RobertNashville

You can claim it's anything you want but the way you use of it makes it demonstrates that you intend it as a pejorative.

Why should I be forced to go to court every time some asshole does something irresponsible on his property that harms me when, if the person had two brain cells to rub together or cared even one tiny bit about the harm his actions might do he wouldn't do them in the first place. You can't "work things out" with people like that because if you could, they wouldn't do them in the first place.   And pray tell, what good dose it do to sue someone who probably has zero resources to pay or won't pay even if the plaintiff wins the suit?   The overwhelming majority of the laws we have regarding what someone can/can't do on his property, that ultimately harms others when he does it, exist because of assholes that do those things they shouldn't have been doing in the first place...if everyone always did the right thing and treated their neighbors with the same amount of respect and consideration they would want from them, most laws of any kind wouldn't need to exist.   If someone wants to go buy a mountain and live 100 miles from another human being then I don't give a shit what he does on his property...if he is going to live 50 feet from my property line then I do care and so should every other neighbor...that's why we and other neighbors chose to live in incorporated areas where we can pass and enforce zoning laws that says my next door neighbor can't turn his 1/3 acre lot into a pig farm or a junk yard or a trash dump...such is not theoretical, it's reality...it's not imagined harm...it's real harm...if my neighbor doesn't want to live with those kinds of restrictions then he should go buy that mountain and not force everyone else to put up with stupid, irresponsible things he wants to do just because it's his property (or property he rents and doesn't even own). Frankly, what a lot of people here claim is "freedom and liberty" sounds a lot like the freedom and liberty to shit on everyone else...that MY rights to do what I want is the only right that matters and screw everyone else.  

I REALLY like Leupold scopes although I don't know for sure if you can find what you want in a Leupold for under $500 (but I would at least take a look at them).

Funny?  Sorry but I don't see anything "funny" for anyone here.

Why does anyone give a shit about this "current case"?  Why is his arrest and whatever comes of it of interest to you or anyone?

Founders never endorsed?  Bull s****.  Do you really porport that there were no rules/regulations in existence in colonial times, both before and after the Constitution was ratified?  If you do believe that, perhaps you should read the "History of American city government: the colonial period, Volume 1 - I believe it's available on Amazon.   I wasn't talking about zoning laws, above, but yes, those are both constitutional and necessary - any belief that people can live in close proximity to each other without such laws is a belie without any rational basis.

No one's rights exists in a vacuum...no one has unlimited rights to do anything they want anytime they want. That can ONLY work if the individual lives on a planet with a population of "1".   Otherwise, society requires that there be rules and regulations about how people treat one another and provides ways to redress grievances. Society requires it because throughout recorded history, man has proven that there has to be rules (and consequences for breaking them) because people tend to not act responsibly and/or with no regard to the rights of anyone else.   That's why the founders of this country created a government with rules and regulations...That's why, for example, that you have a right to the peaceful enjoyment of your property but you DON'T have a right to do things on/with your property that infringe on MY right to the peaceful enjoyment of MY property. However, the existence of rules and regulations and governments doesn't mean that our rights are simply privileges.   I'm not saying that rules/regulations/governments can't become tyrannical; however, there are some among us who seem to feel that ANY rule they don't like = tyranny...which is ridiculous.

and insulting people, such as by by claiming they have an "authoritative mindset", is the usual and preferred response to others by those who can't make a cogent argument in support of their position or who simply want to argue.

What I said that you quoted didn't say or intend to say anything even remotely similar to your rant above.   I don't really care what he did or didn't do before the last summer's trial. He was found not guilty of killing Martin and I'm fine with that.   I don't care who has accused him of bad behavior since the trial; especially things that didn't seem to have any evidence to support them (resulting in no charges).   I don't care if he is "lucky" or "unlucky", "smart" or "stupid" or if he is a "saint" or an "asshole". I also don't care if he's "white", "Hispanic" or a "white Hispanic".   I also don't know and I really don't give a s**t if he did what he is accused of this time - if he did it he'll probably be punished..if he didn't he probably won't be punished; I'm just fine with either outcome.

Thanks for totally and completely missing the point (or ignoring it).   It isn't about Zimemrman...it isn't about whether he should have stayed in his damn truck or not...I wasn't talking about Zimmerman at all.  The point is that BEING 100% JUSTIFIED in the use of deadly force DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU WON'T BE TRIED FOR MURDER...it doesn't even mean that you won't be found guilty and die alone in a jail cell.

Is that response your idea of constructive, worthwhile dialogue?

Absolutely correct.

Don't forget, after the sweet little thug has been shot, his FB page and ever picture of him on the internet will be taken down and replaced with the thug at 10 or 11 when he might actually have looked like a sweet little kid.

This reminded me of one the the best WKRP in Cincinnati episodes where Baily Quarters was producing her own show called "Cincinnati Beat"   Her first expert guest, being interviewed by Dr. Johnny Fever, was an expert in child psychology (got his degree form "Bubba")...according to the guest, "children are, by adult standards, insane" and he suggested that we "round the little gutter snipes up". :) I don't think I've ever laughed at hard at a TV as I did when I saw that episode for the first time!

