Chucktshoes

Your proposition is a total non-starter because that issue has already been dealt with in the courts. Threats must meet a threshold of believability where the person making the threats must not only have the intent but the ability to carry them out. Random spouting off on the Internet or in public isn't an actual threat. Therefore, it is not prosecutable. .

I guess you would call that alpacan' heat.

Yes, it was meant to be bitingly sarcastic humor. While maybe not to your taste, it was done with a point. A point that is related to the first part of your post that you directed at Links. You talk about your interactions with community projects, etc. and the "community leaders" you met there. Those folks may well have been leaders respected by their communities, communities in which they actually had personal involvement. Communities whose numbers were likely measured in the hundreds or a few thousand. When folks (especially white folks) speak questioningly about "where are the leaders in the black community" they are (most likely unintentionally) expressing a reductive and condescending POV that treats black folks as a single minded monolith needing to be directed. It is a subtle and insidious mental exercise that takes a group of individuals who vary greatly across all political and many demographic spectrums and by using one demographic point turns them into a single entity that is "other". It is a trap I have fallen victim to in the past and likely will again in the future. It's the same mental trap when we rant about wanting to know "where are the moderate Muslims to denounce _________ horrible act." It is simply creating a straw man, a construct that is easier to dismiss without having to engage individuals about specific problems or issues and acknowledge that solutions are complicated.

Don't you realize that you all need to be led around by a good leader like the children that ya'll are? We can't have all y'all walking around thinking that you can make decisions as individuals. Ya'll tend to get uppity when you start thinking that.

I am all for arming .mil in garrison, but this is the wrong way to go about it. Arms should be issued in such a manner as is appropriate for rank/duty billets. Officers and SNCOs should be issued sidearms and worn as part of the uniform. Junior enlisted should be issued rifles or carbines and carry them Israeli style (mag out). Folks like recruiters who work off post and in the general public should be issued sidearms regardless of rank. This is supposed to be a professional effing military full of professional effing soldiers. There is no need to pussyfoot around the fact that weapons are a part of their job. As far as when folks are off duty, take the damn uniform off and carry your personal weapon. You aren't supposed to be galavanting around town in your uniform anyway.

Oh, is Bill visiting his old office?

I am seeing reports filtering out that the shooter is dead.

Now to be fair, the shooter did not bring the gun inside.

I will give that rousing jingoistic pablum the same answer I have always given the Nathan Jessups who spout off that nonsense. If you want to claim the role of "good guy" then you damn sure better act like the good guy. When you sacrifice morality in the name of expedience, you fight for nothing more than the joy of the kill. We can set aside the international laws if you want (even though the parts he violated were the parts we actually ratified, just sayin'), he still violated the UCMJ and federal law. In doing so he dishonored his uniform and country in the process. He was rightfully and justly drummed out of the service for his actions. I used to really like the guy until I read up on the circumstances of the end of his Army career. I have no beef with the man in his current role as a commentator and actually agree with him reasonably often. Still, he has no business being allowed to have access to any elected office. I'm not saying he is a bad guy. He found himself in a difficult situation and he made  a choice, a bad choice. It is because of his willingness to make the choice that he did that I cannot trust him to be in a position to make choices that can have far more of a damaging impact in so many unimaginable ways. I will say one thing, I absolutely agree that there is a difference between conducting war and conducting politics. Politics has a far greater capacity for wholesale destruction than any war has ever accomplished.

If "getting shit done" means that violating the Geneva Conventions, The Hague accords, the UCMJ, and federal law, maybe the shit he gets done isn't the shit we should want him to be getting done. Maybe we should also be cautious about putting him in a position to really get a lot of shit done if that's the way he does shit. If you are given a small amount of authority and power and you abuse it, how can we trust you with the immense amounts of power and authority of high elected office?

And in the end, it only took us as far as a Hollywood soundstage. :tinfoil:

I am a certified Apple fanboy and after seeing some folks talk about issues they're having with this release of iOS and iTunes in particular, I will not be downloading this update.

I had a similar issue when I got one when they were brand new. Not a fan of the PT709.

He's about to get another chance at it. http://m.imdb.com/title/tt4189022/

No, but he did use his head!

What Are We Celebrating? In 1776, few imagined or looked to a future of central banks, massive national standing armies, or a federal legal system that regulated the daily lives of Americans down to the most minute details. In fact, had the typical Revolutionary War soldier been told that such a future awaited his country, he would have likely gone home immediately, as such a future would likely appear even worse to him than staying subject to the British Crown’s benign neglect. https://mises.org/library/five-laws-repeal-independence-day

Folks with money have been doing that with ever greater numbers.

I think you slightly misunderstood what I was saying. If your gun handling becomes unsafe due to alcohol impairment, you are unsafe with either the gun by itself or you are unsafe with the alcohol by itself. I recommended figuring out which one it was and eliminating that. The implication was more along the lines of folks having more of an issue with alcohol than they think.

While analogous in some ways, it isn't really an equal comparison. Alcohol has a diminishing effect on the human body in two ways. It diminishes judgment and it diminishes motor control, both fine and gross. I would rate the loss of those three things thusly. Diminished fine motor control Diminished judgement Loss of fine motor control/diminished gross motor control Loss of judgement Loss of gross motor control The primary issue folks have with mixing alcohol and firearms is diminished judgement. If you drink to the point that your judgement is diminished enough to make you a danger with a gun, you are a danger without a gun. Many folks have diminished fine motor control due to myriad reasons such as physical maladies or age. That doesn't make them inherently unsafe with a firearm, just maybe less accurate. One doesn't really become physically unsafe to handle a firearm until they begin to lose gross motor control. Cars are a bit different. Operating a car can become dangerous for others as soon as one experiences diminished fine motor control. Slowed reaction times, the ability to keep hands steady/feet firmly on the pedal with the proper amount of force. These are all examples of diminished fine motor skills that make not just drunk folks dangerous in a car, but seniors or folks with certain disabilities as well. One may be physically unable to safely operate a car well before one loses the ability to make good judgements on how to safely operate it. *For simplicity's sake let me say that I am considering the reduction of mental acuity in the ability to process and react to stimuli to be a symptom of diminished physical ability as opposed to a symptom of diminished judgment. Diminished judgement is the increased likelihood of engaging in "hey y'all, watch this!" type of behavior.*

I would agree and don't see any conflict in our statements. I would even go so far to say that your statement can be used to support my position.

I take a slightly different position. Legalities aside, if you having a few drinks makes you unsafe around a firearm, you were already unsafe around one independent of the other. It is best to find out which and eliminate it from your life.

Flamethrower is the bouncer's nickname.