LagerHead

Like the first two, but the third one I really, really like. Not bad at all for a phone pic.

I'm in shock that he signed it. Everyone that has been keeping up with this needs to take a couple of minutes out of your busy schedule and send the governor an email thanking him for signing the bill. It doesn't matter if you're a fan of his - Lord knows I'm not - he still needs to hear it.

Thanks. I knew you'd set me straight. And now that you have, I clearly remember that what you stated happened in Knoxville is exactly how it went down. Time had clouded my memory.

My understanding of the statewide guns in parks law was that if a city/county did nothing, guns would be allowed in parks. A city had to opt out, i.e. take specific action to outlaw guns in parks. The same thing was done here in Nashville. As far as the preemption law last year, I'm not sure to what you are referring, so I can't really comment on that.

Yea, he signed Knoxville ban into law when he was mayor, so I don't think he's too worried about it.

I have an Ultra Carry II, which is their plane Jane model. Never had any problems with it other than I don't particularly care for the stock mags. I am currently waiting on its return from getting some Cerakote applied. Can't wait to see it.

Well, don't I feel like the north end of a south bound horse.

Things have changed since we were in school, haven't they? If this had happened when we were in school, the coach would have went to the hospital and the kid attacking him would have went to the hospital if he was extremely lucky after the entire football team went to town on him. EDIT: Please ignore this. I've fallen off my meds. Darn kids! Get off my lawn!

Do I think people in Chicago will learn from this? Possibly. Do I think politicians in Chicago will learn from this? Not a snowball's chance in hell.

I wouldn't land a fighter jet on an aircraft carrier and throw up the "Mission Accomplished" banner just yet. When in the same article a "journalist" can clearly show that the majority of Americans are against more gun control and then state, "polls showed about 90 percent public approval for expanded background checks," you know there is more work to do. It's mildly amusing watching them regurgitate the anti-gun talking points so thoughtlessly that make themselves look like asses, but since the New York Times is a "respectable" news organization, many people take them seriously. Why I will never know.

Everything in the Bill of Rights is there to protect the individual from the federal government, including the 2nd Amendment. Again, it says "the people." "[T]he people" means the people. It doesn't mean the states. It doesn't mean the militia. It doesn't mean the federal government. Seriously, which part of the "the people" is giving you trouble? Because I'm not seeing where the confusion lies.

I'll take driving in Germany over just about anywhere. They may drive fast, but they know how to drive.

Because, as I stated earlier, the 2nd Amendment is NOT about serving in a militia, it's about defending AGAINST a state-run militia. Again, the 2nd Amendment does NOT mean that the right to keep and bear arms is reserved for the militia. It does not say it. It does not imply it. That is an invention of gun-grabbers like Brady and VPC. It clearly states that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It does not say the right of the militia. There is a reason it is worded that way.

Ten days. Ten days. Quoted it twice, so I thought I'd better respond twice. :D

You ain't seen nothin' 'til you've driven in western Washington. That's the first place I ever saw people stop at the end of an Interstate on ramp and wait for an opening. And the place gets rain an average of 365 days/year. You'd think they would have figured out how to drive in the stuff by now, but you'd be wrong. Of course nothing beats driving in Korea.

  I don't think anybody is making the argument that flipping off a cop, or any person for that matter, makes you a better person, puts you in the right, etc. I think the point being made is that simply flipping someone the bird is no reason for an arrest. Period. This is not a criticism police in general, because I find it hard to believe that the average cop would even acknowledge such nonsense. If a cop, however, gets flipped the bird and flips out about it, it says a whole lot about the individual. The individual. Not all cops. Not most cops. Not cops in general. Just that one guy with an ego so fragile that some random stranger flipping him the bird puts him into criminal crushing mode. 

You're incorrect on two fronts. First, the phrase "well-regulated militia" at the time of the writing meant "well trained." Second, the entire phrase within which it is contained, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," is a subordinate clause and seeks to support or clarify the main clause, not place conditions upon it. The authors of the Constitution understood the need for our newly formed country to maintain a standing army, as repugnant as the idea was to many of them. And since the idea of a standing army was objectionable to them, they secured in writing the right of the people (not the militia) to keep and bear arms. In other words, background checks are in no way consistent with the wording nor the intent of the 2nd Amendment.

