Kennedy

When I see people make assumptions without any backstory or evidence, I wonder how they can think a cop will give a shit about their opinion. First, you have no idea how the cop handled the situation. Remember the first thing you see in that video? It's a still picture of the cop holding a kid on the ground. So can you tell me what happened before the kid ended up on his ass being held down by a cop? No? Then why jumpj to conclusions? For all you know, the cop rolled up on the scene (on his bike), stopped to talk to the kids, and told them that if they didn't pick up their boards and leave they would get a ticket. From there, all it takes is one dumbass to say "fuck you, we're not going anywhere," or anything along those lines. At that point, he's not getting a citation, he's going to jail. End of story, full stop. How he goes to jail is completely up to him. If he lets the cop put handcuffs on and gets in the squad car without a struggle, then that's all there is. If he resists arrest, well cops have laws that say they can use force to overcome force when making an arrest or preventing an escape from custody. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

(A) Don't skateboard where it's not legal to do so. (B) When you're doing something illegal, and a cop comes up to talk to you, don't be an ass, unles you want him to enforce every law he knows, which WILL results in citations or arrests. (C) When a cop tells you "Don't move," just don't. If you do, you'll likely get handcuffed, and might go to jail. (D) When a cop is putting someone in handcuffs, DO NOT get in the middle of it, or you'll get handcuffed, too. (E) When a cop tells you to get on the ground, face down, and put your hands behind your back, and you refuse, you face three options, which the cop gets to decide, not you. You will either be {1} wrestled to the ground, in which case you may face further charges if the cop in injured, {2} sprayed with a chemical agent, which leads to the worst half hour of your life, or {3} Tazered, which leads to what I guarantee is the worst five seconds of your life. Remember, 99.9% of the time a cops actions are nothing more than the consequences of your actions. If you do somehting illegal, expect a cop to do somehting about it. IF you are an ass, don't expect him to exercise discretion in your favor. If you resist, arrest, expect very unpleasant things to happen to you. On the street, you will not win an argument with a cop. It's that simple. And as for videotaping it? Well, just expect the tape to be confiscated and entered into evidence. Oh, you didn't think about the fact that you just identified your friend who ran with that tape, did you? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

How about you edit the post to add a reason why you consider method of suicides to be relevant. Are you surprised that a country where owning a firearm is illegal has fewer firearm related deaths than one where people have the freedom to own firearms? Maybe I should put out a study on knife and sword related deaths, and we can all be amazed that Japan and England are horribly violent places to be and the USA is a wonderland? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

First off, out of common courtesy to other posters, learn to link things, rather than simply posting a url. Second, if you must include a link, make sure it works. Yours does not. As to the meat of your post, when you say someone was killed, 99% of the population will understand that to mean murdered. If you said "die in America""deaths related to firearms" that would be much more general (and a fairly useless number, but we'll come to that). Your ability to communicate clearly directly influences your ability to convince your audience (unless you are a gun control fanatic who intentionally obscures truth). *see example below Next, as for suicides, why do you care what method a person chooses to end his own life? Would you prefer hangings? Weighted drownings? Severed arteries? What method would be more acceptable to you than firearms? If your answer is the human, and humane, one, then none of those listed is better or worse than the others. Each is terrible. So why does it matter to you than firearms were involved in suicides? Personally, I'd rather reduce suicides, and homicides for that matter, than reduce gun deaths with no effect on the overall number of deaths. example: from gun controllers' own website http://www.vpc.org/studies/awaconc.htm As for this little bit of random logorrhea at the keyboard, I'm not even sure where to start. First, I love the way you take people who own firearms for self defense and apply the homicidal fantisies to demonize them. While you're at google, doing your "research" that so fastidiously avoids peer-reviewed journals, look up the word "projection." Next, I laughed quite heartily at the "giving a monkey a loaded gun." You ad hominem and strawman attacks were trasnparent enough, but honestly, did you think this would help your case? Or do you believe this drivel? It must be astounding to you how often these 'monkeys' who carry concealed firearms are NOT involved in murders, shootings, violence, or any of the list of disqualifying offences. Are you not aware of how many peole carry concealed every day, and how they commit crimes less often than the rest of the population? Or do you simply ignore the facts that contradict your worldview? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

And here I thought my team and I were the only ones who've been tossed from an all you can eat place for, you guessed it, eating. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

