geobas1

Registered bored user

geobas1 wrote:
k.  yeah rourke looks nothing like himself, but the others just look like what they are older and fatter but otherwise very recognizable.
geobas1 wrote:
punko because he's a prude. 
geobas1 wrote:
Oh joy more drones,  no thanks, #4 is a cute idea but when my two figured out the treats were in that little thing it would end up their next chew toy.  They would have it shredded the first day.  #5 is just paranoid silly shit,  if you have an air quality issue get it tested fix it and move on with life.  
geobas1 wrote:
melcervini agreed.  At one point when ammo was cheap my dad and I were buying lots but had little time to shoot. We counted 20,000 rounds of various calibers at one point and that wasn't the high, just when we counted.  Went thru all that long ago and have had to buy much more and not one person was shot or threatened at any point in the process. 
geobas1 wrote:
twx agreed.  I knew a guy that deer hunted with a .357, by law while hunting he had to open carry you are not allowed to concealed carry on the woods while hunting.  

Myself I wouldn't ever carry open if you are in an area like you talk about imo while it makes it unlikely the run of the mill assholes are going to mess with you, if you do actually meet the guy you'd really need the gun for it just makes it more likely he'll shoot you outright and take your gun. The guy that's actually prepared to take your life now just has more reason to target you and just shoot outright.  

Basically I was taught/trained that for a civilian a gun is going to do one of two things.  It will either end the situation absolutely or it will escalate the situation and make it worse.  This makes the best course to not let anyone know you have a gun until you pull it, and if you do pull it you put three rounds center mass.  If you are justified in pulling it you are justified in using it.  If you are not justified in using it you are not justified in pulling it. 
geobas1 wrote:
squrlz4ever nothing would make me happier than to see these two dipshits convicted of a felony so they lose their rights to gun ownership, they've proven they don't have the mental capacity to make responsible decisions regarding their firearms.  Then everyone can stop thinking they represent me in some way. 
geobas1 wrote:
As a gun owner the productive way to start a conversation with someone who is anti gun is to invite them to the range.  Show them what you actually do with your gun.  Because it isn't this or any out the other bs you hear about in the news. 
geobas1 wrote:
Gotta start with the obligatory I'm a gun owner.  If you are law enforcement or security then yeah open carry you need access, but anyone else that thinks it is a good idea to open carry anything is an idiot. I don't like their message, I don't like their tactics, and I don't like getting lumped in with them.  they are trying to provoke people and most say to start a conversation the problem is it provokes in exactly the wrong way to start a productive conversion . If someone doesn't want a gun they shouldn't be forced to have one.  if someone wants a gun isn't a violent idiot AND they are going to obey the laws with it then they should be able to have one. BUT it isn't a fucking toy and regardless of what they say their intent is to provoke a response and that's just fucked and counter productive for responsible gun owners. 

geobas1 wrote:
thezigrat that's a common deer head. you are implying they don't have standards.  i don't think they'd stoop that low
geobas1 wrote:
I've seen them jump many times as far.  while hunting along a river where i used to live they would climb to the top of a tree on one side of the river and run out and leap to lower branches on trees on the other side.  I'd guess at least a 25 foot horizontal distance leap.  they'd start at 60-70 feet up in the air and land on lower branches 10-15 feet max off the ground.  first time i saw it i was dumbstruck but saw it many times afterward.  the branches they landed on would dip 5 feet or more and act like a spring to absorb the energy. 

and yes i did see them miss on the landing on occasion and they were just stunned for a minute but otherwise appeared unharmed.  
geobas1 wrote:
daegog she's self centered enough to think she's all that's necessary for a wedding so i'd guess no in this case that's probably not possible.
geobas1 wrote:
boredhuman yeah you're right I've been watching a lot of both recently amongst others and mixed that one up. 
geobas1 wrote:
faustsshadow Yeah I was aware,  it actually draws you in if you put the work in to decipher it, but I imagine some wouldn't get that far . 
geobas1 wrote:
kalron27 yes but spend a few $ and buy a decent case that won't rip you to shreds as you build the pc as well.  It doesn't need to look like Vegas at night just have decently rolled edges and decent layout for cables and airflow. 
geobas1 wrote:
stevopusser followed that link and Damn been a long time since I've been that amazed by stupidity.  I can't understand ignoring proven evidence for made up bs.  Big part of the reason I kick religion out of my life long ago. 
geobas1 wrote:
how to make everything better. just don't get a rat dog.   
geobas1 wrote:
She is free to express herself however she wishes, but everyone else is free to look at it and think whatever they want too.  Including employers.  Like it or not money is basically essential to living yeah you could move to bfe and hunt and garden for food, but you still wouldn't own or technically have a right to live wherever you moved to without buying the land.  I'm going to go out on a limb and say MOST LIKELY moms and pops pays the bills, just a guess. 
geobas1 wrote:
This was one of my favorite books in high school although I did have to read the first couple chapters 3 times before I really understood the thick slang. 
geobas1 wrote:
captkangaroo bill burr is who I heard use that line about wife beating,  he's funny as hell. 
geobas1 wrote:
I'm just glad he was prominent enough that he was caught before this escalated to full molestation, because I have little doubt it would have.  I may be wrong, but everything I've seen on this and in my life tells me it was only a matter of time and opportunity before he was bedding children. 

geobas1 wrote:
Both sides (left and right) want freedom of speech right up until someone speaks they don't agree with. That's not how it works (here at least)  Let them speak, agree or don't.   They still get a voice as does Milo.  Their employer now doesn't seem to have an issue with it.   Burn shit in effigy ok whatever or boycott if you want that's your voice.   Now ck was first and became (probably temporarily) a martyr for the cause, but that's part of speaking your mind too, not everyone is going to like what you say. 

Honestly though I don't really know what the hub bub is about this.  Taking a knee is actually a relatively respectful way of doing this.  They could have shit on a flag, burned a flag, spit on a flag.  They just said nah we have issues I'm going to opt out until I feel something is being done.   And nothing is more American than speaking up and speaking your mind. 
geobas1 wrote:
punko I wouldn't really say it is acceptable here, more we just go freedom first on everything.  Well we used to.  
geobas1 wrote:
Gerry1of1 omg i don't have the only cock in the world :o.  Permaban. :)
geobas1 wrote:
Gerry1of1 Nah. Screw him I wouldn't buy a dog off him and I sure as hell will not donate to his go fund me, but still object strongly to the method of "enforcement" used here. 
geobas1 wrote:
Gerry1of1 sorry I disagree the tool IS BAD I don't think there is a good or valid use for it  For the reasons I give in the reply to 7eggert above.  Our government just has no business whatsoever in civil courts the deck is already stacked in their favor.  In this instance instead of taking his money they need to institute fines as they do for speeding and parking, if it is egregious enough impound the equipment like they would a car until the court date or the fine is paid.