Something to chew on

Once again, intent is so important. What ever happened to 'warnings'? Have none of us ever made an honest mistake?

I once was out hunting (in my '54 Studebaker) and we put the shotguns in the trunk but for 'whatever reason' I put a loaded .22 revolver under the front seat. We always carried a .22 revolver in case we wounded an animal and had to dispatch it. I was stopped one night drinking beer in the school parking lot at a basketball game. A cop found the .22. I was horrified. But that was a different world. We didn't have AK 47s and high capacity magazines. We were just kids who went hunting on the weekends and no one needed (or wanted) that shit. After I explained, the cop explained - "Keep the chamber with the bullets in the glove box or trunk, SEPARATE from the gun and don't drink beer here (even though I was legal age (18) in Kansas) and then get the hell out of here. If I catch you again, you're toast."

This whole thing about Rambo-type weapons has put us in a very awkward place.

 

“When you try to do the right thing, you get in trouble.”

Best line in the article. Never do the right thing in these Orwellian times.

 

"knowingly and willingly"? That's really what was said? I think in this case, it obviously was not.

The world is out of control.

 

Respectfully disagree. Any freedom has a limit. The first amendmant has a break point, you can't walk into a crowded auditorium and yell, "Fire!" Why not? Aren't we concerned that this is just the beginning of the big bad government stealing our freedom of speech? Of course not. I doubt if this was thought of when the amendment was written. When the second was written, I doubt anyone was thinking of the type weaponry available now. We do have the freedom to arm and there are restrictions, ie, the average person can't own a bazooka or a submachine gun. What we're arguing about is where do we draw a line. I liked the world better when I was 18 and AK47s that fired off 50 rounds weren't available.

With that said, what happened to the boy was overkill.

 

While I completely disagree with your above post, the boy should be given a break in this case.

 

Actually WE is dead on. Smart man that WE.

 

WE is only smart, in your eyes, because he agrees with you most of the time.

 

That is true. He really is a smart fella though.

 

I don't see eye to eye with him on everything but WE is a pretty sharp cookie. Good man in my book.

 

A rancher on the border is a special situation and their (not MY so you can drop that) suggestion was 'restricted' semi auto rifles. IF they dicontinue ANYthing, yes, what's out there is out there. Eventually an impact will be made though. Your argument is a bit like the argument agains new smog control legislation years ago - argument being those that are out there are still out there. Anyway, does it affect me? No. Do I care? No. Would I vote for restricted ownership of semi autos? Yes. Would I vote to outlaw hi cap magazines? Yes. Do I care what anyone else votes for? Hell no....

 

WE is cool with me.

 

That's a pretty severe indictment there. Ease up on the guy!

 

What would Jesus do?

 

That's a very good question. I suggest that you ponder it on a regular basis.
What he wouldn't do is support so-called gay marriage!