No, I didn't know that, because it's not true. Where'd you get that number? According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Uniform Crime Report they published for 2005 (the last year with finalized numbers) 14.860 people were murdered. Approximately 68% of those murders were committed with firearms. According the the FBI, that is 10,100 people killed in America with firearms. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_10.html Care to share your unreliable sources? Or do your sources know more about crime than the FBI? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Oh, one other important thing to mention... Current federal law didn't prevent Cho Seung-Hui from buying guns, and HR 2640 still wouldn't prevent Cho Seung-Hui from buying guns. Something to think about. One other thing to think about before talking about VaTech wen considering this bill - NICS only applies to purchasing guns. It has nothing to do with possessing guns. Let's not forget that a black market exists in guns just like any other highly valued and regulated item. Responses to prevent/mitigate other VaTech incidents need to cinsider that the bad guy can get a gun regardless. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c110:./temp/~c110e0TJE9 This is the link to the bill as posted by the library of congress, for those who wish to read it (relevant considering references made to specific sections) Douva - Lord knows I'm not one to say every psycho and criminal should be armed (they're already dangerous). Section 101-d-1 seems to make it so that only people judged to be a danger to themselves or others or mentally defective such that they can't manage their own affairs are added to the list. The bill even makes mention of removing names from the list (something the schumer amendment specifically precludes). The problem is I can't see the positive change actually happening, but I do see the list getting bigger. Every time I read over the list, I try to do it form the perspective of someone who is trying to make it as all encompassing as possible (what any gun controller or bureaucrat might do). When I do, I see the language being twisted or "living breathing" interpretted in a way that does nothing positive. You think the BATFE and DOJ are going to pull names of the list because this bill says they should? "Nah, schumer amendment says we shouldn't. Conflict of laws. We'll go with the more permissive law. Sorry you went to a doctor who said you're nuts, but you're on the list. Deal with it. No soup gun for you!" witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

