Change Brady to a charity, or give it away for free.

[Out of Order]

And your baby back, salt back, fat back....

Now you're just hamming it up..........

[champ1966]

And your baby back, salt back, fat back....

Oh Marsha you made me think of this awesome song

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xu-gYm0yRi4

[Lily Sawyer]

-Did someone say "baby back"?

I'm going to jones for barbecue all day long now.

(Thank you for your time and attention to this momentary thread hijack. As you were.)

[exzel]

Not unless you want a serious mouth washing. I've heard Dove has a particularly creamy texture leaving your tongue silky smooth.

LOL... I spent 8 years in Catholic school... Catholic “Old” school. Dove would be rather refreshing after the nasty soap the nuns used on me.

[Todash]

(And be careful about pushing Todash's buttons... you never know what to expect.)

Ha! That's totally unfair. In some ways I am remarkably consistent and predictable.

[jay1799]

I dunno. I think that an informed and empowered population is sufficient. More of our corrupt leaders have been removed by ballots than by bullets. Just as many, I think, have resigned simply because of political or societal pressure. The gun is the option of absolute last resort.

Most definitely the gun is a last resort. But our founders most certainly recognized the importance of maintaining the power in the peoples hands.

If one reads things such as the federalist papers and writings by our founders, it is quite apparent that 2A was meant as a check on our government, just as they wrote other checks and balances into our Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights does not grant one power to the government. They are all rights enshrined to the people, to keep our government in check and to oversee them.

Look at it this way. The only branch of government that has any oversight over the government is the legislative branch per The Constitution. They are the ones that can call up articles of impeachment(against ANY member of government in ANY branch...even their own). They are our first 'check' on government abuse of power. They are basically our elected watchdogs, police, and Jury. And it is no mistake that they are the ones most closely connected to 'The People'. The House represents the people on a per person basis. Then the Senate that represents each state on a state basis would be the one trying any impeachment case.

Now, after that...if the muck in Washington has gotten so great that 'the watchers' are not doing their job, we have the press and its associated freedoms. They are supposed to watch over government and tell The People if anything is wrong. Which goes down to the next right.

Our right to free speech, assembly, protest, and petition. This would be the next rung on the ladder. This is when we stand up and scream and yell and tell our government they are not doing their job and they better fix it or they are going to be voted out at the ballot box.

And then finally...yes, we come to the 2nd Amendment. And keeping the power in the peoples hands. This is your 'last resort' and I agree it is a last resort against tyranny, but the founders most definitely wanted us armed to the teeth for just such a situation. I mean, just look at the language they used and see which they thought most important. The first amendment states "congress shall make no law" vs 2A "shall not be infringed". To anyone with a grasp of the English Language, it should be clear that they most definitely wanted no government interference in our ability to be armed.

Just because 2A is our last resort is no reason to remove it.

Nor, does it mean that it was not meant as an additional check on the government, by keeping the power in the peoples hands.

[jay1799]

Yes, 'all three of these things were on the founders minds when they drafted our Constitution', but one thing that wasn't on their minds and hadn't even been produced yet was the rapid fire assault rifles and mega-clips of ammo- which is what needs to be banned. I think the Constitution would've been worded quite differently if these weapons were around back then. We don't want to take away your other firearms, get it? As Ms Mod stated many posts ago- why should the 'rights' of some people who own these types of weapons infringe on the 'rights' of the many who DO NOT WANT THESE WEAPONS AVAILABLE? I want to live in a society where I don't have to constantly be worrying about some nutcase coming into a movie theater where I or someone I love is watching a movie and open fire on a bunch of innocent folks or going into a school and killing innocent children who have their whole lives ahead of them. Everyday it's on the news. EVERYDAY! It has to STOP! Democracy rules here as does the majority and the majority of folk don't want these weapons anymore. Period.

Really?

They had freaking cannons. You dont think those were your 'so called assault weapons' of their day?

There was also the nock gun that fired 7 rounds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nock_gun

The Girandoni rifle had a magazine that could hold 20 rounds, and fire a lead ball with as much force as a modern .45 acp. This gun was actually brought on the Lewis and Clarke expeditions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_Air_Rifle

And do you really believe that the founding fathers were so dumb that they did not recognize that firearm technology would change? Come on.

And no. Your rights are not infringed by me owning an AR15 with a 30 round clip. Not one bit. Not one iota.

