The 12th annual fund raiser banquet this year is the most important because......Obama says
"My first priority will be to reinstate the assault weapons ban as soon as I take office. Within 90 days, we will go back after kitchen table dealers, and work to end the gun show and internet sales loopholes. In the first year, I intend to work with Congress on a national no carry law, 1 gun a month purchase limits, and bans on all semi-automatic guns."
We have to fight for our rights!!!
Please join us this year @ the Eagles on June 5th @ 6:00 for social hour and 7:30 for dinner, provided by Redneck Bar B Q. We will have a live auction, silent auction, and fun games. For more info, dinner tickets, or raffle tickets call me. Charleen 545-9658

It's not fear mongering. Lets just say we allow the government to say you are allowed this gun but not that gun. Where then do you draw the line? Will the government then be able to tell you, you can say this but not that? I own several guns and I enjoy hunting and target shooting, I am a responsible parent and make good choices. I am not a radical but I strongly believe That our Constitution was written the way it was for a reason, to keep big government in check. Stand up for what so many died for, your liberty.

That works both ways, Danny. Should you be allowed to keep a grenade launcher? How about a nuke? Where do YOU draw the line? Or shouldn't there be any line? The NRA doesn't seem to think there should be a line.

I am not a radical but I strongly believe That our Constitution was written the way it was for a reason, to keep big government in check.

Okay... so I'll ask again. Can you offer me an example of an armed rebellion succeeding against a state with a modern military and security framework? When you look around at your neighbors, do they look like they're going to get fired up over changes in the marginal tax rate and highway funding?

Or is this just a fantasy where people shout "Wolverines!!!" a lot?

Merely my humble opinion. There is no doubt that this is a sensitive subject. It's good there are forums such as this to spark debate.

As far as where I draw the line, I have no need for a grenade launcher or a nuke. I just enjoy the shooting sports. It's a shame that people will not be able to afford the things they love like shooting because of the increased taxes on ammunition and bans.

Bummer. I imagine an assault rifle burns up the ammo pretty quickly.

For those of you who have never read this, the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States states:

" A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "

"free State" here does not refer to a centralized federal government. That's why "State" was capitalized.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "

The meaning of this statement should be clear to even the biggest moron among you.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the SCOTUS upheld the 2nd Amendment as a "personal right" to keep and bear Arms.

The 2nd Amendment is one of those "negative Liberties" Obama likes to talk about.

I always understood them to be "certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

Heavy emphasis on Liberty.

It's not fear mongering. Lets just say we allow the government to say you are allowed this gun but not that gun. Where then do you draw the line?

If it wasn't fearmongering, you wouldn't have to resort to the whole paranoid, "Dat sumb***h Muzzlim Obama bin Laden's gonna take all r gunz!" argument. You wouldn't have to resort to falsehoods to advertise your point. If you used truth, you wouldn't need fear.

I am all for the ownership and usage of firearms, but along with the right to bear arms, so also must come the obligation to bear them responsibly. You can't have one without the other.

The Founders DID NOT envision automatic or even semi-automatic weapons. In their day, a firearm (a single shot musket or pistol) was not only a means by which a person could defend themselves, it was also a tool used to put food on the table. There was also the very real threat of invasion from a foreign power. Such a threat does not presently exist.

You may also note that the Constitution does not guarantee the right to bear cannons, which were the machine guns of the day.

When the United States was in its infancy, the country did not have much of a standing army to defend its borders. As a result, an armed militia was vital. To be a viable force, the militia needed to be armed. The right to have an armed militia - a well-regulated armed militia, mind you - was deemed necessary. Second Amendment chest-thumpers so often forget the "well-regulated" part of the equation.

I don't believe that the Second Amendment was intended as an unfettered right. Again, "the right to keep and bear arms" is what was guaranteed - NOT the right to bear cannons or weapons of wholesale destruction. Do you need a machine gun or a weapon that has a 30-round magazine? Only if you feel the need to kill a person.

