Free Republic

I don't think that there are too many pirates in New York Harbor!!!!!!!

Pretty funny. Yeah, we never hear about crime in NY.

If it was me sleeping aboard my boat in a marina in NY Harbor, I'd have a loaded .45 under the pillow. You're darn right there are bad guys in NY Harbor, and all it takes is walking down a poorly lit dock at night, past zero security guards, two steps to get aboard my boat, and you're standing 10 feet from my sleeping daughter. Duh.

But maybe cops in NY are different than any other place in the world and they're actually catching bad guys BEFORE they commit crimes.

Call them pirates, call them crooks, call them bad guys, whatever you want. But they are out there. Yes, I actually do have a gun aboard my boat (several) and yes I've actually had to use it. Once in the 15years I lived aboard. Against a guy that broke into my boat at 2am while I was sleeping aboard, tied up at a nice fancy marina. Welcome to the 21st century.

Yikes folks, this sounds like less than a tempest in a teapot. Unless the AK-47 was capable of full automatic action I doubt it would be illegal, it's just a normal semi-auto rifle.

As a person who has lived aboard a 45 ft sailboat for over 15 years, allow me to add just a bit of explanation.

If you live aboard your own boat, does that mean you don't have 2nd amendment rights? You can't have a party with 22 friends? What if you're retired and living in a motor home? Are you still a citizen with all the rights and responsibilities? (I sure think so!) And where would you "store" your firearms except on your boat? Are boat owners now required to also own/rent a home? His "arsenal" doesn't sound like much to me, a shotgun and two rifles. Mine is quite similar if you exchange the AK-47 for a Mini-14 and add a .45 automatic. Would these "reporters" have called my Mini-14 a "machine gun"? Maybe, they've done it before. In CA it's called an illegal assault weapon if it's wearing a stock with a pistol grip. If that had been my boat, the headline of the article would sure have sounded worse! "Assault weapons found in offshore arsenal"

Why carry guns at all aboard a boat? Reason 1: it's your home and you live there. Reason 2: Well folks, there ain't no cops out there when you leave sight of land. I've had problems with oddballs in anchorages just a few hours offshore (S.CA) and appreciated having a gun(s) aboard. Yes, it's pretty unusual to really have to need a weapon to defend yourself, it's only happened to me once in 15 years.

One other side note to living aboard a boat. One year I was denied the right to vote because my address was one of those PO box rental places. The Post Office won't deliver mail to a boat at a dock, so that's the only way to get mail. So I called to complain. Nothing they could do (so they claimed), as they said the law required a "permanent" address. So I called the RNC (I'm a registered Republican). Nada. So I called the DNC. Registration approved and arrived in the mail in a few days. Hmmm.

Ok, let's imagine:

Hey John! I hear you've got a new girlfriend! What's she like, when do we meet her?
Uhhh....

So honey, when do your father and I get to meet this new girlfriend of yours?
Uhhh....

How come we never go out anymore? I'm tired of watching rented videos at home! Let's go out tonight.
Uhhh....

So, what do you want to do tonight?
Uhhh, uhhh, uhhh, ....

"When will this insane War on Orchids end????"

It's the War on SOME Orchids, obviously.
Use an Orchid, go to jail.
HS Proms will be the next targets.

"When will this insane War on Orchids end????"

It's the War on SOME Orchids, obviously.
Use an Orchid, go to jail.
HS Proms will be the next targets.

"And whatever you do, don't let them find out about horses."

Yes, "Dad" (aka: The guy with the wallet) is now even more challenged. In defense of the Girls With Horses voting block, I can offer one possible advantage for girl horse ownership: the chance to reinforce lessons of responsibility to a child. At least that's working well in my family. The horse now owned by my 10-year-old seems to have helped a lot in encouraging good grades and a sensible after school study schedule. (FWIW)

On the issue of divorces relating to the sex of the children: One factoid that these researchers didn't seem to take into account is: Who in the marriage is deciding to divorce? The husband or the wife? Without thinking about it, many might presume it would be about 50:50 or maybe that men are leaving marriages at a higher rate than women. Wrong. According to the largest ever federally financed study of marriage and divorce (Braver), it's mostly wives that are deciding to divorce. And by a rate of over 75%! Some studies put the rate at above 90%, but no matter which study you choose, bottom line is still that women are deciding to divorce at a far higher rate than men do. The first thought I had when reading this article, was that wives might be even more likely to divorce if they didn't have a boy in their family, due to the expectation that the husband and boy might share an important attachment, or the wife might not be as confident parenting a boy child. And I would think that in researching a question like this one (earning potential of girl children) the issue of who made the decision to divorce should certainly be taken into account. As far as earning potential goes: Most studies are in agreement, the presence of a man in the family, most especially the bio dad, produces children that have less problems in school and in life.

