TMF

That's a good one right there.... haven't seen that yet.

Hmmm.... makes you wonder what happens if your connection is in NY and it is missed or cancelled and you have checked a firearm in a non-commie state. This has happened to me a few times (N. Carolina/Pittsburg/Chicago). Since my luggage has been lost so many times I claim my baggage and recheck it in the morning. (The time in Chicago was an international flight so obviously I didn't have a firearm with me, but what if I was going to Florida? How do I not break the law in this situation?)

I was wondering the same thing myself since my answeres to 2nd Amendment questions were just as strongly answered as responses to 1st Amendment questions. I would suspect that answering the way I did put me on two ends of the spectrum for supporting the same base document... that is what I suspect anyway.

I've been all around the world and experienced many different cultures. The American culture is by far the least racist in the world.... or at least we try our best to pretend we're not.

Looked like a G3ish rifle to me. I guess Ak-47 sounds a little scarier on the TV; I love how the media will take any opportunity to claim that an AK was used. Besides, 7,62 x 39 is the same as 7.62 x 51, right?

Yeah, I'm with you. I don't like the Fed getting anymore involved than it already is in regards to States' rights, but this is nothing more than a contract. Why should a contract between two gays (or hot lesbians) be any different than a contract entered into by two people of the opposite sex? Really, any homosexuals can do this with a halfway decent lawyer in any state, the only difference is the state not calling it what it is. The way I see it is the "marriage contract" that the government and our courts recognize is a standardized thing for couples of opposite sex. In order for gays to do the same thing they have to jump through a lot more hoops to get there, which is discriminatory, in my opinion. I would like it if the government would stay the hell out of my marriage... but that's a different subject altogether. I do recognize the importance of their involvement, however, for the reasons you stated above. If gays want to do the same thing it would make it a lot more streamlined in the courts if they equated "civil unions" to "marriages" in legal terms, or, to make it easy, just called them all (hetero and gays) civil unions; once again, I don't care what the government calls my relationship with my wife. It's just words and it's none of their damn business.

With my work gun when I was in the Army I put well over 4,000 rounds through my M4 in a three week time span and it was fine. That rifle in particular had at least 15,000 rounds through it before I switched jobs and got a different rifle. It remained accurate to at least 300m.

Live by the sword die by the sword. Clearly he wasn't just some innocent bystander; his profession as a worthless criminal is what got him killed. At least now he can do something productive and feed the worms.

....still waiting...

One has nothing to do with the other. Not that I don't think your concern is valid, because I think it is, but we should not restrict a couple's contractual validity based on what an activist group MIGHT do. I don't put it past the ACLU to start suing churches to force them to perform gay marriage ceremonies. When they try that they will be wrong, but that shouldn't restrict gays from being able to enter into a civil union contract between two consenting adults and have the same legal rights as a hetero couple. I still don't see what I, you or anyone stand to lose if they are recognized by the government. It's like a liberal saying "we shouldn't let the populace have HCPs because of what they MIGHT do". The "might" or even "will" factor should have nothing to do with it. The government's involvement in the contractual relationship between two consenting adults.

"State" meaning both Fed and State government. As far as the civil union goes, that was pretty much what I was saying. I don't care what the government calls it because that means diddly squat to me and shouldn't mean anything to anyone else. To me "marriage" is a personal thing and the government's definition is merely for tax/legal purposes. If they decide to call it something else in order to open it up for gays then it doesn't affect me one bit. I don't care if the government decides to call my legal marriage something different than what they call it now. I don't need a tax stamp from the government to give meaning to the relationship with my wife. The only advantage of having that paper is for tax purposes or if my wife decides to take half my stuff. That peice of paper that legally defined my marriage to my wife changed our relationship zero... what changed our relationship were the vows we took. If gays get the same tax benefits or legal coverage by getting married or having a civil union, what are the negative ramifications (from a government standpoint, not religious inspired morality)?

Yeah, the last time Iranian scientists on the program were targeted Israel made some veiled comments indicating they were involved, but due to the timing of this I suspect our boys played a hand... or at least I'd like to believe so. If so that order isn't made by the guy on the ground; green light would be coming from much higher.