And, let's be real, the government tells people what they can and cannot do all of the time. I, for one, enjoy living in a non-anarchist society. Methinks you probably do too.

O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay! Jimbo has arrived to set us all straight!

"free State" here does not refer to a centralized federal government. That's why "State" was capitalized."

Um, by that logic, please tell me which "State" (by your definition) the U.S. Secretary of State represents.

"State" refers to "a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially: one that is sovereign." (source: http://www.merriam-webste...nary/state)

"State" is capitalized in the Constitution because it's a noun. You'll find that many nouns were capitalized in the document (Militia, Arms, Powers, Year, People, Citizen, Inhabitant, Taxes, Number, Service, Term, Manner, Least ... the List goes on ...). In this context, "a free State" is equivalent to "a free country."

Another "word" in the Constitution: "chuse" (as in "choose")

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The meaning of this statement should be clear to even the biggest moron among you.

Please be so kind as to also provide for us the definition of "well-regulated," Jimbo. Your ilk is always skipping over that part.

[This message has been edited by Brian A. Reed (4/24/2009)]

Nice post Brian!

I wanted to add some comments to Charlene regarding her statement about women.

The NRA uses the logic that by being armed, women are safer. This however, is not true, for every time a women used a handgun in the United States to kill in self-defense, 101 women died in handgun homicides, according to a new Violence Policy Center report. Furthermore, most of the women who used a handgun in self-defense knew her attacker.

Additionally, "[a] report released today [June13, 2006] by the Children's Defense Fund (CDF,) and based upon data collected by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) finds that more children and teens died as a result of gun violence in 2003 than American fighting men and women killed in hostile action in the first three years of the Iraq war combined.

In all, 2,827 kids and teens were killed in the United States during the calendar year that marked the US invasion of Iraq. At last count, the Department of Defense reports 2,497 US soldiers killed in Iraq.

http://www.rawstory.com/n..._0613.html.

Charlene, who is going to take your gun away?

Jim, who is going to take your gun away?

[This message has been edited by Buck Showalter (4/25/2009)]

Buck - These guys:



Watch out for guy on the right (next to the BMP). He looks like one of those them sumbi**h liberals. :spitstobaccyindisgust:

[This message has been edited by Brian A. Reed (4/25/2009)]

Will the government then be able to tell you, you can say this but not that?

I, for one, just hate it when the gummint tells me that I can't sell tainted beef to school children. Who's the FDA and USDA to tell me that I can't sell recycled circus animals to the school district?

I also can't stand it that I'm not allowed to print my own currency. It's the ONLY thing keeping me from being rich.

I'd also really like it if I could negotiate treaties with foreign countries without THE MAN telling me who I can and can't talk to.

What was it? 1994 when the original ban went into place? I don't seem to recall any of our rights disappearing then.

If memory serves me correctly, the on job death rate for police fell after the ban. There were fewer guns in the hands of criminals...

I don't have the exact numbers, but I'm sure it could be googled.

Seems to me if people just need something to get excited about.

Last deer I ate that was taken with a mini 14 was pretty crunchy too.

"No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson

If you don't believe the left wants your guns, read the latest bills that have been filed by anti-gun legislators. Google search will tell you that if they had the votes, there would be many changes. Join the NRA.

I have to wonder how many of you that see no problem with more gun laws know what was banned in the 1994 gun ban and how many more have been proposed?

> No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms.

I want a shoulder-launched rocket thingy-ma-jiggy -- seems kind of cool if I could watch a deer literally explode. If not that, then how about a really high-caliber machine gun that I can mount to the top of my truck and spit out 1,000 rounds a minute? Any idea if the NRA can hook me up with where to purchase one?

Oh, and also in regards to the quote:

> No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms.

If correct, those are the words from the father of our constitution, who also happened to be an adulterer and had sex with his slaves. (Bill Clinton is probably still wondering where the media was back then.)