I'm pretty much with JayC on this...since when does a "school policy" override a parent's right to control his/her own children (such as deciding to walk them home rather than wait in a mile-long like of cars to pick them up?   I'm not saying that this parent couldn't have handled the situation better and without question, this cop was completely out of control and should, at the very least, lose a few weeks of pay, but still..if I go to school to pick up my child, early in the day...middle of the day...end of the school day; whatever...they had damn sure better produce my child.

As was noted earlier, for likely years to come, Zimmerman is going to be under a microscope and everything he dose that may be illegal or wrong and is going to be noted and likely made a bid deal of (whether it's really a big deal or not).  I think it might be worth mentioning and us worth taking note of that that this could be the lot of ANY OF US who might have to defend his/her life with deadly force.   If we ever have to use deadly force to defend our life we also could be charged with murder - for anyone who didn't already know, the Zimmerman/Martin shooting should have taught us that whether someone is ultimately charged with a crime in a self-defense shooting is not always charged because of the facts of the situation (i.e. that other factors can determine whether or not a person is charged). We also should know that going through a trial and being found "not guilty" does not mean that our troubles are immediately over.   Aside from the seriousness of taking another person's life, the aftermath, such as what Zimmerman is experiencing, is also part of the responsibility we take on when we carry a firearm and just one of the many reasons why doing what we can to avoid the need to fire should always be our first goal.    

Maybe he was stupid...maybe he actually did something wrong...maybe his girlfriend (who appears to have complained to LEO) is just being vindictive about something.   Getting charged, especially if it's "domestic" is pretty easy...whether he actually did anything wrong or not is another matter alltogether.

I just love it when news reporters fall over themselves to essentially report that "something happened" but we really don't know what yet".

No one is so good they can prevent everything or every possible attack but isn't this precisely the reason why we should always be in condition Yellow and extremely aware of what and who is around us?  Isn't it also one of the reasons why we should avoid places that make attack (such as alleyways, etc.) convenient (that's why I avoid WalMart parking lots! :) )? You are right, fast and brutal and that means the attacker has the upper hand (as they always do)...but sooner or later these worthless pieces of crap that engage in this WILL pick on the wrong person and...   1. One or more of these thugs will be dead, and 2. If the person defending himself is charged I'll be donating to his/her defense fund

I really like Hornaday but none of the choices offered are bad; I've used all three at one time or another with no problems.   I know you didn't ask but one thing that is important for any carry ammo is to use factory ammo of good quality that can be tested. One of the things that will happen if you are ever in a SD shooting is that they will (or you may want them to) test your ammo. Off-brand with inconsistent formulations, etc. can be a detriment to that process and that process can go a long way in helping you should you be charged with anything.

Oprah is a piece of crap who's success has obviously decreased the number of functioning brain cells she has....she isn't worth the time listening nor are her comments relevant to anyone but herself.   Obama is a piece of crap who likely never had many functioning brain cells to start with and has gotten where he is mostly BECAUSE of his race. He also isn't worth the time listening to; unfortunately he is the President and wields a good deal of power so what he does/says are relevant because it impacts others.

To be blunt, if I owned a business; most especially one that catered to the public and had customer traffic (as opposed to simply serving other businesses) I would probably restrict carry inside my business property just as most other businesses do.   I would likely carry myself (or at least have a weapon close by) and I might allow select individuals to carry (those whom I knew had been trained to whatever standards I felt were a minimum and that would also be assuming that my business insurance would cover me in the event something happened and one of those employees was deemed to have been negligent). However, I likely would not allow all employees to carry inside my business proper.   This is not about individual rights as much as it is a business doing what is best for the business...if someone wants absolute autonomy with regards to carrying a firearm while working for an employer then their employer is probably going to have to be themselves.

I absolutely agree that the only person truly responsible for his/her security is that person him/herself.   I also would really prefer it if all employers allowed their employees to carry a firearm while working/on the employer's property/inside the employer's business if the employee wanted to do so.   However, I also find it perfectly reasonable for an employer to not allow an employee to carry while working/on the employer's property. The employer has and should have that right to make that decision with the best interests of his business in mind without being "forced" to make a decision by anyone. The employee has the right to either work somewhere else OR chose to break the rules and face the possible consequences.

God given (or natural for those who prefer) are the rights of every human being. However, the mere existence of a government body will usually mean that "someone" is going to have one or more rights infringed as governments always seem to naturally grow in size and power which is generally at the expense of the individual.   That said, the "rights" we have lost and/or that have been infringed have been infringed because of the laziness or stupidity of the governed...the governed elected the people who enacted the legislation that we now find objectionable...it is we, collectively, who are ultimately to blame for the condition of our "rights".

I've had good service from AmmunitionToGo and from Midway. I've also bought from Able Ammo a time or two but most of my bulk purchases has been from AmmunitionToGo