Cops are like the rest of us: Some great, some a-holes, and a lot right in between. That being said, if the only thing that happened was a cop got the bird from some guy, there is no excuse for the cop to do anything but shake his head and move on. That being said, there are three sides to every story: Yours, mine, and the truth. ;)

Sounds like a lot of us have had similar experiences there in the past. Last couple of times I was in there as a paying customer the attitude I got (from guys no longer there apparently) was like they couldn't care less if I was there spending it. Mind you I wasn't singlehandedly paying for an entire remodel, but still. Next time I'm in the 'hood I'll give 'em another shot. (Again, pun intended).

Good lord, if you're tho thenthitive that a little finger flying maketh you pith yourthelf, maybe you should conthider a different profethion. One that doethn't require interaction with other humanth. Juth thayin'.

You didn't read my other posts, apparently. I never relieved the rider of any responsibility. I just don't pin 100% of it on him. People speed. I'd wager that you speed. I speed. I probably wouldn't have been going this fast in this kind of area, but as you said, the guy made his decision by which he lives or, as in this case, dies. So, knowing that people speed, as every single driver on the road does, they must also take into account those speed when making a decision to turn. All of this took place in the span of less than two seconds. At 100MPH that puts him 292 feet away from the car at the time she made the decision to turn. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that she should have waited to let him pass since, as we both know, judging the speed and distance of motorcycles is notoriously difficult. You can blame ignorance. Perhaps she honestly didn't know, or just never thought about that. But ignorance in no way relieves you of responsibility. If you picked up a Glock and had never seen one and assumed that the safety that doesn't exist was engaged and shot and killed someone, it's your fault regardless of ignorance. I see no difference here. Yea, the guy shouldn't have been going that fast. I don't think you'll find anyone, including me, who would argue differently. But she should have looked better and waited too.

It would also be wrong. The guy on the motorcycle is not in control of the car. Maybe the guy on the bike could have done something if he had seen it coming, but in what insane bizarro world does that make it his fault? You do understand what fault means, right? Nobody is perfect 100% of the time. Laying blame at the feet of the victim is just...I can't even find a word, really. The guy who didn't hit his brakes in time is the one and only person in this scenario who shoulders 100% of the blame. I think even at 60MPH, hitting an object with significantly less "give" than the human body is going to be a losing situation. I know a guy who hit a mailbox doing 35MPH and died as a result. Stuff happens. Riding a motorcycle is a calculated risk. Those of us that have been riding our whole lives weigh that risk vs. the enjoyment we get out of it and have decided we would rather die on a motorcycle than live in a cage. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I hope when I go it's on a beautiful winding mountain rode going too fast and possibly missing a curve with nothing but clear blue skies between me and the river below. And I hope somebody is behind me with their GoPro rolling to get footage. Again, I am in no way relieving the guy in the video in the OP of any of his responsibility. Not one bit. My ONLY problem is someone saying that the driver of the car shared none of that responsibility.

This is quite an oversimplification. You could be doing 20MPH in a 55MPH zone and it's possible for someone to pull in front of you at the very last split second. That doesn't make it your fault. I knew a guy that was sitting at a red light who was killed by a car that rear-ended him. Was that his fault because he didn't evade the car?   Don't get me wrong; I'm not relieving the guy of his responsibility. His mother doesn't either. She acknowledges that he was going too fast because he was. But the lady should have just let him go by. It is pretty difficult for a driver, especially one who has never been on a bike, to judge the speed and distance of a motorcycle. The guy on the bike should have driven slower and she should have used different judgment. But if he had been going slower - even 10MPH below the speed limit - there's no guarantee this video wouldn't have played out the exact same way in the very next intersection with another car. As you apparently know, people in cars act like they enjoy testing the maneuverability of our bikes on a pretty regular basis. My only point was, the guy wasn't 100% at fault. You don't get to just disregard someone because they happen to be speeding.

I guess it's OK to kill a motorcyclist because he was speeding. Drivers of cars bear no responsibility to look out for us because as we know, cage drivers never speed or change lanes without looking, or spend their time in their car with their cell phones plastered to their heads. Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out, right?

Yep. That was a nice ride. Everybody was great. Lunch was pretty delicious. I'd ride with any of you guys again.