I don't watch TV, hillbilly.

You are a liar and a fraud.

That much is certain.

Ya what ever makes you feel better that is why you are the one everyone else is calling you exactly that and not me. hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm feels lonley at the bottom with all the other turds don't it? hhhhhhhahahahahahahahahaaa

__________________
When you came into this world you cried.
Live your life so that when you die.
The world cries. the shadow

The shoot and drill set has all the answers. Look at the great credibility Fox News has.

The problem here is you can't be pumping out guns as a profitable product and banning them in places. People will get them. So the real answer here is guns are bad and they need to be seriously limited. So what you are really saying is guns weren't regulated or restricted enough in those crime ridden urban areas. There were too many guns made available as a sold product.

The best way to look at this is Texas. Texas has an archaic cowboy shoot-em ethic of gun tolerance that has lead to a "move and you're dead" culture. This culture produces the most executions without having any effect on crime either - yet I don't see these same neanderthals making that argument in that case. Texas has also produced a loose canon president who has currently mired this country in a disasterous war campaign that could be the beginning of the end of our nation. Need I say more?


I guess we'll ignore the part about the kids getting killed or shot.

You mean, all those Bushbot protofascisist retards are calling me a liar?


wOOt!


Wowsa?

Mr. RePpelLer?

"mazeD?


LMAO!

Conservative Extremeists are "needy" types and worry a lot about what the other pig fkers here think of them.

You have got to be kidding me. No seriously, you have got to be kidding right. Please tell me you are kidding otherwise you are one of the biggest idiots on the planet.

How much more regulation can you get than a total ban? I want to know? You people seriously think that criminals, you know the people who are committing the crimes, get their guns legal? You seriously think that if every US gun manufacturer went out of business today that criminals would not have guns or get new ones?

Christ! Even after every credible study has shown that when law abiding citizens arm themselves, violent crime goes down. Hey England banned hand guns in the entire country years ago and every year since then, violent crime in England has risen and it is the law abiding citizen of England that is on the short end of that stick.

We don't live in a utopia. Laws don't protect people. People protect people. The last thing I would want is to be beholden to some other person to protect me an my loved ones. Badge or no badge, we don't live in a police state and God Himself has given me the right to protect myself and if the bad guy is gonna have guns no matter what the law says, then I sure as hell don't want to be at a disadvantage. I am responsible for me...not you, not the cops, not the government.

__________________
Rod is the Coolest Most Politically Incorrect Conservative Black Man on the Planet
www.thelibertycafe.blogspot.com

I said in a previous post that my gun was made in China. I was incorrect. It was made in Japan by the Howa Manufacturing Company under license from Smith and Wesson. its a Model 3000 and was originally manufactured in 1983 according to Smith and Wesson Customer Service. Anyone interested can call them at 1-800-331-0832. I purchased the gun in 2004 or 2005, I don't remember which, at a gun show. The gun's barrel is obviously 20 plus years old but the stock and trigger mechanism is new.

You can learn more about this Japanese company from this website

The Countryman of Derby.

I was unable to find a website specifically for Howa Company

I don't expect an apology from you Crowley, I know assholes never apologize and everyone knows you are a fool anyway.

__________________
Its better to have fussed and crabbed then never to have fussed at all - Lucy

July 01, 2008
High-Stakes Courts
By Thomas Sowell

Recent landmark court decisions are reminders that elections are not just about putting candidates in office for a few years.

The judges that elected officials put on the bench can remake the legal landscape, change fundamental social policies and even affect the way wars are fought, long after those who appointed them have served their terms and passed from the scene.

The Supreme Court recently created a new "right" out of thin air for captured enemy soldiers and terrorists-- the right to seek release in the federal courts, something that neither the Constitution nor the Geneva Convention provided.

The High Court has also struck down gun control laws as violations of the Second Amendment. Whatever the legal merits or the policy merits of that decision, it is a major change, created by judges.

The point here is that federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, wield enormous-- and growing-- power. What that means is that when we vote for the candidates who will nominate and confirm judges, we are making decisions not only for ourselves but for generations yet unborn.

Recent momentous decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court have been decided by 5 to 4 votes, including the votes of justices appointed by presidents who are no longer living-- Justice John Paul Stevens, appointed by President Ford, and Justice Anthony Kennedy, appointed by President Reagan.

Whoever is elected to the White House this November is expected to appoint two or three new members of the Supreme Court-- justices who will be making major decisions affecting the future of American society, long after that president is gone.

Your children will be living during the lifetime tenure of those justices, and your grandchildren will be living in a world shaped by the precedents that those justices set.

In a year when dissatisfaction has been expressed by both Democrats and Republicans with the presidential candidates chosen by their own parties, it is worth keeping in mind the high stakes involved in judicial appointments-- and therefore in presidential elections.

This is especially important to be kept in mind by voters who are thinking of venting their frustrations by voting for some third-party candidate that they know has no chance of being elected.

There will be a president chosen this November, and he will appoint Supreme Court justices during his term, regardless of whether you stay home or go to the polls.

His choices for the High Court will have a major impact on history, whether you vote after a sober consideration of many facts or vote on the basis of the candidate's rhetoric, style or demographics.

Even more important than the particular issues that courts will decide is the more fundamental issue of what a judge's role is in our system of Constitutional government.

In the gun control decision, for example, there were justices who read the history and meaning of the Second Amendment differently. What was most dangerous, however, was Justice Stephen Breyer's opinion that it was up to judges to weigh and "balance" the pros and cons of gun control laws.

If we have Constitutional rights only when judges like the end results, we may as well not have a Constitution.

Is the right to free speech to be put aside, and a journalist put behind bars, whenever a judge thinks that journalist went "too far" in expressing an opinion about some politician or bureaucrat?

Is someone to be tried over again for the same crime, even after having been acquitted, if judges regard the Constitutional ban on double jeopardy as just a suggestion to be weighed and "balanced?"

We have already seen what happens when a 5 to 4 majority decides that politicians can seize your home and give it to somebody else, if judges don't think your property rights "balance" whatever politicians choose to call "the public interest."

When deciding which candidate you want in the White House for the next 4 years, it is worth considering what kind of judges you want on the federal courts for the next generation.

Copyright 2008, Creators Syndicate Inc.

I've never been foolish enough to buy a new shotgun with a twenty year-old barrel, Nathan.

You?

If the barrel has been refurbished I see nothing wrong with it. Its not like its made of paper, it is steel and should last forever. My Marlin is over 100 years old but the barrel is still as solid as the day it was built.

I would not pay top dollar for a refurbished gun and in this case I did not.

You are still a fool

__________________
Its better to have fussed and crabbed then never to have fussed at all - Lucy