Kennedy

Really? Tell that to [URL "http://www.google.com/m/search?oe=UTF-8&client=safari&hl=en&aq=f&oq=&aqi=-k0d0t0&fkt=1161&fsdt=4750&q=nj+judge+joseph+charles"]Judge Charles of NJ[/URL]. Imagine how the victim here felt when she found out she couldn't even get a restraining order against her rapist/ex-husband, let Aline secure a conviction in a criminal trial. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

In Nazi Germany, the fascist (elected) dictator took national anger and frustration and directed it at anyone he despised. (self hatred?). Jews, gypsies, gays, commies, etc. Your Koran/Quran burning example in the states is completely different. This is one group of over zealous fuckwits in Florida who think god is on their side and other religions are demon spawned and followers are hellbound (gee who do they sound like?). Tell you what, when the president, or a governor, hell even a mayor, supports this kind of idiocy, maybe then you can make some 1930s Germany to 2000s USA. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

That's what I get for using wiki without thinking. If you limit the discussion to the five books, they still include Numbers, aka Bamidbar, and numbers 22:22 and 22:32 include mention of ha-satan as being an angel of god, don't they? I'm going off of sources and translations so I'm not 100%. My Hebrew is worse than my Arabic. At least I can curse you fluently, that's what counts, right? I just have to laugh sometimes. The three most significant religions in the world all start with the same five books, and look where we are. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

One more story for everyone who's afraid gun owners will be killed by their own guns. Go ahead and google cy waits, parada and see what you get. Somehow, the guy with the gun kept the crazy guy with a knife (A) from hurting anyone and (B) at bay until police arrived to make the arrest. But if unarmed people will take my gun and use it against me, wouldn't a guy with a knife have a bigger advantage? [/sarcasm] witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Have you forgotten the book of Job, aka Iyov? Stealing from wiki since I'm on my phone. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

FALSE You said self defense (defensive gun use) was an "appropriate" use. Since there are 800,000 to three million DGUs every year depending on your chosen study (best study estimating a bit over two million), I've wondered how the crime committed out weigh crimes prevented and all the other "appropriate" uses, whether you like them or not. If you're not discounting them. I'm really wondering what your point is. You say self defense is a good use for guns. Then you say the costs to society outweigh the benefits. Then you say you don't want to deny folks the right to have guns. So what, you see a problem but don't have a solution? As to your jab about me ignoring things tha t don't support my point of veiw, you are sadly mistaken. Unlike you, I make it a point to review and consider sources supporting both side. I don't take anything that purports to support my views at face value. You know, like the "so many children die to guns every day" study that counted twenty year olds and felons killed by victims and law enforcement. Or the Kellerman study that claimed a person is 43 times more likely to be killed by his own gun than use it in self defense. Or the Bellesiles book that claimed gun ownership was rare and the NRA was a fraud. You know the one that cost Jim his Bancroft prize and his job at Emory U. Or the press release about how guns are bad because you'll kill your friends or they'll kill you when the FBI study listed "acquaintances" which includes delivery guys, anybody you talk to, and if you're a gang banger it includes enemy gang bangers. Getting back to costs, yes I acknowledge that guns can be misused. In a society with problems like ours, and violence as common as it is, it's just about inevitable (even islands that outlaw all gun ownership have gun crime). But I've come to the conclusion that they do not do more harm than good, so I support gun rights. The fact that it's a constitutional right encourages me as well. Lastly, since there is no way gun control would stop criminals from getting and using them, I see no point in banning them for everyone. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Meanwhile you "acknowldge" that benefits exist and then completely discount them. What's the difference. There are costs to society from car ownership, computers, alcohol, and all kinds of things. What's your point? And if you really want to play word games, riddle me this: If a recognized benefit is as significant as a recognized cost, and the recognized benefit occurs far more often than the cost, how does a person conclude the total cost is higher than the total benefit? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

As long as you are sharp enough to realize it is satire and assorted humor, yeah it rocks. Some folks are about as sharp as a fish bowl full of ball bearings. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

$$$ Unleaded ammo does exist. There is iron, tungsten, 100% copper, steel, and others. They're out there and very expensive relative to traditional ammo. I'm sure the price would eventually come down if everyone had to use them (after the initial monstrous spike) but it would never be as low as lead for a number of reasons. None of these metals are truly nontoxic, just less toxic. However, seeing as lead from ammo over the last hundred and fifty years hasn't had any significant negative impact, this whole issue is silly and would be funny if it wasn't going to cost a lot of money and force a lot of folks to shoot less. Also, the only unleaded ammo I've been satisfied with was frangible rounds used in small distance shooting, but even those have drawbacks, specifically loading and jamming issues when part of the bullet shears off while contacting the feed ramp. (not that I want to give them ideas but) If the eco-freaks really wanted to address health and toxicity issues, they would be more concerned with the heavy metals and other nasties in the primer. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Come on Bill, you're smarter than that. John said it keeps them healthy, not that hunting keeps them around. Besides, you'll be the first one to agree things are different now than they were millions of years ago. Regardless, you know that animal populations are always changing, not in some mythical perfect natural harmony. Too many prey animals lead to increased predator numbers and lack of food, and possibly lead to disease. All that makes the herd shrink. Etc etc. Hunters working with a plan put together by wildlife agencies can limit the peak and valley effect and their money, from taxes and contributions, pays to protect wild land and run conservation programs. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