What is a "free man"? I assume it is someone who is not in prison or not a slave?

I guess that means felons (after they've served their time) are then "free men", and as such should not be "de-barred the use of arms" either then, eh?

Friends of NRA Banquet
June 5th
Tickets are on sale now. Come down and join us for good food, good friends, and a good time. Lots of games and raffles, silent and live auction. If you are interested in tickets they are on sale at Red Rock Sporting Goods or call 406 545 9658 Charleen
406 545 9985 Dan
Hope to see you there.

"Please be so kind as to also provide for us the definition of "well-regulated," Jimbo. Your ilk is always skipping over that part."

Here's their definition: That the prefatory clause does not limit or expand the operative clause.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 07-290. Argued March 18, 2008-Decided June 26, 2008
District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime
to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of
handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed
handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses;
and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms
unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device.
Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a
handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He
filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the
city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement
insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in
the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the
use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed
the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second
Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms and
that the city's total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that
firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for
self-defense, violated that right.

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2-53.

(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2-22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation
of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists
feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in
order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing
army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress
power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear
arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved.
Pp. 22-28.

(c) The Court's interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing
rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately
followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28-30.

(d) The Second Amendment's drafting history, while of dubious
interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals
that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.
Pp. 30-32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts
and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the
late 19th century also supports the Court's conclusion. Pp. 32-47.

From: "DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER"

"The Founders DID NOT envision automatic or even semi-automatic weapons. In their day, a firearm (a single shot musket or pistol) was not only a means by which a person could defend themselves, it was also a tool used to put food on the table. There was also the very real threat of invasion from a foreign power. Such a threat does not presently exist.

You may also note that the Constitution does not guarantee the right to bear cannons, which were the machine guns of the day.

When the United States was in its infancy, the country did not have much of a standing army to defend its borders. As a result, an armed militia was vital. To be a viable force, the militia needed to be armed. The right to have an armed militia - a well-regulated armed militia, mind you - was deemed necessary. Second Amendment chest-thumpers so often forget the "well-regulated" part of the equation.

I don't believe that the Second Amendment was intended as an unfettered right. Again, "the right to keep and bear arms" is what was guaranteed - NOT the right to bear cannons or weapons of wholesale destruction. Do you need a machine gun or a weapon that has a 30-round magazine? Only if you feel the need to kill a person."

What unabashed arrogance you have to lecture us on what the Founders did or did not envision or what their definition of "Arms" was with your limited scope of history. You never even bothered to read "Heller" before making an ass of yourself by pulling an out-of-context phrase from the prefatory clause and demanding an answer to your question.

The NRA somehow got my husbands name and send him all sorts of junk and call here all the time. He is a hunter, but he is against almost all of what the "Riffle" Assn. stands for. Next time they call I am thinking of telling them he is not here--he was shot.

Donna - Great idea! If you actually do it, would you please record the exchange - THAT has the potential to be a "killer" conversation!

I recently joined the NRA, and still have a sick taste in my mouth. I had to join to have access to the only local gun range. Nobody wants to prevent you or I from having legitimate hunting weapons at our disposal. But to repeat the obvious, these automatic weapons are simply killing machines. They serve no purpose to law abiding citizens, other than chopping down trees. Which is really quite fun. I have done it myself. But if we as americans keep trying to allow unfetered access to any firearm we chose to own, we are going to lose the fight to keep the hunting weapons we enjoy. Or weapons we own to protect ourselves.
Back to the original point of this topic. I gag when I come across the NRA membership card in my wallet. They cross the line every day, insisting that the founders meant any and all weapons. But in order to have access to the local range, to improve my skills with a shotgun, I was forced to join. But I will never attend any NRA events. Before I received my membership card in the mail, I had already been pestered twice to extend my membership. Pretty rambunctious folks them gunnys are.

Buy them, collect them, trade them as long as it's a no smoking event I'm all for it.

