| honor and dignity in the american soul |
[Nov. 15th, 2009|06:55 pm] |
In his account of “the stark, enduring figure” of James Fenimore Cooper’s Deerslayer in his 1923 Studies in Classic American Literature, D.H. Lawrence observes:He is neither spiritual nor sensual. He is a moralizer, but he always tries to moralize from actual experience, not from theory. He says: ‘Hurt nothing unless you’re forced to.’ Yet he gets his deepest thrill of gratification, perhaps, when he puts a bullet through the heart of a beautiful buck, as it stoops to drink at the lake. Or when he brings the invisible bird fluttering down in death, out of the high blue. ‘Hurt nothing unless you’re forced to.’ And yet he lives by death, by killing the wild things of the air and earth.
It’s not good enough.
But you have there the myth of the essential white America. All the other stuff, the love, the democracy, the floundering into lust, is a sort of by-play. The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted. A recent treatment of the essential American soul in an article by Jill Lepore in the New Yorker discusses murder in America within the conceptual framework of honor and dignity, in reference to work by the late Eric Monkkonen and the ongoing Pieter Spierenburg. ( Read more... )
Crossposted to ![[info]](http://stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) larvatus, ![[info]](http://stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif) history, and guns. |
|
|
| Shit Just Got Real! |
[Nov. 15th, 2009|08:29 pm] |
Here's the End of Time Trailer:
I'm in the middle of streaming Waters of Mars, so I will comment on it as soon as I watch it. |
|
|
| Multifandom Icon Post #1 |
[Nov. 15th, 2009|01:13 pm] |
I made some requested icons and a few extras. Credit is optional:
1 Casanova
1 Little Dorrit
5 Doctor Who
6 Subtle Sexuality
9 The Office
   
   
   
   
   
 |
|
|
| Calling all geeks... |
[Nov. 15th, 2009|11:13 pm] |
I have some electronics queries....
1.
I bought a Samsung SyncMaster 2333 LCD HDTV/monitor this weekend. I've managed to get my Xbox 360 all hooked up and working fine on it, but I'm unable to get my cable tv to function. Coming from my cable box are three jacks; red, yellow and white. However, the tv only has receptacles for green, blue and red, plus a red and white pair that is labeled as audio. I tried various configurations, but the best I can get is a black and white picture with no audio. What can I do?
2.
Back in early 2008, my computer broke down. It was working fine up until I turned it off, disassembled it, and shipped it across town to a new apartment. When I hooked it all back up, there was no image on the monitor. I tried again with a different monitor, same problem. I dusted everything off tonight and hooked it up to the new set, but still the monitor gets no signal. My best guess, based on very limited knowledge, is that my video card must be shot...or could it be something else?
Any input is greatly appreciated. |
|
|
| Stupid Store or Legit Paperwork Problem? |
[Nov. 14th, 2009|11:57 pm] |
Remember I bought a Rossi Youth for my 7 yr old? I was (notice the past tense) very excited about it.
I mention this because since then the store has called me a couple of times and I think it is B.S. but they are not letting it go.
I was born on St. Thomas which is in the U.S. Virgin Islands. It is a territory. I was born a citizen and have never had any trouble with purchasing a firearm before.
Dicks in Kennesaw, GA has decided I need to come refill out the paperwork (Back ground check already passed and I have possession of the gun) because The Virgin Islands is a foreign country (in their opinion). I mentioned it is actually a U.S. territory and they asked what state it is in. I explained it is an island not in any state rather it is a territory. They then said it is a foreign country if it is not in a state. We exchanged this about five times. He did not get it. He was even polite enough to tell me how many states there are.
I asked about Puerto Rico and was told they are also a foreign country and have to fill out the paperwork as such. Now when I presented my carry permit to them GA no longer required a background check so this is all B.S. in my opinion.
I have bought several guns before and never had any trouble or had anyone try to convince me I need to bring in my green card for them to inspect. Yes he did suggest this even after I said I am a citizen whole, legal, born, and true.
My question is can I tell them to go blow smoke I have the gun and to never call me again? What recourse do they have (if any) against me at this point if I blow them off? Can I take it back to them and tell them they are too stupid to sell guns please give me my money back so I can causally never do business with them again. I have been told it against a federal law to return a gun once it has changed hands. Is that correct? |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Nov. 14th, 2009|04:23 pm] |
So I stumbled upon an old shooting buddy at a local gun store today.
I was there to browse holsters, he was there to buy a gun. He had three guns he wanted to sell/trade along with him.
