daddyo

My mom was Suzy Homemaker, so we always had a good breakfast before going to school. Many times it was scrambled eggs and sausage or bacon and toast. Fresh, hand-picked tomatoes from the garden. That was also back when Coble Dairy would deliver milk to your door, and that's what we had to drink. None of this low fat or 2% stuff - we had real, whole milk in our glass or on our cereal. Sometimes it would be oatmeal with fresh fruit and cream to pour on it. Sometimes pancakes with maple syrup and Tennessee Pride sausage, or, if we had been to see the grandparents recently, it would be spicy homemade pork sausage from Papaw's farm. On Saturdays it would always be a full breakfast and then my brother and I would watch Roy Rogers and Gene Autry on TV. It's clogging my arteries just thinking about it, but, man, it sure was good stuff.

I agree with this, but I don't have a lot of faith that it will go anywhere. That's too much revenue for the gubmit to lose.

Ditto. If were going for a great steak (great, not just good, mind you), I would hit one of those places.

How was he "spouting off"? Are you "spouting off" whenever you offer your opinion?

What is this "pockylips" of which you speak??

This is exactly why I carry for my protection and the protection of my family and no one else. We are a litigation-happy society. I can't afford to lose everything I own just because someone might not like the way I did or didn't save their hide.

I didn't say you did. I was making a generalization about people who use that argument. Another thing I find interesting is when a gay person uses that argument as an insult against his/her opponent. What a minute, I thought gays regarded their sexual orientation as a good thing, so why would they insinuate that it was a bad thing? Kinda contradictory if you ask me.

While those turned out to be true, it's immature and disrespectful to accuse someone of being gay themselves just because they don't agree with the gay lifestyle, especially if there is no evidence to support that accusation.

Please name those cases.

It would be nice if our legislators could start being leaders for a change instead of followers.

Wow, that truly sucks. Thanks for letting us all know not to do business with this shyster.

I've found that it's a bogus argument used by the homosexual community when they can't defend their position from a logical point of view and is straight out of the Saul Alinsky "handbook" - it's simply a tactic they use to shut their opponent up and it's a strong indicator that they've lost the debate.

Stopping the threat is an inclusive term; it is irrespective of the outcome for the intruder. And as far as self-defense is concerned, it is the ONLY objective that is valid in the eyes of the law.

Others who have been the victim of a mistaken address have not fared as well as this woman.

So, the restaurant owner can tolerate racial bigotry and hatred, but can't tolerate someone who holds different views on homosexuality. Amazing. There really is no accounting for stupid.

Yes, it's all your fault.

Wow. Just wow.

No, I get the difference between stopping the threat and shooting to kill, and most people here seem to grasp that as well. You apparently do not. Not a single person here has advocated trying to stop someone by aiming for extremities, but you insist on making that strawman argument. Why is it that hard to get your head around the idea that stopping the threat doesn't always necessitate killing? Are you that bullheaded?

You still don't get it.

That's still a far cry from advocating standing over him and "finishing him off".

Exactly. Any reputable firearms instructor who understands the law will tell you the exact same thing, and if you've been taught to shoot to kill, then I would seriously consider getting my money back. I never said anything about having the intent to "wound, wing, slow down or deter". You're made quite a mental leap and construed what I said to mean something that it didn't. If the intruder dies, then he dies, and I won't regret what I did, which is to protect myself and my family. "Neutralize" may mean death for the intruder, but killing him is not my objective. I won't stand over him and "finish him off" if I determine that I have accomplished my goal of "neutralizing". Is that simple enough? It is absolutely stupefying to me how many people don't seem to get that concept. Let me say it again without reservation: ANYONE who fully intends to "shoot to kill" has no business owning firearms, period. If the shoe fits, wear it.

Flying was once an enjoyable experience. The TSA just proves, once again, that anytime the federal government gets involved in something, all the joy is sucked out of it.

Bought mine at the Cool Springs Academy last fall: http://www.academy.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product_10151_10051_32446_-1?Ntt=lansky&Ntk=All

Good grief. I shoot to neutralize the threat, whether it's in my home or on the street. I don't shoot to kill. Anyone who has that mindset needs to stay as far away from guns as possible. I won't try to stop the bleeding. The scumbag could have AIDS, hepatitis or some other blood borne pathogen that I don't want and I won't take that risk.