The Associated Press got it right last week when it stated that, "The House Wednesday passed what could become the first major federal gun control law in over a decade." It's true. The McCarthy bill that passed will DRAMATICALLY expand the dragnet that is currently used to disqualify law-abiding gun buyers. So much so, that hundreds of thousands of honest citizens who want to buy a gun will one day walk into a gun store and be shocked when they're told they're a prohibited purchaser, having been lumped into the same category as murderers and rapists. This underscores the problems that have existed all along with the Brady Law. At the time it was passed, some people foolishly thought, "No big deal. I'm not a bad guy. This law won't affect me." But what happens when good guys' names get thrown into the bad guys' list? That is exactly what has happened, and no one should think that the attempts to expand the gun control noose are going to end with the McCarthy bill (HR 2640). Speaking to the CNN audience on June 13, head of the Brady Campaign, Paul Helmke, stated that, "We're hopeful that now that the NRA has come around to our point of view in terms of strengthening the Brady background checks, that now we can take the next step after this bill passes [to impose additional gun control]." Get it? The McCarthy bill is just a first step. ======== So what does HR 2640 do? Well, as stated already, this is one of the most far-reaching gun bans in years. For the first time in history, this bill takes a giant step towards banning one-fourth of returning military veterans from ever owning a gun again. In 2000, President Clinton added between 80,000 - 90,000 names of military veterans -- who were suffering from Post Traumatic Stress (PTS) -- into the NICS background check system. These were vets who were having nightmares; they had the shakes. So Clinton disqualified them from buying or owning guns. For seven years, GOA has been arguing that what Clinton did was illegitimate. But if this McCarthy bill gets enacted into law, a future Hillary Clinton administration would actually have the law on her side to ban a quarter of all military veterans (that's the number of veterans who have Post Traumatic Stress) from owning guns. Now, the supporters of the McCarthy bill claim that military veterans -- who have been denied their Second Amendment rights -- could get their rights restored. But this is a very nebulous promise. The reason is that Section 101(c)(1)(C) of the bill provides explicitly that a psychiatrist or psychologist diagnosis is enough to ban a person for ever owning a gun as long as it's predicated on a microscopic risk that a person could be a danger to himself or others. (Please be sure to read the NOTE below for more details on this.) How many psychiatrists are going to deny that a veteran suffering from PTS doesn't possess a MICROSCOPIC RISK that he could be a danger to himself or others? And even if they can clear the psychiatrist hurdle, we're still looking at thousands of dollars for lawyers, court fees, etc. And then, when veterans have done everything they can possibly do to clear their name, there is still the Schumer amendment in federal law which prevents the BATFE from restoring the rights of individuals who are barred from purchasing firearms. If that amendment is not repealed, then it doesn't matter if your state stops sending your name for inclusion in the FBI's NICS system... you are still going to be a disqualified purchaser when you try to buy a gun. So get the irony. Senator Schumer is the one who is leading the charge in the Senate to pass the McCarthy bill, and he is "generously" offering military veterans the opportunity to clear their names, even though it's been HIS AMENDMENT that has prevented honest gun owners from getting their rights back under a similar procedure created in 1986! But there's still another irony. Before this bill, it was very debatable (in legal terms) whether the military vets with PTS should have been added into the NICS system... and yet many of them were -- even though there was NO statutory authority to do so. Before this bill, there were provisions in the law to get one's name cleared, and yet Schumer made it impossible for these military vets to do so. Now, the McCarthy bill (combined with federal regulations) makes it unmistakably clear that military vets with Post Traumatic Stress SHOULD BE ADDED as prohibited persons on the basis of a "diagnosis." Are these vets now going to find it any easier to get their names cleared (when the law says they should be on the list) if they were finding it difficult to do so before (when the law said they shouldn't)? Add to this the Schumer amendment (mentioned above). The McCarthy bill does nothing to repeal the Schumer amendment, which means that military veterans with PTS are going to find it impossible to get their rights restored! Do you see how Congress is slowly (and quietly) sweeping more and more innocent people into the same category as murderers and rapists? First, anti-gun politicians get a toe hold by getting innocuous sounding language into the federal code. Then they come back years later to twist those words into the most contorted way possible. Consider the facts. In 1968, Congress laid out several criteria for banning Americans from owning guns -- a person can't be a felon, a drug user, an illegal alien, etc. Well, one of the criteria which will disqualify you from owning or buying a gun is if you are "adjudicated as a mental defective." Now, in 1968, that term referred to a person who was judged not guilty of a crime by reason of insanity. Well, that was 1968. By 2000, President Bill Clinton had stretched that definition to mean a military veteran who has had a lawful authority (like a shrink) decree that a person has PTS. Can you see how politicians love to stretch the meaning of words in the law... especially when it comes to banning guns? After all, who would have thought when the original Brady law was passed in 1993, that it would be used to keep people with outstanding traffic tickets from buying guns; or couples with marriage problems from buying guns; or military vets with nightmares from buying guns? (See footnotes below.) So if you thought the Brady Law would never affect you because you're a "good guy," then think again. Military vets are in trouble, and so are your kids who are battling Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). Everything that has been mentioned above regarding military veterans, could also apply to these kids. Do you have a child in the IDEA program -- a.k.a., Individuals with Disability Education Act -- who has been diagnosed with ADD and thought to be susceptible to playground fights? Guess what? That child can be banned for life from ever owning a gun as an adult. The key to understanding this new gun ban expansion centers on a shrink's determination that a person is a risk to himself or others. You see, legislators claim they want to specifically prevent a future Seung-Hui Cho from ever buying a gun and shooting up a school. And since Cho had been deemed as a potential danger to himself or others, that has become the new standard for banning guns. But realize what this does. In the name of stopping an infinitesimal fraction of potential bad apples from owning firearms, legislators are expanding the dragnet to sweep ALL KINDS of good guys into a permanent ban. It also ignores the fact that bad guys get illegal guns ALL THE TIME, despite the gun laws! So back to your kid who might have ADD. The BATFE, in an open letter (dated May 9, 2007), said the diagnosis that a person is a potential risk doesn't have to be based on the fact that the person poses a "substantial" risk. It just has to be "ANY" risk. Just any risk, no matter how slight to the other kids on the playground, is all that is needed to qualify the kid on Ritalin -- or a vet suffering PTS, or a husband (going through a divorce) who's been ordered to go through an anger management program, etc. -- for a LIFETIME gun ban. This is the slippery slope that gun control poses. And this is the reason HR 2640 must be defeated. Even as we debate this bill, the Frank Lautenbergs in Congress are trying to expand the NICS system with the names of people who are on a so-called "government watch list" (S. 1237). While this "government watch list" supposedly applies to suspected terrorists, the fact is that government bureaucrats can add ANY gun owner's name to this list without due process, without any hearing, or trial by jury, etc. That's where the background check system is headed... if we don't rise up together and cut off the monster's head right now. NOTE: Please realize that a cursory reading of this bill is not sufficient to grasp the full threat that it poses. To read this bill properly, you have to not only read it thoroughly, but look at federal regulations and BATF interpretations as well. For example, where we cite Section 101(c)(1)(C) above as making it explicitly clear that the diagnosis from a psychologist or psychiatrist is enough to ban a person from owning a gun, realize that you have to look at Section 101, while also going to federal regulations via Section 3 of the bill. Section 3(2) of the bill states that every interpretation that the BATFE has made in respect to mental capacity would become statutory law. And so what does the federal code say? Well, at 27 CFR 478.11, it explicitly states that a person can be deemed to be "adjudicated as a mental defective" by a court or by any "OTHER LAWFUL AUTHORITY" (like a shrink), as long as the individual poses a risk to self or others (or can't manage his own affairs). And in its open letter of May 9, 2007, BATFE makes it clear that this "danger" doesn't have to be "imminent" or "substantial," but can include "any danger" at all. How many shrinks are going to say that a veteran suffering from PTS doesn't pose at least an infinitesimal risk of hurting someone else? FOOTNOTES: (1) The Brady law has been used to illegitimately deny firearms to people who have outstanding traffic tickets (see http://www.gunowners.org/ne0706.pdf). (2) Because of the Lautenberg gun ban, couples with marriage problems or parents who have used corporal punishment to discipline their children have been prohibited from owning guns for life (see http://www.gunowners.org/news/nws9806.htm). (3) Several articles have pointed to the fact that military vets with PTS have been added to the NICS system (see http://tinyurl.com/ytalxl or http://tinyurl.com/23cgqn). witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