I ended up with a 1903A3, specifically a Remington Model 03-A3, that has had the iron sights removed and is drilled and taped for a scope mount, and a Lee-Enfield marked 1917 SHT (HT underlined) L.E. III*. It's wearing Williame peep sights.
Both for $250 total. I'm pretty happy with that.
The 1903A3 looks like it is in the original wood, and it only missing the iron sights. I'm torn between putting an optic of some kind on it or digging up iron sights for it. The exposed metal looks pretty good indeed.
Not bad considering I left home looking for a holster, and came back with two rifles. |
|
|
| Comprehensive Gun Control Rebuttle |
[Nov. 13th, 2009|12:29 pm] |
I've got some spare time, so lets just cover all the bases.
Conceal Carry: Some states have it, others don't. Some require training, others don't. Two states do just fine with no permit system at all. Most have different laws on what is "concealed" vs. what's "Open" and where and how and how many guns people can carry.
Bottom line: There isn't a difference. You're no more or less likely to be harmed, wronged, or killed by a person who is carrying lawfully no matter if they had sanctioned training, or not, or if there were discrepancy laws on how and who could be issued or not. Concealed carry is not a problem. If you have a problem with it, YOU have a problem, not us.
Also Vermont and Alaska do just fine with no permits. If you can legally own a gun, you can carry it however you want to. I have multiple permits to carry. I carry everywhere where I lawfully can. I see DOZENS of police officers in my-day-to-day. I've never been asked to verify my permit. Mostly because they don't know...or simply don't care, that I'm carrying a gun and going about my day. If you own a gun (lawfully or not) you can carry it. The permit does nothing but add additional charges for when something happens. Let's face it, if you do something illegal while carrying a gun, the anchorites, and society at large have enugh juice with the system to deal with you, permit or no. So essentially they're pointless and expensive.
Gun-Free Zones: Can you guarantee my safety? I can't. The Police can't, and they won't (just ask them). I carry a gun because I know pure safety doesn't really exist, and if I'm in danger I'll use whatever means available to me to stay safe. Part of that is my personal firearm(s).
If you restrict where I can carry you are taking the burden that I am willing to carry onto your own shoulders until I can re-arm myself and resume my personal responsibility. I hope you're fine with that, because if something happens to me, or anybody else, I'm going to do my best to hold you responsible
Guns in Bars: Just about every place restricts people from getting drunk while operating or carrying guns. Furthermore if you do anything stupid or dangerous with a gun, you're breaking the law, drunk or no. Restricting guns just because somebody MIGHT (or might not) have an adult beverage while in there is pure stupidity. Also you're creating a Gun-Free zone and making a guarantee to keep me safe while I'm in there. That's a promise you can't keep, so it's stupid and dangerous.
Gun Rationing: Care to explain to me how somebody with 2, 3, 15, 20 ect guns is MORE dangerous to you than a person with one? Crimes like Virginia Tech or the Fort Hood shooting were done with small numbers of guns (Cho from VT bought both of his guns under a one-gun-a-month law) as far as I can tell the shooters only used one of the guns they had. If you think One-gun-a-month or similar will somehow stop or hinder gun trafficking, remember that gun trafficking already breaks multiple federal laws, plus whatever additional state or local laws that may exist for any and all of the areas involved in the crime. If all these laws don't stop it, isn't it a little naive to think one more will do anything?
Gun Registration: Been tried all over the place. Has failed to accomplish anything in all of them. Also it has the additional fault that it can and has been used to confiscate property that is doing no harm.
"Assault Weapons" bans: First up this is a completely made-up term and is essentially meaningless to anybody who knows anything on how guns function. The only reason why this term is even used was because its proponents intentionally misled an uneducated public to believe these guns were able to do things they simply can't. It was founded on a lie, anybody who supports such lies either has no idea what they're talking about or is lying to you. It centers around cosmetic features like protruding pistol grips and bayonet lugs, among other things. There is no "Assault Weapons" ban in any place at any time that a lawful person cannot buy a firearm that is nearly identical to a banned one that is 100% legal.
In addition to all of this, these guns are regularly used by private security, as well as Police and other peace officer forces. Why? Because they're ideal items for personal defense. Personal defense is 100% legal. These guns are good for personal defense, therefor they should be 100% legal.
The NFA: Overall a dumb law that does nothing. It heavily restricts noise suppressors. All cars are required to have these, as well as most industrial machines and buildings. Gun clubs are under constant threat because of complaints of noise. It's safety equipment and should be used as such. Criminals can already take advantage of these devices as they can easily be built from common household equipment and with common household tools. They largely don't because just like muffled car, muffled guns still make noise. Also a suppressed gun is larger and harder to carry around than one without, lastly threatening and/or shooting people tends to get noticed no matter how quiet your gun is.
