Flat Earth - Baked Veggie Crisps.
These things are unbelievably good. I've eaten 2 whole bags before, and was wishing I had more.

Anatomy of a Religious Puzzle (guess which one):

Take a handful of random puzzle pieces from 9 different religious puzzles. Using an X-acto knife, carefully trim the pieces so that they will fit together as necessary to pass a cursory inspection (completed puzzle not required to be symmetric). Paint a new image on the completed puzzle that is a warped version of the themes of the 9 original puzzles combined. Remove then hide or destroy 1/3 of the pieces. Declare the new puzzle to be inspired by God. When missing pieces are found, deny that they were ever part of the whole.

Neither atheism nor agnosticism are religions, in even the most vague sense that, for example, Islam, is. At best, individuals who disbelieve could be leading lives based on some type of a normative philosophy, but that adoption would be, in no way, a requirement of disbelief. By all of the most popular definitions, a true religion requires the ritual belief in, and worship of, a deity or deities, or some other supernatural power.

Unless, of course, it's not your religion, then it's a cult.

Google "The Myth of Peak Oil". Illuminate yourself.

Yes...Sometimes it's amusing, but most of the time it isn't.

And, may I say, quite the fine job you've done of it!

...dess

Thank you, also! From you & Winx, likely the two nicest forum compliments that I have ever received.
You've humbled me (and that's no mean feat! )

I appreciate that.
Sometimes it just kind of hits me the wrong way when the "pile on" starts, especially with someone with, uhm, obvious communications issues. I tend to react to them as I would to a toddler.

Yes I have....I pondered the same thing myself, long ago, but knew better than to pose the question to a bunch of people I don't know on a dating site's religious forum (probably because they didn't exist yet). I did my own research, and continue to do so.
Do I believe he's basically yanking everyone's chain? Yep, but no more so than a lot of the other glorious topics that have been authored & discussed in these forums.

That's a 'cut-n-paste'.

This is the Judaic, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindi, and Atheist, and any other topic which relates to religion forum.
He didn't start responding negatively until the patronizing & prejudice began.

....the people have allowed the government to become too large & powerful to control by democratic means.

Not attempting anything other than accuracy of information here, but one of the (if not the) strongest .22 air rifles is the Webley Patriot, rated at 40ft/lbs and 960fps w/a 14.4gr pellet. I think the Diana RWS 350 Magnum is the fastest at 1050fps, but requires a special light-weight pellet to get there. Did you mean 900fps?

`PS

Just wanted to add, that with a deer that young, I could see a lucky cranial shot bringing it down.

The terms are not mutually exclusive.

No offense (or belligerence ) intended, but I'm also very interested, as a fellow air rifle enthusiast & collector (1978 Crosman 760XL PM .177, 1974 Mod 3120 Benjamin .22, 1958 Mod 1320 Benjamin .22 pistol). First off, as far as I know, it's illegal to air-hunt big game with anything under a .40, and secondly, most ballistics tests (Pyramyd Air for example) indicate that at least a .45 with 250ft/lbs are needed to humanely bring down the average (120-150lbs) deer with a 10-15min bleed-out.
Was it a fawn?

I agree wholeheartedly.
Hominem, memento te

Roscoe....or perhaps something with a little more character - Hamlet? ....Othello?

Yes, that is amusing. I hadn't given any thought to the inverted aspect of the observation.

Of course, I was actually referring to something along the lines of a psychological "what if" scenario test designed to determine whether or not the person elected is secretly a megalomaniacal sociopath. I can't bring myself to consider the campaign as a true test.
The sad thing is, despite all the exposure during the process, we still don't really know them, do we?

Relying on the Constitution to answer fine details of arms regulation is inappropriate and futile.
In this area (among others), it is only a baseline, recognizing unalienable rights, ensuring the maximum freedoms possible, without crippling the effectiveness of the government, or recklessly endangering it's citizens.
The Constitution, by way of the 2nd Amendment, sets a restriction on the government (as does the entire Bill of Rights). It does not grant the right to bear arms (it does not possess the authority to do so). This is what must be understood by any who support a ban on guns (or any other weapon), or such restrictions and regulations creating an inconvenience or burden to the exercise of this right.
How this right is guaranteed in practice, should be left to the individual states, with NO interference by the federal government. Even then, they too would be prohibited from passing any legislation which would nullify or circumvent the declaratory statement made by the 2nd Amendment.
It also makes no difference what is stated in the first part of the 2nd Amendment; it could have just as easily been left off entirely. It was put there as a conciliatory gesture - a justification to those advocates against the amendment, because they could/would not disagree with the need for a well-equipped militia.

It is not difficult to determine to whom the right applies:

1. The People (all citizens of the United States of America).

a. Excepted:
Anyone who has proven by their actions to be lacking in the fundamental, necessary moral or mental judgment to properly exercise said right in society. This is to be determined by the judiciary of the individual states - NOT by the federal government.

The reasoning is thus: By their actions, they have forfeited said right within society.

The arguments brought up, time and time again, regarding being armed while traveling, etc., etc. are also pointless. The moment you choose to travel by means of a commercial carrier, you voluntarily, temporarily, surrender certain rights to help ensure the safety and well being of all others utilizing that service. It ceases to be an issue of individual rights, and becomes one of societal safety. If you were the only one on the airplane, then the reasoning behind the regulations would be less likely to apply, but not necessarily baseless; the airplane, after all, is not yours. It belongs to a private business, which is perfectly within it's rights to establish such rules or regulations as they deem necessary, or to comply with state or federal safety directives. That being said, there should exist no prohibition against being armed as you see fit, while utilizing personally owned transportation.

Addressing the issue of mandatory gun safety training or pretesting before acquiring firearms (or any other deadly weapon), I would have to vote "no" on these, as they impose a preclusion on unalienable right, and therefore constitute infringement. After all, as far as I know, there isn't a test to become President, so why should there be for mere gun ownership?

Regarding militias, this is the best article I've ever read on the subject. Don't denigrate it just because it's hosted on a "pro-gun" sight. Read it.

http://www.guncite.com/journals/tmvarc.html