So.. basically they are above the law... just like speeding when they want to Try again. Officers have a legal exception for recording sound during official actions. They're not above the law. The law makes exceptions for them, in writing. Think about it. If you forced someone into handcuffs, stuffed them into your car, and drove them to a place where they'd be locked up, you'd go to prison for kidnapping. (unless you are into some really strange games that they agreed beforehand...) However, for police, that is a fairly routine activity. They do it because the law says the can. They're not above the law. THe law is writtten with exceptions for them. Otherwise police could not function. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

OK, I hit reply to Mike's post, but this is for amazon and zippo as well. First, officers wear a microphone for many reasons, but right now reasons are irrelevant. Officers are justified in wearing microphones and it is legal for them to do so because the law (and case law) made a specific exception for them. Case closed end of story. Have you bothered to read the law and the case law regarding surveillance and recording? Are you claiming the law is written in a way that a reasonable person cannot understand it? Or are you just talking out of your ass? (again) as an aside Departments also like (or force) their officers to wear microphones as a control on their officers and as a way to address claims made against officers, especially during traffic stops. With microphone claim: "He's a racist, he called me a nigger" reality: Officer called the driver "sir" and was courteous in the face of insults and epithets. official reality: Above. official response: "No sir, he did not. In fact, you called the officer a honkey inbred motherfucker, and he told you to drive safely." activists say: Nothing, for once. news headline: None. Without microphone: claim: "He's a racist, he called me a nigger" reality: Officer called the driver "sir" and was courteous in the face of insults and epithets. official reality: Unknown official response: "The officer says he didn't, and we don't think he did." activists say: "Department protects racists, shows official racism" news headline: Claims of Racism Against _______PD. Protests, Boycotts Planned. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Boy, if the people here who seem so sure of themselves were defense lawyers, there would be a 100% conviction rate. I hate to break it to you, boys and girls, but lots of time watching Cops and Law & Order does not qualify you to know you asshole from your elbow in legal matters. First, this is not a "goose-gander" situation, it is not an abuse of power, and it is not to prevent a video record form being recorded. It's a good thing you're not a lawyer because you don't know squat. (about the law regarding electronic surveillance/recording) This traffic stop was conducted in a public area. That means anyone can take pictures or record video of the stop. However, that does not mean anyone can go out and make a sound recording of you just because you are in public. Just as the police can take video of your actions when you are in public but cannot record you for sound or use sound gathering technology, the same rule applies to people. If your conclusion that because someone is in public they can be recorded for sound as well as video, then the police could go around recording everything you say. That is not the case, and I don't think you want it to be. Instead you made an emotional leap to your inaccurate conclusion. True . If you are in a public place. This kinda shit REALLY PISSES ME OFF. NOT true. Try not to get pissed off about things that don't even exist. It's not good for your heart or blood pressure. DO try to educate yourself beyond television. It's good for your intelligence and understanding. THey do this because if the person does stop resisting, the force being used against them will also stop. If they continue to resist, the force required to overcome the resistance will continue to be used against them. Well, you're in for a pleasant surprise the next time you are stopped, unless you plan on doing something that warrants an arrest and resist the arrest. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Now now Bill, you should know better than to try logic or civil discourse with some posters... Anyway, anyone claiming this man hasn't earned the right to live where he pleases has probably never earned a blasted thing their entire life. "I'm sorry mister war hero who fought for my country while I was in short pants, you can't come here, because I was born here and I say so." To use language they might understand, it seems ot me that any UK citizens not welcomoing this gentleman are BLOODY WANKERS. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Well lookie-see who ain't left the DC area yet. How ya doin, Junior? You still at UMCP? You seen Tink or any of the old bunch lately? I heard the boyscout was still in the area. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

