Well, I'm as bloodthirsty as any man (maybe more so than some), but I don't really think it's possible to kill enough predatory animals to make the world safe for people to bumble around in willy nilly.

Sure, you can screen off the tourist areas and places with big populations and cull the baddies such that even the stupids won't get consumed, but I don't think there's really any way to make things that safe out at the edges.

If you wander off into the woods in some places in the US, you can get eaten, because the big toothy critters not only outnumber you, but have no inherent fear of humans because they see them so rarely (if ever), which is just a function of those places being out in the hinterlands.

That being the case, only a fool would set off into those places unarmed and unmindful of those risks.

In that respect alone, the doctor is right.

That only serves to prove that Progressive A-Holes have a fear of our kind of democracy (which is not pure democracy, for good reason).

The founders were quite right to be afraid of pure democracy, as they had just seen a great bloody demonstration of what a motivated mob can do during the French revolution.  The Terror was still fresh in their minds as they drafted our Constitution.

I fail to see how forcing people, who are too lazy and/or stupid to vote of their own free will, to do so under threat of law will make our politics any less idiotic.

Instead of pandering to the base, politicians will then be forced to pander to the apathetic slack jaws who are said to inhabit "the middle".

Nevermind that they are only classified that way because they're too lazy to register with any one party.

How is herding a group of dunderheads and lazy people over to your side going to make our government or politicians better?

Heh.  I just used the words "do our bidding" in a totally serious manner.

I must now append on the evil maniacal laughter such a line deserves:

"Muahhahahahaahahahahahhhhhaaaaaaaa. . ."

There, I feel better now.

The only way any of this is ever going to change is to vote with your feet and your pocketbooks.

STOP FLYING.  Encourage those around you to stop flying.

When the airlines start to take it in the shorts due to reduced revenues, they will do the heavy lifting RE the TSA for us.

We need some kind of force multiplier though, because for every one of us lamenting the loss of liberty, there's three to five jibbering jackasses whispering "it makes me feel so safe" to themselves as they're having their "luggage" juggled.

The sheep will always outnumber the sheep dogs, so in a purely democratic scenario, we will always lose.

We need to learn from our unhinged friends on the left and find a way to applied leveraged force against the airlines until they do our bidding.

You'll need a Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch for that one, you will.

Smell their breath?

Or maybe look for the one with a flip flop stuck in its teeth?

I sense that the smug is strong in this one as well . . .

That's not strictly true.

There were several guys in my fraternity who actually liked to smoke this awesome smelling (I don't smoke, but THAT smoke smelled wonderful) pipe tobacco through a Hooka water pipe.

They never smoked weed or anything else through it, at least not in our house, or I'd have smelled it.

We had a few guys who liked to toke up, but we very much tried to "encourage" them to do it elsewhere.  The Hooka guys were not among them though (I never saw or smelled them smoking anything but that sweet pipe tobacco).

So yes, those water pipes can be and are sometimes used to smoke legal things.

In combat, that is not the case.  If a woman can't carry her gear and a 200# wounded comrade out of harms way, that man is very likely to die there.

If she abandons her gear to carry the stricken man, she reduces the fighting strength of the position even further.  Now she can't even defend herself, let alone her position or the man she's carrying.

This kind of Sophie's Choice are precisely why the physical standards exist in the first place.  If you cannot live up to them, you put everyone in greater danger.

And that's leaving off entirely the hygiene issues of living in a hole for months at a stretch.

No matter how much you want it to be so, war fighting (the actual hands-on killing part of it) is in no way analogous with two dudes getting hitched.

You thinking such a thing does not make it so.

Others agreeing with your mistaken premise also does not make it so.

To whit, unless secondary actions are taken (IE murder), nobody dies as a direct result of two men (or two women) getting married, regardless of what your religion or cultural misgivings are.  Nobody dies as an immediate result.

Continued . . .

No need for decriminalization, you sir, are already stoned.

You will note that if things go poorly in a gay marriage, divorce may ensue.

If things go poorly on the battlefield, people die, and not only just the person who made the mistake or was the weak link.

Your analogy would be more apt if homosexuals, once married, had to produce offspring under pain of death.

Since that is not the case, the two scenarios are not at all alike in terms of the ramifications of failure.

Liberals want to swell the voting ranks with "low information"/apathetic voters because they are the easiest to lie to and manipulate.

Their entire sales pitch requires that people be ignorant or dim or just apathetic, because it all collapses under too much scrutiny.

And they call us the party of stupid . . .

It's fixin' to get a might sporty in Europe, me thinks.

Nothing quells the rage quite like a good bloodbath.

It's been a lot of years since they've had a good one over there, you know.

I wear jean shorts to work out in the shop, and while they're new and shiny when I buy them, they become "distressed" rather quickly.

Never trust anyone who pays someone else to wear the holes into their pants for them.

Ahem . . .