What unabashed arrogance you have to lecture us on what the Founders did or did not envision or what their definition of "Arms" was with your limited scope of history.

So says the mental giant who believes that because "State" is capitalized in the Constitution, it refers to individual states instead of the nation as a whole. Funny, considering that it's the Constitution of the United States.

Are you telling me that the Founders did envision automatic and semi-automatic weapons? What "unabashed arrogance" on your part to believe that they did. (Again you illustrate how the intricacies of Time are not your strong suit. You're not exactly Doctor Who when it comes to such things.)

Besides, if the founders did envision such weapons, how odd is it that they didn't put them to use in the War of 1812. One would think if they knew what they were, they could have used them when the White House was being torched in 1814.

You never even bothered to read "Heller" before making an ass of yourself by pulling an out-of-context phrase from the prefatory clause and demanding an answer to your question.

I'm still looking for where Heller guarantees might right to bear such Arms as tanks and Stinger missiles and Vulcan 20MM cannons. Can you show me where I missed that?

By its very existence, Heller reaffirms that the ownership of guns is subject to the law. When the Ted Nugents of the world start harping "Second Amendment! Second Amendment!" they tend to leave the law at that. Heller simply reiterated that citizens have the right to bear arms (which I don't have a personal problem with). It does NOT state that right is unfettered and unregulated. It does NOT say that I can have an anti-tank weapon system.

I'll be there!

Your arrogance lives in the fact that Brian is always "right" because "he say's so". Your posts are moderately entertaining because there is plethora of verbiage with so little fact. Please bore me with some back-up for a change. Perhaps, a source for your extensive knowledge of the structure of 18th Century English? (Wikipedia is not a source; it's like you; an opinion)

Even stupid people can envision what the future may hold. If you don't believe the Founders were visionaries, you're brain-dead. In case you haven't noticed, we have been in an arms race since the first monkey picked up a club and whacked his cousin. The ideas for improving the way we kill each other have always been there and always will be. The technology advances as the knowledge base grows. (See the works of Leonardo DaVinci among thousands of others.)

All the uproar about RPG's, bazooka's, grenades "Nooklear Weapons" is a vacuous argument. All Rights bear responsibilities to individuals and society as a whole. That's exactly why "Heller" points out that the 2nd amendment is not an unfettered Right.

I'm not advocating for machine-gun stores on every corner and I don't think anyone but a few crazies are either. I believe in accepting the responsibility in order to enjoy the Right. I believe that responsible persons who have extensive training in advanced weapons such as full auto assault weapons or machine guns are allowed to possess them under the 2nd Amendment. I personally believe that citizens should have to produce acceptable proof of qualification to possess any gun openly or concealed as part of their 2nd Amendment responsibility. That "proof of qualification" could come through military service or from an authorized or licensed private source. I do not believe that ANY government entity has the authority to track guns or ammo by registration to individuals.

I am not in the NRA nor am I a supporter of the NRA for my own reasons. In my experience with the organization, I don't think the NRA has ever advocated for anything other than the right of responsible gun ownership and training.

Ted Nugent? Nugent is a rock star which precludes him from having a brain, I suppose. In this video, Nugent is expressing his belief in Natural Law as did many of the Founders you profess to know so much about (Read the Declaration of Independence). What, specifically, do you find offensive in what he has to say here? (Other than his comment about your heroes)



When you bring up spokesmen for the NRA, how about Cam Edwards or Mike McCarville? Why don't you bring these people up?

Uh... Wikipedia is a source, not an opinion... it's like an encyclopedia and has been accepted as such in pinko commie educational institutions of higher learning

Your arrogance lives in the fact that Brian is always "right" because "he say's so". Your posts are moderately entertaining because there is plethora of verbiage with so little fact. Please bore me with some back-up for a change. Perhaps, a source for your extensive knowledge of the structure of 18th Century English? (Wikipedia is not a source; it's like you; an opinion)

It's only an "opinion" if someone other than yourself thinks that way, right?

