Forums | MacLife

Btw, I took my 12-year-old nephew here and had a blast, literally. You can rent just about any gun you want, including anti-aircraft machine guns, ANYTHING. I rented a .45 and he rented a 38. It was fun. Some of the guns you can rent are simply crazy. The guns people were renting were insanely loud! But if I were to shoot a machine gun there it would probably cost $100 every 5 minutes in ammo alone, so forget that.

Oh, and prior to shooting they simply ask you to fill out a form stating you are not a felon, drug user, or have ever had mental illness. Of course ANYONE can simply lie to any or all these questions and get whatever they want and go crazy. I guess that’s why the employees all carry. Then they show you how arm/disarm the weapon of choice if you do not already know how, which was the case with us. After that, you grab your earphones and you’re on your own. It’s kind of weird how easy it is.

That was last year and we went again this year. Memories he will never forget with his uncle.

Jerusalem? Where traffic laws are mere suggestions?

robco wrote:

If you think NY is bad, try driving in Jerusalem...

This sounds like a punch line, but I can't think of what the rest of the joke should be. Something like, "Two Jews get into a car. One says to the other: [blank]. The second says: If you think NY is bad, try driving in Jerusalem!" 

iSeamas wrote:

What makes the L.I.E. impossible is that most of the idiot drivers are Long Islanders.

There are idiot drivers all over the place, but the typical Long Islander is both idiotic and sociopathic.
I think I have seen worse driving (massacheusetts), I have never seen more a-hole driving than when on LI.

Not only are they not fit for other area's highways, they shouldn't be allowed on their own.

You've almost got it!

LI drivers are terrible smurf sociopaths. But that is just The Way of Long Island. We don't need some smurf from Beantown (who doesn't understand that the gas pedal makes the car go, and that a yield sign is NOT a smurfing stop sign) screwing everything up. Things are bad enough without them making it worse.

On their end, I'm sure Massholes/Beanpoles don't want NYers on their roads. For one, it's not a law in NY to give a smurf about the Sox/Yankees rivalry. (This is reserved strictly for Yankees fans living in NYC, whereas in Mass it's demanded that everyone in the state own a We Finally Won a World Series! t-shirt.) For another, NYers don't have to scream from car to car about the Sox/Yankees rivalry whenever we're at a stoplight. Massholes do and it is smurfing annoying. (Try that smurf on the LIE and we will smurfing chase you into the HOV lane just for looking at us.) And speaking of stoplights, why are they all on the wrong side of the intersections in Boston? You have to stop like 1000 feet from the light, and after it turns green, it's read again before you even get to it.

Anyway, the point being that Bostonites and Massholes function there just fine, apparently, and they don't want us on their roads anymore than we want them on ours.

Which is fine with me. I'd rather talk about biscuits and gravy in Alabama than listen to Bostonians suck each other's dicks about how awesome everything about Boston is. Talk about overcompensating.

People who come from near me but not the same place as me are terrible drivers.

Mustapha Mond wrote:

Anyway, licenses to teach, practice law, practice accounting, and a bunch of other mundane things, are not universally accepted state to state. I don't see why carrying a gun is more worthy of special legislation than any of those things.

Cuze ah guns is a raaight!


//fap// //fap// //fap//


American gun nuts are so weird.  You'd think they wouldn't be happy unless they could carry a gun anywhere they wanted, with no restrictions whatsoever and everyone cheering them on and giving them baskets of stuff in appreciation for keeping them safe from all the Evil Doers™ lurking behind every shadow.

Tallgeese wrote:

Poor eye dialect attempts aside, in this country there is a right to bear arms. Second Amendment to the Constitution and all that.

Yes but how quickly the conservative justices forget their mantra of "words have meaning" when they read out, as mere fluff, the introductory clause to the amendment.

Tallgeese wrote:

KHannon wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

Poor eye dialect attempts aside, in this country there is a right to bear arms. Second Amendment to the Constitution and all that.

Yes but how quickly the conservative justices forget their mantra of "words have meaning" when they read out, as mere fluff, the introductory clause to the amendment.

Unfortunately, it's in your court, not mine. The introductory clause is by no means semantically clear; legal procedures are the only thing that can give it meaning.

Oh no, I completely agree.  Its just on this point I think the conservative justices (specifically Thomas and Scalia) were intellectually dishonest in the Heller case regarding the interpretation they gave the amendment as a whole.

"Original meaning" kind of went out the window...

Tallgeese wrote:

Poor eye dialect attempts aside, in this country there is a right to bear arms. Second Amendment to the Constitution and all that.

Indeed you do have a legal entitlement to bear arms in your country.  That doesn't mean I understand the obsession with that right, and the constant drive to expand it as much as possible with a fervor usually reserved for mothers defending their children.  I also don't understand the culture of fear that drives people to feel the need to protect themselves from their neighbours and irrational threats.

I read the opening to imply that in order for regulated militias to be a fact, as a sanctioned means for the defense of the state (and its ideals), the citizenry must be permitted to own firearms. I don't see how it excludes firearm ownership in the absence of a regulated militia. The opening phrase provides some context, but is it really exclusive?

Not to mention any civilian militia isn't going to be able to stand up to the military or National Guard. They have much bigger guns.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I read it to mean the intent is to ensure a reasonably reliable militia in the absence of a standing army. But given the presence of not only a standing army but a militia (National Guard) that's fully equipped by the state, it would seem that the actual need for an armed citizenry is nonexistent.

Or maybe a standing army would itself a threat to the security of a free state, and thus the need for a militia instead. That's the other way to read it. The idea that a standing army presents a threat to freedom is discussed quite a bit in the Federalist Papers. Hamilton dismissed that concern, because he believed the presence of state militias would serve as a check on Federal military power. As in, the militias would rise up against a standing army if liberty was at risk. In Federalist 46, Madison argued that armed citizens would rise up against tyranny if necessary, and implied that this was a far better check on government power than a constitutional restriction against a standing army.

freecat wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I read it to mean the intent is to ensure a reasonably reliable militia in the absence of a standing army. But given the presence of not only a standing army but a militia (National Guard) that's fully equipped by the state, it would seem that the actual need for an armed citizenry is nonexistent.

Or maybe a standing army would itself a threat to the security of a free state, and thus the need for a militia instead. That's the other way to read it. The idea that a standing army presents a threat to freedom is discussed quite a bit in the Federalist Papers. Hamilton dismissed that concern, because he believed the presence of state militias would serve as a check on Federal military power. As in, the militias would rise up against a standing army if liberty was at risk. In Federalist 46, Madison argued that armed citizens would rise up against tyranny if necessary, and implied that this was a far better check on government power than a constitutional restriction against a standing army.

So if a standing army is a threat to freedom, or is, as some say, out-and-out unconstitutional, and the purpose of the 2nd was to have prevented it from coming about or guarantee its removal, I can only think that it's failed miserably. Hell, I don't even see any militias around, barring a few bands of rednecks out in the back woods.