It heavily restricts guns over .50 Caliber. Care to explain to me what changes when I increase a bullet/bore diameter from 0.50 caliber to 0.51? I didn't think so. That's all this law does. Also it exempts shotguns as they have historically been larger than 0.50. Hunters put rifled barrels on shotguns all the time, and they by all intents and purposes have a larger than .50 Caliber rifle. This is not against the law, nor does it do anything more dangerous than any other gun. Pretty stupid, huh?
It restricts the length of a gun barrel on a rifle or shotgun. Of course if you build a pistol up from the same mechanical components you have have something very similar. also there are many handguns chambered in rifle or shotgun rounds, or rounds that are very similar, or more powerful. The law does nothing to these guns, and society at large has no problem with them anyway.
It restricts guns that don't look like guns. Ummm can you explain to me what about an AR-15, and FNH S2000, an M1911A1, a Glock 22, a Kel-Tec P3AT, and a Mauser C96 have in common that makes them "Look like a gun"? Guns are built to work, what they look like is irrelevant
It restricts weapons capable of full-auto fire. Honestly I can't see what the big game-changer is with this feature? Generally it means the gun needs to be less powerful or bigger and heavier, or mounted to a fixed position to be controllable, and will require the shooter to carry more ammo and reload more. I fail to see what tactical advantage they supply outside of some very specialized military applications. Because I don't see much of an advantage to them (and they're expensive to shoot) I personally don't want one. Because I don't see an advantage to them I also could care less if somebody else wanted to buy one.
As far as a criminal or terrorist attempting violence with them I'll just note the more you reload the more chances I have to return fire with my own weapon or escape to safety.
Universal background checks. I live in a state that has universal background checks. Criminals still buy and sell guns on the black market. If you live in a state that doesn't have universal background checks, criminals buy and sell guns on the black market. If they pass such a law nothing will change, except they will be violating one more law on top of the countless laws they're already violating.
The GCA: This law I have only small issues with. If somebody is so insane they need to be confined to a mental hospital. If somebody has shown a history of violence, I don't want them to have more tools to commit violence. Still why are ALL felons restricted? It's a felony to catch lobsters in my state without a license. Its a felony to own sex toys in others. It's a felony to fail to pay your taxes. If sentencing guidelines are changed it can be a felony for ANY crime, as well as now legal activities can be declared illegal and a felony. I don't see how this has any relevance to a person's right to keep and bear arms.
The saying goes "If somebody can't be trusted with a gun, they shouldn't be trusted to be in public" I agree with that statement, but sadly we don't have the man power to implement such an ideal, nor do I trust the court system to be able to determine that.
I think all people of restricted status should be able to petition the court to have their restricted status removed.
Gun/ammo serialization: Essentially already in place. These numbers are very useful for factories to have quality control on their product. Its also useful for people to keep track of their property. Its also quickly and easily defeated by hand tools. This includes "Micro-stamping" technology, which at the time of this writing has not been proven to work effectively, and can be easily removed in a short period of time.
"Safe Gun" rosters: Like any product, guns can be faulty. Just like any product if a fault is found in a gun the company that provided a faulty product is liable. Fines and lawsuits can easily ruin a company, so most companies provide high-quality and safe products. This includes guns. if a product is later found to have a defect, like most products a recall is made and done at the company's expense. Because of this all guns on the market are very safe if used properly (Most products are unsafe if used improperly, guns are no different), any place that proposes or implements a "Safe Gun" roster or testing is simply removing guns that ARE safe from the market in order to restrict how and who can buy guns.
Suicides: Yep in America about 50% of people who kill themselves use guns. I have yet to see any data that shows that by somehow removing guns from the equation will do anything to suicide rates. If people claim they want to ban guns because of suicide, ask they why are only 50% of the people who take their lives important?
Universal Gun Permitting, and blanket gun bans. Sorry, the 2nd Amendment protects our rights to keep and bear arms. If you want to push laws like this you're going to first have to repeal that Amendment. Good luck. Also gun bans and universal permitting have been passed in several states and countries. The results do not point to success.
That seems to cover most of them. I took the time to type this so you can spend your time doing more constructive things than argue an issue that is so conclusive.
Feel free to distribute the link to this post or copy and paste it at will. If you do copy and paste, or use any large part of this please be considerate of my time and attach my name to it.