"Plethora" and "verbiage" - have you been studying up on your 25-cent words today, Jim? Good job.

Have you read your posts lately, Mr. Walking Shadow*? Since you've done such an excellent** job of providing sources for what you spout (Heller notwithstanding - after all, all you did by providing it was to gild the lily and argue a point that no one was debating. Again, good job with that), how has anything you've posted been substantiated? Or is that just part of your "Crap! I've got nothing, better bluff!" bluster?

* Refer to Macbeth, Act 5, Scene 5
** facetiousness implied for those who are not sarcasm-minded (meaning you, Jimbo).

Since you're the ONLY one who has any knowledge whatsoever when it comes to the inner workings of the Founders' minds, would you be so magnanimous to share your source for this gem of wisdom:

"free State" here does not refer to a centralized federal government. That's why "State" was capitalized.

Lead by example, O' Hater of Unsubstantiated Opinion! What is the basis of your 18th Century English knowledge? If I am wrong, tell me why all of the other words I provided from the Constitution were capitalized. Where's your back-up?

I don't have a problem with Ted Nugent the Person or Ted Nugent the Rock Star (thanks for feeling compelled to inform me that he was a rock star). I don't have a problem with Ted Nugent the Naturalist or Ted Nugent the Bowhunter.

The Ted Nugent I have a problem with is Ted Nugent the I NEED an M-60 to Enjoy Life gun nut. I have a problem with his bloodlust/compulsion to destroy wildlife in order to enjoy it. There are more than a few things with which I finding myself agreeing when it comes to Ted Nugent. Guns are not one of them.

In my earlier post, I used "Ted Nugent" as a euphemism for "Gun Nut." I guess I should apologize for making it so difficult for you to follow.

If you don't believe the Founders were visionaries, you're brain-dead.

But I thought even stupid (generally considered to be synonymous with "brain-dead") people could envision what the future holds? I'm confused. Of course I believe the Founders were visionaries, Jimbo. That's not to say that they had a specific vision when it came to automatic weapons.

I'm not advocating for machine-gun stores on every corner and I don't think anyone but a few crazies are either. I believe in accepting the responsibility in order to enjoy the Right. I believe that responsible persons who have extensive training in advanced weapons such as full auto assault weapons or machine guns are allowed to possess them under the 2nd Amendment. I personally believe that citizens should have to produce acceptable proof of qualification to possess any gun openly or concealed as part of their 2nd Amendment responsibility. That "proof of qualification" could come through military service or from an authorized or licensed private source. I do not believe that ANY government entity has the authority to track guns or ammo by registration to individuals.

I don't know if disagree with anything you've posted here. In fact, I believe that's exactly what I said when I posted the following:

I am all for the ownership and usage of firearms, but along with the right to bear arms, so also must come the obligation to bear them responsibly. You can't have one without the other.

The problem comes when the gun lobby steadfastly opposes any of the "licensing" you've mentioned and calls it an egregious infringement of Second Amendment rights.

I still don't believe that certain types of weapons are necessary. Really, why does a person need a machine gun?

"If you don't believe the Founders were visionaries, you're brain-dead."

The founding fathers were visionaries because they were well read. They read Lock and Voltaire and plagerized there ideas of democracy and freedom.

As goofy as Ted Nugent sounds today, he has a lifetime pass in my judgement for the 5 albums he put out from 1973 to 1977. On opposite spectrums, Brian hates him for being an NRA poster boy, Jim hates him for being a rock star.......but listen to "Hibernation" or "Stranglehold".......all will be forgiven.

Stranglehold and Great White Buffalo have always been two of my all-time faves.

Ok I will say I am a sports man and an outdoorsman. I do beleive that all people in sane mind, and with a clean record should be able to have guns.

Although they do need to watch what all they sell to people. Honestly why do you need an AR 15, "Because it looks cool"??
I will support any organization that supports sportsmen.

