strickj

Probably never lost them. He was only caught twice, afterall

Yup, you're right! Those damn lobbyists are making millions off of you driving drunk

It's all about responsibility. And you appear not to have any. If you're not responsible enough to be trusted with a vehicle in public, then you are not going to be trusted with a gun in public, either. Stop complaining about the penalty of DUI. Just be thankful that you are not behind bars for killing someone while driving drunk. PS, I would suggest loosing the txt talk. We are all adults here and your grammar is illegible.

Howdy and welcome to TGO! Value + Pawn (or maybe it's Household Pawn - the one just as you come off of the dam) on 153 had them the last time I was there. They sell new and used. Although it's been awhile since I've been there so you may want to call first. And to add to Mav's list of three... there's also GT Distributors. They are mainly a cop supplier but they do sell to the public. They are right across the state line in Rossville behind the old corner dinner. To buy a handgun from them the gun will have to be transferred to a pawn shop on the Blvd in TN... but their prices make that one extra stop well worth it. They constantly have GREAT deals on police trade-in guns. These trade-ins are shot very, very little and are the best deal to be had. Benton's I wouldn't waste my time on. Way over priced! Especially when you add in the cost of that speeding ticket you're sure to get while driving through Benton 9imm ammo should be around -10 bucks or so from WalMart. You'll find ammo priced a lot higher at gun shops.

Meh.... I'm not going broke by spending a couple bucks on Tetra grease I can tell you're not a car guy. Metal is like bread. There's a million recipes and no two are alike. Oil is like jam. There's a million recipes and no two are alike. Friction is what happens when you mate a too thick of a jam on a too thin of a piece of bread This is true. WD is a great lube for all kinds of stuff. And so is spit I wouldn't use WD as a gun lube but it (and similar brands) is the best thing available to protect against rust. It will also rejuvenate your faded blued finish and make it look brand new. Oil molecules are smaller then the grains in metal which lets it 'penetrate'. Penetrating oil is simply smaller and will have additives that attract the oil to metal. Think magnet. Penetrating does not mean that it will go completely through.

Guys, let's not resort to name calling. Doing so further will result in vacations being issued. Thanks

I can live with some a-hole blocking the road For the rest of ya... lighten up! The world does not revolve around you. If there's a cyclist in the roadway, then wait ten seconds until it's clear and pass them. Is that so hard?

I'd be afraid to count the amount of I've spent sporting stuff and clothing at Dicks over the years. I've always found their prices to be pretty competitive and in some cases, way cheaper. Never quite understood why their guns and ammo were always priced so high compared to other items in store.

They are probably 'double measuring'. The bag itself may only add up to 4536 but they are adding the ci of each pocket and compartment.

Not sure what you guys are laughing about. I have to hold back hostages all the time. n00bs!

Tell ya what does bother me is the "we need two forms of ID" people. If I'm crafty 'nuff to forge one ID.... wouldn't I be crafty 'nuff to forge two? ****ing idiots

Bill Would Make Some Airport Screening Sexual Assault - Manchester News Story - WMUR Manchester Sounds about right.

9mm typically goes for around $10 a box per 50. I haven't seen 7.99 in two or three years. I haven't bought any 40 in some time but my best guess says it was around 15 last time I bought some. Don't think I have ever seen it go for 9.99 anywhere.

If you are looking at price.... but still want that Sig then get a Sig P6. I know you said you wanted a 40 (not sure why when you haven't shot anything else) but it fit's the other two musts.

I rarely get asked for ID from anywhere for anything. So no it doesn't really bother me. The zip code thing is a credit card thing to protect against theft. I've shopped there before. I would have given them the sperm sample. Why are you complaining?

No need to do that. But this whole conversation is about intellectual property, copyright laws and how they apply to all art. Everyone should at least read the laws that apply to the conversation before commenting on them. I wouldn't comment on a gun law without at least reading the law first At any rate, I hate that this thread kinda turned into a debate. I just thought it would be interesting to bring up the fact that tattoos can hold copyrights that the barer does not own. It's something that will never affect 99.99999999999+ percent of us with tattoos ayway. The chances of me being sued over my tattoos is about the same as me getting sued for using a screen capture from a movie as my avatar. Probably less

Kinda funny how we treat teachers like garbage. Then start bitching about not having anymore good teachers left. I'm sure one is not related to the other at all... "And that's all I've got to say about that."