Let's put this dog to Bed.
-Weer'd Beard |
|
|
| Comprehensive Gun Control Rebuttle |
[Nov. 13th, 2009|12:29 pm] |
I've got some spare time, so lets just cover all the bases.
Conceal Carry: Some states have it, others don't. Some require training, others don't. Two states do just fine with no permit system at all. Most have different laws on what is "concealed" vs. what's "Open" and where and how and how many guns people can carry.
Bottom line: There isn't a difference. You're no more or less likely to be harmed, wronged, or killed by a person who is carrying lawfully no matter if they had sanctioned training, or not, or if there were discrepancy laws on how and who could be issued or not. Concealed carry is not a problem. If you have a problem with it, YOU have a problem, not us.
Also Vermont and Alaska do just fine with no permits. If you can legally own a gun, you can carry it however you want to. I have multiple permits to carry. I carry everywhere where I lawfully can. I see DOZENS of police officers in my-day-to-day. I've never been asked to verify my permit. Mostly because they don't know...or simply don't care, that I'm carrying a gun and going about my day. If you own a gun (lawfully or not) you can carry it. The permit does nothing but add additional charges for when something happens. Let's face it, if you do something illegal while carrying a gun, the anchorites, and society at large have enugh juice with the system to deal with you, permit or no. So essentially they're pointless and expensive.
Gun-Free Zones: Can you guarantee my safety? I can't. The Police can't, and they won't (just ask them). I carry a gun because I know pure safety doesn't really exist, and if I'm in danger I'll use whatever means available to me to stay safe. Part of that is my personal firearm(s).
If you restrict where I can carry you are taking the burden that I am willing to carry onto your own shoulders until I can re-arm myself and resume my personal responsibility. I hope you're fine with that, because if something happens to me, or anybody else, I'm going to do my best to hold you responsible
Guns in Bars: Just about every place restricts people from getting drunk while operating or carrying guns. Furthermore if you do anything stupid or dangerous with a gun, you're breaking the law, drunk or no. Restricting guns just because somebody MIGHT (or might not) have an adult beverage while in there is pure stupidity. Also you're creating a Gun-Free zone and making a guarantee to keep me safe while I'm in there. That's a promise you can't keep, so it's stupid and dangerous.
Gun Rationing: Care to explain to me how somebody with 2, 3, 15, 20 ect guns is MORE dangerous to you than a person with one? Crimes like Virginia Tech or the Fort Hood shooting were done with small numbers of guns (Cho from VT bought both of his guns under a one-gun-a-month law) as far as I can tell the shooters only used one of the guns they had. If you think One-gun-a-month or similar will somehow stop or hinder gun trafficking, remember that gun trafficking already breaks multiple federal laws, plus whatever additional state or local laws that may exist for any and all of the areas involved in the crime. If all these laws don't stop it, isn't it a little naive to think one more will do anything?
Gun Registration: Been tried all over the place. Has failed to accomplish anything in all of them. Also it has the additional fault that it can and has been used to confiscate property that is doing no harm.
"Assault Weapons" bans: First up this is a completely made-up term and is essentially meaningless to anybody who knows anything on how guns function. The only reason why this term is even used was because its proponents intentionally misled an uneducated public to believe these guns were able to do things they simply can't. It was founded on a lie, anybody who supports such lies either has no idea what they're talking about or is lying to you. It centers around cosmetic features like protruding pistol grips and bayonet lugs, among other things. There is no "Assault Weapons" ban in any place at any time that a lawful person cannot buy a firearm that is nearly identical to a banned one that is 100% legal.
In addition to all of this, these guns are regularly used by private security, as well as Police and other peace officer forces. Why? Because they're ideal items for personal defense. Personal defense is 100% legal. These guns are good for personal defense, therefor they should be 100% legal.
The NFA: Overall a dumb law that does nothing. It heavily restricts noise suppressors. All cars are required to have these, as well as most industrial machines and buildings. Gun clubs are under constant threat because of complaints of noise. It's safety equipment and should be used as such. Criminals can already take advantage of these devices as they can easily be built from common household equipment and with common household tools. They largely don't because just like muffled car, muffled guns still make noise. Also a suppressed gun is larger and harder to carry around than one without, lastly threatening and/or shooting people tends to get noticed no matter how quiet your gun is.