So the obvious compromise should be the state should have no authority in regards to what defines "marriage". Other than contractual reasons, the state should have no involvement. In that case any person can enter into a legal contract with another to share finances and personal property as well as be the primary NOK, as well as have rights to half the stuff of the other upon dissolving of said contract. The state should have no visibility on how that relationship is defined... marriage, civil union, life partner, butt buddy. Who cares? I don't care how the state defines my relationship with my wife; it's not their business. So long as the state is not involved with the religious institution and the religious institution isn't involved with the state. Isn't the answer here obvious?

Shot out... splash: Bomb kills Iranian nuclear expert - Yahoo! News Maybe Obamer isn't as limp wristed as he's been coming across lately. The guy killed is a significant player in the enrichment program beyond being the director of one of their main facilities, so this sets them back a bit. Let's just hope Israel doesn't imply any involvement here like they did the last time.

Maybe the extra attention given by the media is due to the recent case of the woman at the WTC memorial and the publicity that was given. This may be something that happens often but isn't often reported. Just a thought.

In his forced confession the Iranians constructed his story to reflect that the crappy gaming software company he worked for is contracted by the CIA for the purpose of spreading propoganda throughout the mid-East. Pretty much the Iranians "Googled" him after they rolled him up for being American and found his name linked to the gaming company's open source data website. This is a stretch even for Iran. Video game maker linked to US prisoner in Iran | Games Blog - Yahoo! Games

Are we talking about gay marriage or Santorum not wanting me to get a bj in the privacy of my own home?... I got lost.

Pffft.... just facts.

I hope so. I had the same thoughts initially, but with all the sabre rattling that's been going on I'm not so sure. I guess we'll find out the first week of February. If they go through with it a precedent has been set. I've flown commercial before that went through Iranian airspace... I can't help but wonder what would happen now if there was a mechanical issue that caused our flight to have to land in Tehran. I'm sure I'd be sitting right where he is in that scenario and I'd like to believe that my Country's leadership was doing everything it could to secure my freedom.

Yeah, the last thing on our mind should be invasion. Sanctions and international support against a nuclear Iran need to be the way to go, and it needs to be done in such a manner that we can prevent Israel from a preemptive strike against Iran. However, for actions such as executing an American Citizen there must be a direct and appropriate retaliation. This is on the White House to do, not delegating it down to the PAO for 5th Fleet like they've been doing. Obama/Hillary need to address this directly. I respect the position Obama is in; he's probably doing a face-palm over this because being President is just so dang hard, but that's what being a President is all about. I'm ashamed and disgusted that nothing is being done. If they hang this American we lose a lot more than just one American; we would have just sent a message to every government and anti-US organization around the world that it is open season on Americans.

I know of many Iranians who were detained in Iraq (who were conducting train/assist/advise operations for the enemy) who were released back to Iran. Sure, some may earn a stay at a detention facility for a bit to be exploited, but we haven't executed any, and as far as I know the Iraqis haven't either... it's not as easy to get a death sentence carried out in Iraq as you think. The fact is Iran is going to execute an American citizen. Many linguists have ties back to their native country. Many of my American citizen interpreters I had in Iraq still visited family there. That doesn't make him a spy. If Obama/Hillary stand by and let this guy get executed they will have shown the American people and the world what their level of resolve is. This man being executed carries bigger implications than just one person dying. I heavily endorse diplomacy over military action. I also acknowledge that there is nothing we can do to make the Iranian leadership less crazy. The line in the sand has to be drawn somewhere, and if executing American citizens isn't it.... well...?

In one week Iran has: 1. Threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, 2. Provoked/threatened the US Navy by threatening action if our carrier returns to the Gulf, 3. Condemned an American Citizen (and Marine Veteran) to death. White House has been pretty quiet on all accounts. I understand diplomacy is the best method, but Obama is going to just stand by and let an American (and Veteran) be executed (he's not a spy by the way).

You ever serve in a combat arms military unit? If not, you don't know WTF you're talking about.