freddy333

Not a big fan of straps on Subs, but, otherwise, looks good.

You cannot post .zip files. You need to upload the .jpg images to photobucket.com or a similar site. Then, copy/paste photobucket's Direct Link URL into the editor here. Also, I would limit each image size to 1024x768 or thereabouts. If smaller, details are difficult to see. If larger, the entire image is hard to fit into most monitors.

As far as that online map of registered handgun owners goes, I think, since the information is publically available, the newspaper, under the auspices of the 1st Amendment, had every right to print it. However, in my opinion, this type of information (private info on law-abiding citizens), whether it be of registered gun owners, AIDs patients, traffic speeders or other publically available data, should only ever be accessible by way of a court order. And, then, only in those cases where a crime has been committed. But, again, this is another issue altogether.

The problem with registries was made clear in the recent posting of names & home addresses of registered (legal) handgun owners within an active online map. What next, an online map of the names/addresses of those infected with AIDs? Or those with STDs? Or those with prescriptions for medical marijuana? Today, it is a list of people whose lifestyle you disagree with, tomorrow it may be you & your lifestyle that ends up on an interactive list. That is why it is generally best to keep the government out of the lives of private citizens. Not. Although I am not a member, I have been following the NRA for quite some time, both as a private citizen & as a journalist. Not only have I never heard any NRA official suggest that criminals or the insane be granted free access to firearms, but, quite the contrary, the NRA has repeately petitioned the US congress to enact laws that prohibit sales to them. Unfortunately, as I said, it is nearly impossible to pass any laws (that have teeth) that some clever lawyer is not able to find a way around. Sad, but true. Frankly, as as been said for several years, the key to setting things in the right direction is (retroactive) term limits for both houses of congress. Eliminate the ruling class & you remove a whole host of political & social ills. But, that, of course, is a whole other kettle of fish.

Well, no one wants to address that fact because it is not politically fashionable.

I am a life-long democrat & not an NRA member, so I cannot say. Can you quote a source where conservatives are the 'first ones to propose cuts for on-duty police offiers'? With all due respect, in an age where the US is leveraging the government faster than the EU is deleveraging, you have to cut back somewhere.

No, not the only way &, possibly, not the best way. But it is the most realistically effective option I have heard to date. It is like putting the National Guard on the southern border to block aliens from sneaking into the US illegally (an act, by the way, which is punishable by jail in Mexico). Not the best option, perhaps, but it is the most realistically effective 1 that I have heard. Actually, according to law enforcement, it is usually very angry individuals who commit mass shootings. And they generally go after what are termed 'soft' targets - locations where the perpetrator expects little or no armed opposition. As I said, when faced with a choice between a soft & hard target, you would have to be insane to go after the hard target.

The NRA has called for off-duty police in schools. While not a perfect solution, it would likely deter most, if not all, of the loonies who commit these types of crimes. Anyone who would attack a school so protected must, by definition, be psychotic. And, with the current laws in America dealing with psychotics (who have not yet killed or harmed anyone), the government does not appear to be motivated to do anything beyond trying to find more politically fashionable words to describe the insane.

Still wearing my '39

Obviously, you have not read my posts (above) regarding the option to amend the Constitution if a majority of Americans disagree with its contents, instructions for which are also written into the Constitution. Considering the state of the rest of the world, I would say the jury is still out on that 1. But in the United States, the Constitution has only been rarely amended. And, judging from the number of people from the rest of the world that continue to come to live in the US, the US must be doing something right.

Ditto. Please debate & keep the personal comments out.

I do not have the exact retail price, but I think it was about $198 or thereabouts. Certainly, below $200.

A good question & yes. Until my 30s, I was fiercely anti-gun. Anyone who knew me back then knew that, were it up to me, I would have confiscate ALL firearms, except those of the military & police. However, a number of things changed my opinion over the years, bringing me to the opposite side. But none more than an incident that occurred during the LA riots of the early 90s. CBS had sent a female reporter & camera crew out to cover the riots, setting up on a hill just outside the actual riot zone. Compounding the problem, by this time, the police (government) had decided to evacuate the city, leaving the innocent citizens to fend for themselves. It was an interesting scene, because they had set up the camera behind a group of soccer mom types (some with their kids) with the reporter, looking visibly shaken herself, asking the women what they were going to do when the riots & fire reached them? From their vantage point, you could see the actual line of smoke & fire splicing through the city below & working its way towards the position of the moms & CBS crew. 1 of the women, crying, said she did not know what they were going to do because she had forced her husband to get rid of his gun. That, for me, was the smoking gun that proved the point.

Wearing my '39 today

DayDate. If you look closely, it is written below Rolex. If you remove the bracelet on most Rolex watches (including this 1), you will see the model & serial number between the lugs. I cannot remember what the dial design is called, but it looks to be 60s vintage.

With all due respect, I have.

No, it was LBJ's attempt to - putting it as generic as I can - level the playing field & redistribute wealth. Of course, depending on which political winds sway you, your mileage may vary.

No, it was the largest federally sponsored set of social welfare programs (implemented by LBJ's administration) since FDR.

No, not sarcasm & there were certainly problems (there always are). But, & you can insert whatever politically unfashionable issue you prefer here, the fact remains that, as far as mass killings with firearms go, something changed in the US culture since the Leave it to Beaver days. I believe it was the unintentioned consequencies of LBJ's Great Society programs that, while well-intentioned, caused a lowering of the bar for acceptable levels of violence & courseness within society.

Without getting into the accuracy of Clinton's comment, I will say that, in general, I suspect he is correct. However, & I have had this debate among friends for the past 25 or so years, I believe the problem is due more to the continual coarsening of society, not the number/style of guns. Of course, this is a far more complicated subject than can be explained (with complete accuracy) in this context, but I trace the beginning of the end, in great part, on LBJ's 'Great Society' programs of the mid-60s. Prior to that, we lived in Leave it to Beaver land, where doors were routinely left unlocked, women walked the streets in safety & mass shootings were, for the most part, a fluke. After that............well, we have the world we live in today.

Ending the work week wearing my Aryan 'Master

I have only seen the date stamp on 1 leave, not both.

No, Ken, it is the other way around. The Federalist Papers, written after the Constitution was drafted, were, essentially, a sales pitch to the states & people explaining, as Nanuq correctly said, some of the more idiosyncratic ideas cited in the Constitution. Constitutional scholars often return to the Federalist Papers, as well as the private writings of the men who drafted the Constitution, to gain insight into their reasoning behind the tenets defined in it. And, again, if the majority of people feel the Constitution is no longer valid, there is a simple process (outlined within the Constitution itself) to amend it. If there is not a majority, then the Constitution was purposely (&, to my way of thinking, correctly) written to make it difficult for un-constitutional laws to be enacted. And remember, too, that it is not only the president who must defend & protect the Constitution, it is every US citizen's responsibility as well, which is why free people must never have their right to keep & bear arms infringed upon by the government.

Took the words right out of my mouth.