Jamie, I'm not going to continue to debate on whether or not surgery will ever be considered art or can ever be copyrighted. You have already stated that you don't care what the laws are so trying to explain the laws and why they are laws to you is just wasting my time. Call it a "slippery slope" all you want. Surgery is not and will not ever be considered art. Sure you can. If you're in that celebrity category, then simply ask for complete rights to the art before you get it. It only takes getting permission once. If you don't like that, then don't put someone's artwork on your body... or cover it up if an infringement is possible. Easy-peasy!

What, like a congee (sp?) or tribal trampstamp? I'd say not because art has to be original (or at least different) to be considered copyrighted. A cookie cutter off the wall tat is not what I would call an original work of art. Although, an off the wall tat that's altered in a way that makes it easily recognizable may fall into that category. The Baker case was just the first one that I came to. There were others... but the OP was already getting pretty long so I didn't post anymore. 2) Yes, publishing someone's artwork without written permission is an infringement. It's also an infringement to copy that artwork, put it on a shirt and sell it commercially (reproducing). Whichever he did doesn't really matter.

I absolutely follow what you;re saying. But surgery is not art. It will never be art. Even if we did call boobs and boob jobs art, the surgeon would simply be altering the original, not creating an original. No. You never loose any control or the ability show your body or a body part because someone's art is on it. You can always cover it up. Kat Von D with no tatsand another NWS-underwear

Boobs are not intellectual property. Though, I suppose god could claim them as his intellectual property and sue a woman for altering his art No one has, nor can they ever, own your body, or a body part, because of a piece of art or a copyright. They can, however, own the intellectual rights to the art itself, even if it is in your physical possession. All of this is explained in the above link.

There is no fuzzy line when you understand copyright laws. Read this PDF for what does and what does not hold copyrights. http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf Also see my above post (and that link explains it in depth) about "commissioning" art work and holding rights to ideas.

The closest thing to that in copyright codes is in reference to when there is a creator working for an employer. In which case, the artwork will hold shared and equal ownership between the employer and the actual creator. In the situation of a tattoo, that would mean the tattoo artist and the owner of the tattoo shop (his employer) will hold ownership of the intellectual property rights. The person getting the tattoo is merely a customer of the artist and the shop. Going back to the two cases mentioned in the OP, they both named both the tattoo artist and his shop (employer) as plaintiffs. Simply paying someone to perform an act does not equate to employment. Also, you can not copyright or hold claim to a copyright infringement to an act or an idea (telling or showing someone how to do the art).

Yeah, I don't think boobies are copyrighted... though, I wish I could hold some rights to them. Hell, I'd settle with just holding them There is no 'commissioned' clause written within copyright laws. The law states that the creator owns it and the intellectual rights to it unless otherwise expressed. U.S. Copyright Office - What Does Copyright Protect? (FAQ)

Again, if you invented something would you want someone to rip your invention off and start profiting from it? You may not think it's a big deal but I guarantee you that the writers and news companies that are loosing money from it do think it's a very big deal. Well, Dave, written law and case law disagrees with you. The only rights the owner relinquishes automatically (when no written terms are given) is the "implied personal use". That is because, when you hand the owner the money and he lets you leave with the art, it is assumed that the creator understands that the person leaving with the art is going to use it. It is also assumed, on the creator's behalf, that since the buyer if buying it personally for himself, that he is only going to use it for personal reasons. Thus the "implied personal use". When you buy a movie from Blockbuster or WalMart, this very thing happens. You may physically own or possess that movie, but you do not own the intellectual rights to it. Try copying a movie that you "own" to resell or your street corner and see what happens... Oh, and putting it in the paper would be fine. Editorial publications do not need releases as they're covered by the 1st. Commercial publications are not so they do need releases. That's exactly what the second case I mentioned in the OP was about. Barker got a tattoo that he liked so much that he decided to put it on a shirt in his clothing line. How do you know that the photographers photographing her didn't obtain a release? I'm sure that her legal team along with the photographers' legal teams figured this out long ago. If she was photographed infront of, or in a building, then the photographer obtained a release from the building owner too. Photographers know releases. It's their job to know them in detail and when how to use them. Without them, they can be sued. Well, if it's easily recognizable, then a photographer would need a release. You can not use the likeness of anything easily recognizable without permission from the owner. Cars, buildings, sculptures, and a million other things, all have copyrights. Of coarse, like I mentioned in my OP, it's kind of a moot thing anyway. I've never met a tattooist, or even a body shop guy in your case, that knew anything about copyright laws. Being sued because of improper use or copyright infringement is not going to happen unless you're a celebrity or making big bucks of off someone's work.