I see what you are saying.

Note numero uno on my list.

Wind.

Wind is a semi-mild irritant to you.

Wind was the difference in my (past) world.

It was a live or die thing, can you imagine that?

You say I spoke in jarhead (or words to that effect)

Here it is, in very simple terms:

enemy:

Calm day- You die, we usually take the shot
Windy day-- You live, we probably do not take the shot

I personally found it almost "PC", but I am older and ultimately had no voice in the matter.


They will not be getting any guns I might have, btw. (I like to bitch, lol) It's just imo

Edited by member Wednesday, January 16, 2013 10:31:20 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Er...

1. I thought a .22 was a varmint rifle. (Probably because when dad and I went small-game hunting when I was a lad, that's what we used. Everyone else used shotguns, but "if you can't hit a squirrel or rabbit with a .22, you shouldn't be hunting squirrels or rabbits." Dad didn't believe in "sport" hunting; you only hunted what you were willing to eat; and willingness to eat declines with the amount of shot one has to pick out of the dead animal.

2. If I ever go deer hunting again, it'll be with a 30-30.

3. I don't expect to ever buy a "defense" gun (for reasons I've said before), but if I did, it would be a 12-gauge. Does Remington still make the 870?

You bet they do.
A Remington 870 12 ga. pump loaded with .00 buckshot is a real crowd pleaser if the masses are closing in on your house.

Yeah, I heard that today too. Still doesn't change my opinion that assault weapons only need to be issued to soldiers. Well, I guess the boys out there with small peckers need to compensate.

This gun control fight has been brewing for a while. It's the wag the dog flavor for 2013.

It doesn't matter any more. Kind of like how race was injected and manufactured into the Traymon Martin case, everyone made up their minds about what happened and drew lines in the sand before the truth came out. The media thrives on conflict, politicians will use anything they can to fuel their agendas, and private citizens will believe whatever people tell them so long as it reinforces the beliefs they already hold.

I do believe we need to have a conversation as a country about gun violence, however as usual the conversation has been zeroed in on one single factor (availability of certain types of guns) and everything else is being put on the backburner or ignored.

Interesting discussion on WTMJ in Milwaukee today. Apparently in the Chicago Sun Times today (Not on their wesite unfortunately) there was an article about an incident at a local hospital where a 16 year old went in for an infected tonsil, when they were taking basic information about the teen (medical history stuff) they had asked the parents to leave the room. The pediatrician then asked the teen amongst other things (like if they were being bullied), whether there were any guns in the house (followup question being if there were locks on the guns). This was also information that was being stored by the hospital. A number of other callers called in to confirm similar questioning of their own children, although in most cases with them in the room.

While I can appreciate the need for doctors to ask such questions in the case of routine general wellness cases and in cases where abuse is suspected, why when the kid has an infected tonsil? If this was about keeping kids safe and gun safety, why aren't the parents allowed to be in the room to be a part of the discussion? If the kid says that there are guns in the house and he knows that they're not locked away, why are the parents not involved in the discussion if this really is about the kid's wellbeing? What IS the hospital doing with this information?

While I tire of hearing terms like "nanny state" being thrown around, you do have to wonder about what our society will be like now that government and healthcare insurance are joined at the hip. When the government has a vested monetary interest in people being healthy, you can endlessly justify storing more and more information about people under the guise of your own wellbeing, at the expense of your privacy.

I remember seeing the last 5 minutes of it when I was about 10.

Edit: Whoops, I was thinking of Running Man.

Edited by member Thursday, January 24, 2013 12:54:58 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Because despite how appropriate it is in some cases, it's used so often it makes my ears bleed.