It heavily restricts guns over .50 Caliber. Care to explain to me what changes when I increase a bullet/bore diameter from 0.50 caliber to 0.51? I didn't think so. That's all this law does. Also it exempts shotguns as they have historically been larger than 0.50. Hunters put rifled barrels on shotguns all the time, and they by all intents and purposes have a larger than .50 Caliber rifle. This is not against the law, nor does it do anything more dangerous than any other gun. Pretty stupid, huh?
It restricts the length of a gun barrel on a rifle or shotgun. Of course if you build a pistol up from the same mechanical components you have have something very similar. also there are many handguns chambered in rifle or shotgun rounds, or rounds that are very similar, or more powerful. The law does nothing to these guns, and society at large has no problem with them anyway.
It restricts guns that don't look like guns. Ummm can you explain to me what about an AR-15, and FNH S2000, an M1911A1, a Glock 22, a Kel-Tec P3AT, and a Mauser C96 have in common that makes them "Look like a gun"? Guns are built to work, what they look like is irrelevant
It restricts weapons capable of full-auto fire. Honestly I can't see what the big game-changer is with this feature? Generally it means the gun needs to be less powerful or bigger and heavier, or mounted to a fixed position to be controllable, and will require the shooter to carry more ammo and reload more. I fail to see what tactical advantage they supply outside of some very specialized military applications. Because I don't see much of an advantage to them (and they're expensive to shoot) I personally don't want one. Because I don't see an advantage to them I also could care less if somebody else wanted to buy one.
As far as a criminal or terrorist attempting violence with them I'll just note the more you reload the more chances I have to return fire with my own weapon or escape to safety.
Universal background checks. I live in a state that has universal background checks. Criminals still buy and sell guns on the black market. If you live in a state that doesn't have universal background checks, criminals buy and sell guns on the black market. If they pass such a law nothing will change, except they will be violating one more law on top of the countless laws they're already violating.
The GCA: This law I have only small issues with. If somebody is so insane they need to be confined to a mental hospital. If somebody has shown a history of violence, I don't want them to have more tools to commit violence. Still why are ALL felons restricted? It's a felony to catch lobsters in my state without a license. Its a felony to own sex toys in others. It's a felony to fail to pay your taxes. If sentencing guidelines are changed it can be a felony for ANY crime, as well as now legal activities can be declared illegal and a felony. I don't see how this has any relevance to a person's right to keep and bear arms.
The saying goes "If somebody can't be trusted with a gun, they shouldn't be trusted to be in public" I agree with that statement, but sadly we don't have the man power to implement such an ideal, nor do I trust the court system to be able to determine that.
I think all people of restricted status should be able to petition the court to have their restricted status removed.
Gun/ammo serialization: Essentially already in place. These numbers are very useful for factories to have quality control on their product. Its also useful for people to keep track of their property. Its also quickly and easily defeated by hand tools. This includes "Micro-stamping" technology, which at the time of this writing has not been proven to work effectively, and can be easily removed in a short period of time.
"Safe Gun" rosters: Like any product, guns can be faulty. Just like any product if a fault is found in a gun the company that provided a faulty product is liable. Fines and lawsuits can easily ruin a company, so most companies provide high-quality and safe products. This includes guns. if a product is later found to have a defect, like most products a recall is made and done at the company's expense. Because of this all guns on the market are very safe if used properly (Most products are unsafe if used improperly, guns are no different), any place that proposes or implements a "Safe Gun" roster or testing is simply removing guns that ARE safe from the market in order to restrict how and who can buy guns.
Suicides: Yep in America about 50% of people who kill themselves use guns. I have yet to see any data that shows that by somehow removing guns from the equation will do anything to suicide rates. If people claim they want to ban guns because of suicide, ask they why are only 50% of the people who take their lives important?
Universal Gun Permitting, and blanket gun bans. Sorry, the 2nd Amendment protects our rights to keep and bear arms. If you want to push laws like this you're going to first have to repeal that Amendment. Good luck. Also gun bans and universal permitting have been passed in several states and countries. The results do not point to success.
That seems to cover most of them. I took the time to type this so you can spend your time doing more constructive things than argue an issue that is so conclusive.
Feel free to distribute the link to this post or copy and paste it at will. If you do copy and paste, or use any large part of this please be considerate of my time and attach my name to it.
Let's put this dog to Bed.
-Weer'd Beard |
|
|
| Figures. |
[Nov. 12th, 2009|10:57 pm] |
Ed Driscoll » End Clinton-era Military Base Gun Ban:For those who are wondering why an army base of all places is, effectively, a gun-free zone, the Washington Times notes its origins:
Among President Clinton’s first acts upon taking office in 1993 was to disarm U.S. soldiers on military bases.
