npgunner

boobs are cheaper than abs?

So where / how would one go about getting this certification?

I'd be in for 1 lower. Depending on price Id also be down for the upper also.

I applaud you on your integrity sir.  Instead of taking the easy way out you have chosen to be socially and financially responsible to your obligations.  If I didn't live 1/3 the way across the state, I'd purchase you a whatever you wanted tonight.   :rock:  :hat:

the cashback bonuses are nice ... but the main reason my wife and i use ours is so if our card does get stolen (at a restaurant, e-swiped online, or at a gas station), the money they take won't be missing from our checking account, rather from Discover.  i've had this happen once with Discover, and once with the bank.  Too get the stolen purchases re-credited to the account was MUCH simpler (and immediate) with Discover than with the bank.   ... also, we get $50 bucks back every month and a half or so ... free money  :up:  :2cents:  :up:

i'll second that

I think he's more or so referring to people who edit the posts and delete what they said ... not to people like us who either can't spell, or whose iPhone's auto correct won't let you say what you're really trying to say.  

CNN hired GZ as legal analyst? Seems a little strange even for CNN no?! :screwy:

O. M. G.

Diet Dr. Pepper

Could this Shellie Zimmerman in a black justice hoodie be DaveS' new avatar for this case?!?

Good Samaritan laws should cover you even if you are trained as long as you don't do anything too stupid or outside your training.

thanks for posting.  good video and he makes good points.   maybe i'll start carrying two bags ... my "for everyone else" bag, and the "to use on me" bag.  

  But according to the liberals ... this is what all of us do!!! A regular wild, wild, west shootout every day of the week!

That's just because that guy was in the water.

Whatever. He's clearly just trying to get a better over-the-air picture on his TV. Lol

I would suggest that most .gov things done in the name of "safety" are purposeful misinterpretation; drones, listening to our conversations, DUI check points, cameras everywhere (in England, coming to an America near you), etc. unreasonable: 1.) not guided by, or based on good sense 2.) beyond the limits of acceptability or fairness If you use the definition above for "unreasonable" (it's the google definition), I see how maybe you could say the idea of DUI checkpoint is based on good sense. I, however, believe they are beyond the limits of what I find acceptable and fair. It would be fair if everyone on the road got stopped, not just the people driving down one particular road where the checkpoint is. Also, I don't believe the effectiveness of the checkpoints meets the burden, or, "limit of acceptability" to justify the inconvenience . How many DUIs are issued at these checkpoints vs charges for other things? Again, this whole debate centers on what some people find unreasonable. I find DUI checkpoints, TSA security searches (if done privately by airline security as has been mentioned I would feel differently perhaps), and the like to be unreasonable. Unfortunately I'm not SCOTUS and therefore my opinion doesn't mean anything. I think many people are willing to give up rights for a false sense of security offered by things like this. You can assert that I don't trust the government and have a general dislike for LEO if you like. I certainly don't trust the government and, I do personally think that many (not all) LEO have forgotten they are public servants (evidence being the way they interact with the public). And so yes, I will forever be a small .gov guy and believe anyone of the "safety"/nanny-state is wrong in this aspect. We can, however, continue to agree that Obama is a screw up, Obamacare will destroy our healthcare, guns are great fun; and enjoy a friendly burger and beer if we ever meet in person.

Sweet!

I agree with you. Many people on this forum are NOT small .gov and are pro-nanny state. I find it humorous the things they apply their logic too, and the things they deny that same logic too. Guns aren't the only thing to cherish over the next few decades ... large sodas, red meat, gasoline cars, the ability to homeschool, etc. The only reason will be allowed things like tobacco and alcohol (although with higher taxes through Obamacare ...) will because its how they numb the masses.

If its "ok" for the government to force you to submit to search when getting on a plane. I see no reason why you would disagree with searches before driving. After all, more people die in an average year in car accidents than do airplane crashes so if you really wanna do something about safety, lets start on the road?

Your argument is that you want to "get to point B in one piece" and thus, searches at the airport are ok with you. I merely extended your logic to the automobile since I assume you have the same desire when driving?

[quote name="DaveS" post="1028641" timestamp="1378586809"] I think they do. Considering the fact that I want to arrive at "point B" in one piece, I think the Government has every right in the world to make sure that "you" do nothing to interfere with that. Apparently airlines and private security failed miserably at security, wouldn't you think? DaveS[/quote] With this logic why not have TSA stationed in everyone's back yard and they can do a full blown cavity search and sobriety check before anyone gets in a car. Since after all, I just want to get to "point B" in one piece and the .gov should be allowed to do anything to ensure that.

Are we talking about number of guns owned? Or number of guns sold, say in a year?

I think that's why they passed the bit about the no refusal for blood draw if you've been arrested. They arrest you, get a "warrant," take you to hospital, then run a blood test to check your alcohol level.

FTFY