Uncle Punk

If you have not met the burden for the use of deadly force it matters little the method applied. No where is it written that there is an accepted level of force necessary to achieve that goal. (Tangents about meeting force with the next level don’t apply here.) Ball ammo will achieve the same result with the least amount of damage if placed properly; we are not required to only use ball ammo to protect ourselves. We have the responsibility for the damage caused by every projectile leaving our handguns so carrying ball ammo is something most of us won't do because of over penetration. Taking a follow up shot could be considered excessive more so than the ammo used and yet, we are not required to make a ten count between shots to se if we have done enough damage to stop the threat. If you are involved in a good shoot by meeting your burden for the use of deadly force I say don't worry about it. Can you show me where anyone has been harmed by the courts in a good shoot because of the ammo used?

Not going back to read this whole thread. I don't see how this doesn't pass. It is very poorly written but the way it is presented no one in the house seems to care. Nitrous can be installed it just needs to be made inoperable when used on the street. Second offenders loose their vehicles but lien holders maintain possession unless they are the offender. The bill has manslaughter in the title no matter what is in the bill the dumbasses are going to pass it, who thinks manslaughter is okay? If a policeman is a dick he is going to be a dick. He already has enough laws to work with to be a dick. Hell, the real big dicks can just out right lie about you doing anything. I don't see how this is going to turn any current good cop into a dick. There is enough ambiguity in this that a good lawyer should be able to get you out of most any of this if you have caused no harm. With that standard receiving a second conviction where you will forfeit property seems highly unlikely. I have the biggest problem with property seizure in this but don't see it as a problem in a practical cense. You don't cause manslaughter or harm property twice you get to keep your property. I highly doubt anyone will be harmed by this that doesn't bear some responsibility that most of us would agree with. Don’t get me wrong I think this is a stupid unnecessary addition to existing laws but fighting it, in my opinion is futile.

No title or insurance required. My vehicle insurance follows my vehicle so damage done to other property by me towing is covered. Contents of the trailer and the value of the trailer are not. I have a trailer policy for the trailer but can't seem to find a policy to cover its contents. I'm not certain about the lights issue but as a matter of CYOA I'd say it's a good idea. Your decision on which hitch to use is determined by what you are towing and how much it weighs. I would recommend the receiver type hitch, this will give you the option of several different ball heights to match the trailer so it is being towed at its proper ride height. A fixed bumper ball height can cause you problems with a single axle trailer if it's not at the correct height.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EH1yh_w5XO4&feature=player_embedded http://www.blendtec.com/willitblend/videos.aspx?type=unsafe&video=airsoftgun

Strange venue http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2009/12/01/matthews-calls-west-point-sight-obama-speech-enemy-camp-strange-venue

http://www.cyclenews.com/articles/flat-track/2009/12/02/harley-pulls-the-plug-on-flat-trackers

I'm trying to watch what I eat between holiday meals, maybe after the holidays, thanks.

This is their problem, I'm sure every one of them were stock, I am not. The latest was a 2006 GT convertible. I have out run a modded STi and also had my ass handed to me quite badly by a modded Evo. That was really cool to watch as he pulled away from me like I wasn't even there.

Good thing they didn't catch me the other night. My SUV still hasn't been out ran by a Mustang GT. We had to make a couple goes at it to make sure he knew it wasn't going to happen for him.

Fuck you Justin every time I get into a political thread with you it requires way too much of my time to give a response, damn, I swear it's like I'm taking a college class. Economic philosophy is open for debate; half will see things one way and swear the other is completely the wrong way to go. The same holds true with healthcare, it is debatable with arguments from both sides claiming total damnation if the opposing philosophy is used. Global warming fits into this debating category as well. While I'm sure there is debate among the military leaders on strategy when a decision is made it should be honored by those who control the purse strings, not micro managed. The debate on this strategy is coming from the civilian world that should have no bearing on the decisions made. We can debate weather or not we should be there or try to find out what our objectives are but once the decision has been made to be there how it is to be executed should not be open for debate. Oh yea, Fuck NATO it's only slightly one step away from being as worthless as the UN.

I am disappointed with him only giving 75% of the troops requested. I wish he would be smart enough to take advice from people who are educated in these matters and support them.

Goodyear Eagle RS-A 255/50-20 30.1 dia. $123 Tire rack.

I'm not against it' date=' I don't think its torture, and I don't have an issue with torture.[/font'] Things like due process, innocent until proven guilty, etc, etc have a place in civilian courts. Using them as a way to criticize how a military operation is conducted is just naive. The military should not be a reflection of the society that it serves. Do not expect to impose rules that would limit actions unless you are willing to accept defeat. As a matter of conducting business people die in wars, this would not be accepted in society, where do you start to draw the line that makes war equal to civilian life? Criminals are not equal to enemies and should not be treated equally. Due process is not a luxury you have when conducting a war. Are you suggesting we quit using deadly force in war time; instead maybe we should just capture everyone we can and hold civilian trials charging them with disturbing the peace.

What about the combatants who are not following the rules of engagement? I think they should be chastised also.

http://www.break.com/usercontent/2009/10/japanese-people-are-weird-1425512.html

If you want me to get you then you're going to need to be less subtle.

I too have visited OFCC but have never registered. It is too heavily moderated for my liking. When someone is a dumb fuck they should be called on it. We don't all have to agree but it would be nice to at least be able to have a discussion with adult speech and logic. I find them to be completely just the opposite of too conservative though.

Justin is a liberal troll...

Aren't you the one who wanted to stay on topic? Fail.

You have several issues you have to resolve in your own value system when trying to decide which is right for you. OC is less hassle on the surface because no license is involved but if it’s going to be a lifestyle and you want to stay legal, not so much. Walking around your neighborhood and around your house it's fine but if you want to do it away from home it starts to become a P.I.T.A.. Legally without a CCH license you need to make the weapon safe for transport which is really not so convenient. If you have your CCH license you don't have to worry so much about how you are transporting a firearm.

Now that's what I'm talkin about! You can be as liberal as you want to be just don't infringe on me with your stupid gun laws.

Didn't I tell you to shut up and listen.

Who in the hell do you think you are trying to keep a thread on topic. Eliminate all gun laws is a simple solution. If I have caused no harm or endangered anyone I am not a criminal by possessing a tool.

I don't think we should have ANY gun laws. Swift, sure, unrelenting consequences for causing harm to others should suffice. Prohibiting someone from carrying on your personal property is not what I would consider to be a gun law. Everyone should have the right to deny access of their property from whomever they choose. Gun laws turn people into criminals who otherwise are not so inclined. If I were to carry a gun hidden to protect myself, I am not a threat to you or anyone else who doesn’t intend to cause me harm. Prohibition turned people into criminals who were law abiding one day, not the next then upstanding citizens again. Grandpa making beer in his bathtub should not have been made out to be a criminal.

Are you saying my assessment of your skewed views is wrong? That is why I'm so disappointed in you, you have had all the opportunity in the world to see the light but choose not to. I am hoping it's just youth that’s holding you back. It's either that or you were molested by some liberal and liked it.