One of the left's dearest delusions is that gun free zones make people safer.
As any survivors from gun free zone massacres could tell you, only law abiding citizens obey laws restricting guns.
Ed Driscoll » End Clinton-era Military Base Gun Ban:Because of Mr. Clinton, terrorists would face more return fire if they attacked a Texas Wal-Mart than the gunman faced at Fort Hood
Guns and Walmart, two bogeymen of the left. Great article.
Ed Driscoll » End Clinton-era Military Base Gun Ban:The wife of one of the soldiers shot at Fort Hood understands all too well. In an interview on CNN Monday night, Anchor John Roberts asked Mandy Foster how she felt about her husband’s upcoming deployment to Afghanistan. Ms. Foster responded: “At least he’s safe there and he can fire back, right?”
For now Mrs. Foster, for now. |
|
|
| Carrie Prejean (Fool) on Larry King - Ex Boyfriend Video |
[Nov. 12th, 2009|03:16 pm] |
Definition of the word Conservative:
(adjective) traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness
(noun) a person who is conservative in principles, actions, habits, etc.
Why does this woman call herself a CONSERVATIVE, and why does she continue to appear on so many talk shows. I believe she's come out on about 5 talk shows since the sex tape scandal first came out.
Your thoughts on this woman, please.
Carrie Prejean's ex-boyfriend -- the guy to whom she sent the XXX solo video -- tells TMZ Carrie and company called him last week and tried getting him to "lie" and say she was 17 when she shot the video. During an audio interview with TMZ, the man -- who asked us not to conceal his identity -- says Carrie sent him the video when they were involved with each other in 2007.
Prejean's Unbecoming Behavior On Larry King Live.
Playgirl Techno Music
Come and Ride It
Moveon.ORG
Join The NRA
"The Right Of The People To Keep and
Bear Arms, Shall Not Be infringed."!
|
|
|
| this |
[Nov. 12th, 2009|04:12 am] |
i met this tree
and we met the sea
it was red
and i was green
it was old and i was new
it was bold and i was blue
the tree i met was how i seed
the sea we wept was how i bleed
well now you see
i met this me |
|
|
| Half Of Detroit Council Packs Heat |
[Nov. 11th, 2009|10:26 pm] |
Charles Pugh, Kwame Kenyatta, James Tate and Gary Brown have said Tuesday that they are usually armed.
"I wish we lived in a community where we didn't need a gun," said Brown.
The Rev. Andre Spivey, pastor of St. Paul AME, said he soon plans to get his concealed weapon permit.
Spivey said he's applying for a concealed weapon permit because church members have been urging him to get one for years.
Pugh said he got a concealed weapon permit in December 2007 before he entered politics because he had received death threats.
"The reality is there are people who are homophobic and they are not happy with me as an elected person who happens to be gay," said soon-to-be Council President Pugh.
Kenyatta said he packs heat because council members sometimes must ward off irate citizens.
More here
Half Of Detroit Council Packs Heat - Detroit Local News Story - WDIV Detroit |
|
|
| An insulting list - My brothers - A friend |
[Nov. 10th, 2009|01:24 pm] |
Some jerk made a ranking list of the ugliest men in America, and he picked El Paso, Texas as having the ugliest men. What an insult, and boy was he wrong, because we have many great looking guy's in El Paso!
Ugliest Guys Rankings:
1. El Paso, Texas
2. Hagerstown, Md.
3. Miami, Fla.
4. Greensboro, N.C.
5. Mobile, Ala. and Huntington, W.Va. (tie)
6. Detroit, Mich.
7. Philadelphia, Pa.
8. Houston, Texas
None of my brothers live in El Paso anymore, but they were born and raised here. Below you will find pictures of 3 of my 4 brothers. I didn't add a picture of the 4th, because he's married, and is still in the Army. I have also added a pic of an El Pasoan friend who also doesn't live here anymore. Eventually, I'll be adding pics of my female friends and aquaintences.
Of all my brothers, this one is my most favorite of all.
This is what he really looks like. Can you see now why he's my favorite?
 
This brother is almost as silly as the one on top.
This brother is the toughie of the family.
The one with the cap is a friend.
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif) datesfromhell
Moveon.ORG
Join The NRA
"The Right Of The People To Keep and
Bear Arms, Shall Not Be infringed."! |
|
|
| navigation |
| [ |
viewing |
| |
most recent entries |
] |
| [ |
go |
| |
earlier |
] |
| |
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
kmilligan's Friends Page