. If they try I'd be the first to cry foul along with millions of voters. I don't see how the state can change a church's doctrine. Even the ACLU would fight that battle. The only folks that would be forced to do the ceremonies would be JPs.

Well it is gross, unless it's two hot chicks and they like to post videos to the Internet.

The only reason I can figure is for legal purposes. Your wedding ceremony is whatever it means to you and your religion. The government involvement is for contractual purposes. I'll buy that the government doesn't need to be involved in my marriage or anyone else's, but having a contract for legal purposes makes sense, and that's all it is. My vows have nothing to do with that contract and vice versa. This is why I don't understand the problem with gays having that same ability. I'd be willing to change my opinion if there was logic against it that didn't involve religion. Once again, we're talking strictly from the contractual/legal side of this.

I agree with you on that. States should be the ones to have their say, and nothing is more democratic than a general vote. It should effectively end the argument from both sides until the next time it's up for a vote. NOK rights are the biggest issue I see with same sex marriage. The government shouldn't dictate who the most important person should be. If you want that person to be the one to pull the plug, authorize treatment or get all your stuff when you die then that's your right. However, a gay couple can make this happen in a few hours on legalzoom.com so I don't find that argument a rights issue but more of a convenience issue. My logic simply makes believe the gov should recognize same sex marriage, but if the people of Tennessee vote it down then that's that.

Serious question, since God wasn't part of my ceremony should my marriage to my wife not be legal or should it be called a civil union?

I am one of those people. Apparently my marriage isn't valid. I'm not "crying" for gay marriage. It doesn't affect me one way or the other. I just have an opinion. Making comments that suggest I somehow support Obama because he wants to make butt buddies legal is silly. Its even more silly to think that someone should absolutely agree/disagree with everything a politician says or believes. That's pretty closed minded. I think Obama has/is destroying us economically. If I agree with him on gay marriage does that mean I have to ignore everything else by default? I don't think so. If peter puffer marriage is swaying a person's vote then they need to stay home. We got bigger problems. Back to the topic, since when did the government dictate who can or can't be married in a church? There are still churches that won't do interracial marriages. Don't see the gov stepping in there. If queers and dykes want a ceremony then churches aren't obligated to perform it. I couldn't even get married in a downtown church here in Clarksville unless I was a member. So I don't think churches will be forced to do anything by the gov, just the JPs. God has nothing to do with marriage unless you want it to. God has nothing to do with my marriage. If a Hindu gets married here in TN then where is God? Should he have to make YOUR God a part of the ceremony? That doesn't sound like separation of church and state.

I read the fine print and couldn't find a minimum percentage. I would figure that even a zero percent rating would be valid. I have a zero percent for numerous issues and a cumulative of 20 percent.

I would say its important to be in shape just in general, but if SHTF I'm gonna be done doing anything intense. Takes too many calories to sustain if food is in short supply.

You don't have a disability rating? Great promotion here, I'd jump on it if I was in the market for something.

So the state shouldn't be involved in marriage if God is a part of the relationship, right? So all legal marriage that doesn't involve God can be recognized.

. What does church doctrine have to do with my legal marriage? I see my marriage being between my wife and I. If the church believes that God has a role here does that invalidate our joint filing to the IRS this year? Isn't this why we have a separation between church and state? If the grounds for the gov not recognizing butt buddy marriage is because of church doctrine we got some real problems that need to be addressed with a well armed militia.

The only thing that's been on my wish list for years is a Vaquero in .45 LC.

1. Glock 2. Kimber 3. Beretta 4. Sig 5. Keltec 6. Llama Kimber would have been first but I had to fit an main spring housing I bought from them.

Well, I still don't take the NBPP seriously enough to consider them to be a real threat to the liberties of those they oppose (whites, hispanics, Jews and Uncle Toms). The same as I don't think that white supremacist groups (like the folks arrested near Kissimmee the other day) are much of a threat to the liberties of those THEY oppose (minorities, Jews, puppies and so on). The NBPP is a joke and will dwindle back into obscurity now that the Zimmerman thing is winding down. If they do engage in voter intimidation I can bet it won't be in a gun-friendly state. They're dummies, but I don't think they have a death wish.

Okay, I'm back. Turns out all they wanted was some Skittles. So what were we talking about?

Awwww man... Are we turning the thread gay? Hang on... (exits race-war-preparedness bunker to retrieve queer stomping boots)Okay, I'm ready. Adam and Eve, not Adam and Ste..... dammit, NBP Party guerrillas just breached my triple strand on the NW corner of the perimeter. Gotta go set off inner ring claymores. I'll have to get back to this topic later.

These are a bunch of irrelevant jokers. If they engage in voter intimidation this time around they'll be doing more harm than good to the Obama campaign. Besides, anyone that allows themselves to be intimidated from voting doesn't deserve to vote.