Ted Nudget is one of the people that I wouldn't trust with a gun. He's a nutcase!! eek!

I loved the self titled album with "Stranglehold", "Motor City Madhouse" etc, but it seemed like all of his albums after that were rehashes. "Cat Scratch Fever" is a pretty weak song in my opinion. I agree "White Buffalo" was a great song.

I, for one, won't be satisfied until all eight-year olds have their very own Constitutionally-guaranteed "Uzi Day." My understanding is that it's kind of like a Bar Mitzvah for the MyColdDeadHands crowd.

It is their right, after all.

http://www.nbcconnecticut..._Show.html

[This message has been edited by Brian A. Reed (4/26/2009)]

One can not legally own a "machine gun". (Without proper lisence)I do believe there is a great responsibility in gun ownership.

[This message has been edited by Danny (4/26/2009)]

[This message has been edited by Danny (4/26/2009)]

One can not legally own a "machine gun*".

*Without proper license

**Sarcasm Alert**

But ... but ... but I'm confused! I thought the Founders said "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Besides, it's in the bible somewhere, isn't it?

If it's illegal for someone to own a machine gun, doesn't that constitute infringement?

And if firearms have already been subject to government regulation, why all the continued paranoia and "slippery slope" arguments from the MCDH crowd?

[This message has been edited by Brian A. Reed (4/26/2009)]

Ted Nugent was my first rock concert. Saw him in Michigan in 1981, I think. He's a nutter but I have fond memories of that concert.

Brian

It's obvious from your posts that you do not understand the concept of the Constitution, why it was framed and what it is intended to do. It is in place to limit government powers. It confers nothing on the people because it is assumes that the people ALREADY HAVE THESE RIGHTS and the government does NOT have the power to "infringe". If it does it is in violation. Because you apparently cannot grasp this simple concept, you do not understand what the debate is about which is probably why you continue to post idiotic statements such as:

" And if firearms have already been subject to government regulation, why all the continued paranoia and "slippery slope" arguments from the MCDH crowd?"

Here is a suggestion. Since you wouldn't be caught dead buying one, go steal a copy of Mark Levin's "Liberty and Tyranny" and try to read it with an open mind. Subject yourself to something besides your own point of view for a change.

It's obvious from your posts that you do not understand the concept of the Constitution, why it was framed and what it is intended to do. It is in place to limit government powers. It confers nothing on the people because it is assumes that the people ALREADY HAVE THESE RIGHTS and the government does NOT have the power to "infringe". If it does it is in violation. Because you apparently cannot grasp this simple concept, you do not understand what the debate is about which is probably why you continue to post idiotic statements such as: (blah blah blah)

First off, I would warn you against getting into an argument what either of us can and cannot understand. You will not win that debate.

Secondly, the Constitution does not just "limit" governmental powers. It is the very foundation of governmental powers in this country. It may not confer anything to the people, per se, but it does insure the rights listed therein.

Here is a suggestion. Since you wouldn't be caught dead buying one, go steal a copy of Mark Levin's "Liberty and Tyranny" and try to read it with an open mind. Subject yourself to something besides your own point of view for a change.

You really are a small-minded man, Jim. Opinions are only unsubstantiated if they're contrary to what you personally espouse, right? Right.

[This message has been edited by Brian A. Reed (4/27/2009)]

Brian,Jim have you guys figured out which one of you has the biggest dick yet?

One way to keep Obama from taking your guns: http://www.nwfdailynews.c...uties.html

Brian,Jim have you guys figured out which one of you has the biggest dick yet?

I like my chances.

I like Brians chances with "is".

Jim by a nose!

He can have it.

Mine is bigger, I receive disability as a result of it's hugeness.

And get back on topic, we're talking about riffles here. Anyone seen any later?

[This message has been edited by Buck Showalter (4/27/2009)]

Quit making me jones for a quiet stream full o' brookies, Buck.