I left he area a while ago, but I know some folks and some places. First off, I'm sure you found the dzs already, but you're probalby closest to skydive delmarva, where I started out. Good place. As for local jumpers, most of the ones I knew left the area after I did, but I know S&M is still operating there. Before you go unpack your whips, leather, and zip-ties, that stands for Skydivers and Mentors. I'll let Jim tell you about them, but my advice is to find one and strike up a conversation. personal note - be advised, for better or for worse, you and Toto are definitely NOT in Texas anymore. On the plus side you can head down to the east end of Main St for a good time, but beware the middies. Also if you like a good road trip, the inner harbour of Baltimore, Canton Sqaure of Baltimore, and Alexandria, VA are fun night time destiinations. DC and the Coast aren't so bad, either. Annapolis is one of those towns with a defined character - if you like it, you love it, and if you don't, well at least it's only one summer. Good luck. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Gentlemen (and skydivers), let me tell you about a happy little substance known as oleoresin capsicum, or OC. This nasty little bit of organic pain is what law enforcement uses in their "pepper-spray" chemical munitions. Think about what those peppers did to your mouth and guts. Now imagine a refined liquid solution containing all the pain you know and love, and it just got sprayed into your eyes nose and mouth. Yeah, THAT'S a bad day. ps - but at least it doesn't give you the shits... witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Not so much. At most residential distances, shot will not spread as much as most people think. It's still very easy to miss. Shot placement is therefore still the most important thing to focus on. Furthermore, 00 buckshot can pass through a number of walls and/or barriers before losing lethal energy. I don't know about you, but I don't want my rounds going places I can't see. Polyshok, on the other hand, is as perfect as ammunition gets. http://www.polyshok.com/ http://defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=709 http://www.polyshok.com/journal_of_forensic_sciences.htm I use it to the exclusion of all others for defensive applications. If you can get your hands on this ammunition legally, DO SO! ps - Nice peice, Nightingale. I was thinking about one for Robyn, but I think she likes the Mark III more than the 22/45 Mark III. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Yeah! One has carbon in it and the other absorbs light waves except for a certain bit of the spectrum. Totally different issues, DUH! witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

They could get a large supply of Siamese (they're a bit odd anyway) and a catapult and spend the rest of the money on beer and hookers...problem solved. What, you have something against donkeys? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

"A Conservative Is A Liberal Who Has Been Mugged" http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article3740.html http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/phillip_morris/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1179218274175560.xml&coll=2 State Rep. Michael DeBose, a southside Cleveland Democrat has proven this statement true. To make a long story short, this anti-gun politician had a bad night involving some very bad people, and has since come to see the light. Because he's seen the light (and luckily not had to walk into the light), he has applied for his carry permit and plans to make up for his past votes. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Does that mean I don't have to go back to work, or do you think he meant 1730? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Absolutely. Could be. Do you really want someone else making htat decision for you? Then don't make that decision for someone else. Asolutely not. First off, some handguns fire rifle-caliber rounds at near rifle speeds. There is no sound reason why such a handgun couldn't bring down a target with one shot. Also, other handguns such as .45acp have been used to bring down whitetails and other medium sixed game for nearly as long as they've been around. When things start passing three to four hundred pounds I wouldn't use a handgun of any sort on them, but (A) it's your life and (B) they are capable of doing the job if you have the fortitude and skill to use them properly. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

So it's your contention that damage to property for political ends is not violence? Let's see what the dictionaries have to say about that one... violence: and for terrorism: Wow, those definition all sound like rioting and firebombings for political ends would fit very nicely into "violence" and "terrorism." witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Yes There are reasons why HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE turn up to these events in protest. What has that got to do with preventing actis of violence, that some might classify as terrorism, befre they happen? No one is talking about rounding up hundreds of thousands of people just because they plan on showing up and protesting. What the authorities ARE talking about is finding the people who have been violent before and/or have clearly stated that they plan on bringing violence to the demonstration. THOSE are the people who the dogs are after, and who face going to jail during the summit. Or does someone here think there are hundreds of thousands of german police dogs out there keeping tabs on every possible protester? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*