"And whatever you do, don't let them find out about horses."

Yes, "Dad" (aka: The guy with the wallet) is now even more challenged. In defense of the Girls With Horses voting block, I can offer one possible advantage for girl horse ownership: the chance to reinforce lessons of responsibility to a child. At least that's working well in my family. The horse now owned by my 10-year-old seems to have helped a lot in encouraging good grades and a sensible after school study schedule. (FWIW)

On the issue of divorces relating to the sex of the children: One factoid that these researchers didn't seem to take into account is: Who in the marriage is deciding to divorce? The husband or the wife? Without thinking about it, many might presume it would be about 50:50 or maybe that men are leaving marriages at a higher rate than women. Wrong. According to the largest ever federally financed study of marriage and divorce (Braver), it's mostly wives that are deciding to divorce. And by a rate of over 75%! Some studies put the rate at above 90%, but no matter which study you choose, bottom line is still that women are deciding to divorce at a far higher rate than men do. The first thought I had when reading this article, was that wives might be even more likely to divorce if they didn't have a boy in their family, due to the expectation that the husband and boy might share an important attachment, or the wife might not be as confident parenting a boy child. And I would think that in researching a question like this one (earning potential of girl children) the issue of who made the decision to divorce should certainly be taken into account. As far as earning potential goes: Most studies are in agreement, the presence of a man in the family, most especially the bio dad, produces children that have less problems in school and in life.

Just picked up a copy of Treason yesterday from my nearby Barnes and Nobles. Interesting that the salesclerk, while checking me out, noted that they'd been selling about 3:1 more copies of Treason than Hillary's book.

I suggested they might want to move Hillary's book to the fiction section.

Something tells me we'll be seeing lots more of Hillary soon. On the remainder tables.

I shall ever strive to eschew obfuscative verbology.

Ok, you guys are starting to scare me. You actually know the meaning of these words. It seems somehow.... leftist? Academic?

I mean, you're not here spying on us poor simple minded right wing rubes, are you? Laughing up your sleeves as we fumble, Bushlike, for proper vocabulary, spelling, and punctuation? Now you're making me nervous.

Tell me of any Democrat today that could give this speech. Certainly none of the boobs running for the Demo presidential nomination. My goodness, how things have changed in the Demo party!

Oh well...

A feminist without a sense of humor? We're shocked, shocked! Obviously a vast conspiracy by the Eeeeevil Male Patriarchy.

Q: When have tax cuts ever helped the economy?

A: Every time they've been cut.

Rectal Cancer?

Bummer.

I need a drink.

Since my Mini-14 now seems to be an illegal assault weapon, along with my semi-auto shotguns, I've just decided to sell them all. Yup, all gone. Sold 'em all. No guns left.

Old joke from Poland when it was communist:
Man sees farmer pouring motor oil on his garden, asks "What are you doing?". Farmer replies: "Oiling my guns"

Trilateration is when the Trilateral commission meets and decides the future of the world. Some hollowed out volcano somewhere, I think.

My Mini-14? Oh No! My .223 Ranch Model?

Currently it's a legal gun in California. Unless I snap on the folding stock, then it's illegal. Or if I use the stock with the pistol grip. Naturally that would be dangerous and illegal. But fear not! It takes over 30 seconds to swap the stock (no tools, too) so you folks are all safe!

Don't worry, I'm very carefull when I change stocks to prevent the gun from leaping up on it's own and shooting anyone. If I turn on NPR while changing stocks, it seems to help. But I occasionally need the increased rate of fire and lethality that a different stock gives a gun. </sarcasm>

Answer: If she thinks she can win.

Blatant Racial Profiling!