Printable View
Look Cane Pole if we are starting to trade papers then we are making some progress in talking to each other. Just be aware that I am experienced in that as well as knowing that there is no universally or generally accepted consensus on this in the United States, which is why there is a debate here that does not exist in nearly any other part of the world. We Americans have unique outlooks on the role of guns in society and somehow we will need to find some uniquely American solution.
#1, I will talk to (not at) anyone, even a card carrying union Yankee.
Keep it over the headboard with 3 bolts in the rack. Figure if the dog gives us even 30 seconds warning...btw have excellent night vision and used a crossbow to take several does at relatively long range (120- 140`) I also KNOW every squeeky board in the house is and the SO has fired the .45 and the 12 gauge in the dark before, am certain she`d do well. Would only worry about hitting the dog while the intruder was donating pieces and fingers to her...hence the crossbow with 12 guage "back up'. Pin `em to the wall with a solid THUD. Then call the cornoner...
Brother you kill the dog we going to have some problems....;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowellhturner
PS I DO own several excellent quality GAS MASKS too...(evil laughter sound effect here...) let me SURPRISE you in the dark...hacking up a lung HURTS.
LOL
No professor automatically does. I claim the right as an American to make up my own mind, and I do, as often disagreeing with conclusions of professors in universities out of some half a dozen nations around the world as not on this point or that, but mostly in their own fields of study which the Harvard professors writing the paper your commentary cited are not in. Were they anthropologists or sociologists writing in their own juried journals instead of an opinionated piece in a law review, it would a different matter entirely, but then this paper wouldn't have gotten by juries for professional publication simply on procedural issues in the first place.
They didn't even bother to couch the paper in lawyer talk; so it is pretty obvious they weren't even writing it as professional lawyers or for a professional audience of any kind in the first place. It has all the markings of a propaganda plant, but then like I said before its really doesn't even have solid enough data to debate against in the first place.
FWIW a lot of pro-gun control propaganda is no better written or researched. So much smoke and so little actual fire in this American debate over guns and their place in our society. Anymore I take anything I read with a grain of salt, unless I can find some substance in it at all, and there is very little besides a very general agreement that there is a big problem, but not how to fix it. Pure emotion aint gonna fix this either, but it will drive the American people to take some action, and I really doubt you are going to like it, when it does.
A dog is a very good repellent to any house breaker. Also a very good first signal to prepare one's self for any who would brave it. It doesn't have to be big dog either; a feisty little rat terrier or a Jack Russell will do very nicely, and will almost automatically assume guard duty for the family home.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowellhturner
Of course there was the bugler who broke into a house, and standing in the dark dining room heard a voice sing out "Jesus is watching you." The second time that happened he flashed a light around and watched the parrot in the corner repeat himself yet again.
The bugler laughed and said to the parrot, "And I suppose you are Jesus."
"No," answered the parrot. "I am Moses. Jesus is the doberman."
Surely you must have strained some brain neurons (doing all that ciphering) and have possibly caused a cerebral dyslexia if the statement "shall not be infringed" is not clearly understood.Quote:
Originally Posted by no1son
Good nite #1 and LT. Pay attention to the parrot.
And why do you always ignore the initial qualifier "a well regulated milita" which is not just a modifier but also a preceding one and part of the same and only sentence. That is coupled with the well documented original intent to protect the state militias from being absorbed into the Federal government. It took the Supreme court 200+ years to come to a splint decision applying that to individual gun ownership, which shows that is a very recent interpretation and not the original intent. I guess we will see how long that stands, won't we.