As far as not wanting to go to a movie theater where some wacko is going to shoot up the place, I dont want that either. Who does?? But banning an inanimate object is not going to make you safer in anyway. Did NFA of the 1930's stop gansters from getting their hands on full automatic weapons?? Of course not!!

If you want to make the world safer from violence, work on fixing the actual causes of violence in society, not on the tool that someone chooses to use to commit an act of violence.

However, I will say this. On a per capita basis, your chances of being shot in a mass shooting are about as likely as being struck by lightning. Do you live in fear of being struck by lightning? Are you demanding that laws be put into place to prevent someone from opening up an umbrella while walking close to you in the rain ? http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ings-john-fund

The left likes to say that the gun industry is driven by fear. I hate to break the news to you, but the left pushes fear to institute gun control whenever they speak. Bottom line, your chances of being shot in this country are very low. Even more so if you are not a gang member living in a high crime urban area.

Additionally, historically, mass shootings are not on the rise. So anytime you hear Handgun Control Inc(the old name of Brady) say that they are, know that they are lying and are simply trying to instill fear in society to meet their goals and agenda of disarming the populace.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ings-john-fund

[PatInTheHat]

Most definitely the gun is a last resort. But our founders most certainly recognized the importance of maintaining the power in the peoples hands.

If one reads things such as the federalist papers and writings by our founders, it is quite apparent that 2A was meant as a check on our government, just as they wrote other checks and balances into our Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights does not grant one power to the government. They are all rights enshrined to the people, to keep our government in check and to oversee them.

Look at it this way. The only branch of government that has any oversight over the government is the legislative branch per The Constitution. They are the ones that can call up articles of impeachment(against ANY member of government in ANY branch...even their own). They are our first 'check' on government abuse of power. They are basically our elected watchdogs, police, and Jury. And it is no mistake that they are the ones most closely connected to 'The People'. The House represents the people on a per person basis. Then the Senate that represents each state on a state basis would be the one trying any impeachment case.

Now, after that...if the muck in Washington has gotten so great that 'the watchers' are not doing their job, we have the press and its associated freedoms. They are supposed to watch over government and tell The People if anything is wrong. Which goes down to the next right.

Our right to free speech, assembly, protest, and petition. This would be the next rung on the ladder. This is when we stand up and scream and yell and tell our government they are not doing their job and they better fix it or they are going to be voted out at the ballot box.

And then finally...yes, we come to the 2nd Amendment. And keeping the power in the peoples hands. This is your 'last resort' and I agree it is a last resort against tyranny, but the founders most definitely wanted us armed to the teeth for just such a situation. I mean, just look at the language they used and see which they thought most important. The first amendment states "congress shall make no law" vs 2A "shall not be infringed". To anyone with a grasp of the English Language, it should be clear that they most definitely wanted no government interference in our ability to be armed.

Just because 2A is our last resort is no reason to remove it.

Nor, does it mean that it was not meant as an additional check on the government, by keeping the power in the peoples hands.

Oh hey Black & Decker, I see your still keepin' up the drill.
$Cha$Ch$ing$, yep, there goes another one..one hundred or so that is..good job, your quite the pistol!

[hossenpepper]

However, I will say this. On a per capita basis, your chances of being shot in a mass shooting are about as likely as being struck by lightning. Do you live in fear of being struck by lightning?

Hmmm.... interesting point. See it is interesting to me because I live in Florida, where we have the most lightning strikes of any place in the world. You hear of people getting struck and killed here quite often, actually. So yes, if there is lightning, you don't go outside, especially near the beach. There is a good chance you will be struck because there is so much lightning.



Hmmm... so could that infer that when there is MORE of something, MORE events/stuff will happen involving that thing?



Well, it stands to reason if you're reasonable. If not, then perhaps logic isn't for you.

[jay1799]

Hmmm.... interesting point. See it is interesting to me because I live in Florida, where we have the most lightning strikes of any place in the world. You hear of people getting struck and killed here quite often, actually. So yes, if there is lightning, you don't go outside, especially near the beach. There is a good chance you will be struck because there is so much lightning.



Hmmm... so could that infer that when there is MORE of something, MORE events/stuff will happen involving that thing?



Well, it stands to reason if you're reasonable. If not, then perhaps logic isn't for you.

I just so happen to live in Florida as well.

And no. I dont live in fear of lightning. I think it would be unreasonable to live in fear of something that happens so infrequently.

But the question was not if you run outside swinging a golf club in a lightning storm, the question is whether you are demanding that the government passes a law that someone else cant even own a gulf club!