If he says he's not a looney, is that good enough for you? Since the answer is probably no, that's where the problem lies with your stance. My answer is "trust but verify" (R. Reagan). So we come back to you wanting to limit specifically enumerated constitutional rights without a reason why other than what somebody might do someday. Should we have literacy tests for voting. Should all vehicles have interlocks? Should the press be required to submit material for approval before publishing? Should citizens have to take your "felons or loonies" test to buy knives? Matches? Ballpoint pens? Does "loonies" include anyone who's every been committed? Voluntarily entered a mental health facility? Been prescribed Xanax or other antidepressants? Tell you what, once you can define "loonie" I'll take your answer seriously. Until you tell us what your rule means, it doesn't really mean anything. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

It helps if you know what the legislators mean when they call it an assault weapon. They don't use the military (or common sense) definition. I have found that nearly everyone, once they know what the law/bill is actually about, thinks it is nonsense and wonders why the gun banners give a shit. A fairly thorough listing of facts surrounding the AWB are in this thread. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

There are several issues to consider here. First, where is the car when the GPS is attached. Generally a driveway is considered part of the curtilage (area of property around home most protected by 4th amendment). Most courts would have a problem with attaching a GPS to a car in a driveway. Second, how is the gps attached. If it is inside a car or the vehicle had to be manipulated, that's generally a no no. Using a magnet to stick it to exposed metal is generally accepted. Finally, the biggest issue is whether it's ok to monitor a vehicle's movement by technology. On public roads this is not usually an issue as there is no expectation of privacy in a public place. If an LEO can follow in person, most courts don't have issue with using a GPS to monitor location. The tricky thing here is that GPS is always on and that it follows onto protected areas where LEOs can't. OK, shouldn't. Based on this issue having different rulings in federal appellate courts and that it is clearly covered by the fourth amendment, I agree that tuis one is destined for the SCOTUS docket. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/08/24/financial/f195918D58.DTL&tsp=1 Ok, so the suit is pretty ridiculous on its face, but what really kills me is the line about how the judge "says the women may not have knowingly waived their right to sue.". Wow, lad signed contracts still aren't worth shit in Michigan. As to the merits of the suit, I would think it's ridiculous, no different than choosing a model or other showpiece. Of course, then I remember the lawsuit filed by guys claiming discrimination because they couldn't be Hooters girls. I hbe no hope left for the civil court here. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

First off, the reply button works just as well as the quote button. If you insist on using the quote button, feel free to delete the parts of prior posts that don't really need to be repeated in your post. It's just good manners. More importantly: I don't live in the Midwest. I don't generally go to state fairs unless I'm getting paid to be there. If there were a mob of thugs talking about beating whitey, I'd make myself scarse and notify local law enforcement. Some of the mob is in jail. Were I surrounded or unable to leave, well, depending on their level of aggression, if verbal judo failed, I wouldn't waste time on real judo, and some of them would end up in the hospital or morgue. Based on all that, I really doubt that same group will follow me or taunt me or do anything else to me. Just a guess. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Congratulations. Good to know you're letting websites do your thinking for you nowadays. So they are racists. Whoop-Dee-fuckin-Do. Does that change the level of hypocrisy or how fucked up the whole thing is? Do you run around calling CAIR a bunch of racists? NAACP? The ADL? Etc etc. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Congratulations. I found it on drudge report. If I find your latest story on communists-R-us or wehateAmerica.com does that mean you're a communist or you hate america? There are lots of blogs and story collecting sites out there. Try not to confuse your need to paint everything you don't like as fascist or racist with my story pointing out hypocrisy and the fact that "hate crime" works both ways. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

[URL]http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20100824/NEWS01/8240366/Police-say-it-s-very-possible-attacks-near-fairgrounds-had-racial-overtones[/URL] Anyone care to place your bets on whether the honorable representative would be withholding judgment if a pack of mostly white thugs went around calling in "stomp a spade night" or "beat the n!ggers night" and there were several victims of African descent? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

So now the number for three cities covering only three years is enough for you to decide that concealed carry has no effect on murder rates? Wow, you used to support statistically significant analysis covering a large number of locations and a large number years. I guess you gave up o that when someone did that and you didn't like he numbers they came up with. So, direct question: do support concealed carry rights across the US? If not, why not? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Ok, let's use the mall. So there was a major ongoing problem at the mall, and the police were sent in to do high visibility patrols and crime suppression. Then the mall hired off duty officers to handle patrol along with mall security guards. Would you say that police weren't patroling the mall anymore? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

You really can't talk about guns without constantly reframing the debate, can you? First it's guns won't protect you. Then it's you'll be killed with your own gun. Now it's see how high USA's crime rate is. Come on professor. Can you answer a person's reasonable response before moving to your next Brady talking point. I swear you must follow their press releases point for point sometimes. You still haven't addressed the fact that for the number of firearms in this coutry, the number of accidental firearm deaths are so low as to be statistically insignificant. (or deaths per rounds fired, or deaths per ccw, or any other measure you can think of) You still haven't addressed the number of crime stopped or prevented each year by a "defensive gun use." And we've been over international rates, how they ignore culture and history, and how there and places with more and less guns, and each category has countries with more and less crime. But if, as you say, the US is that much more violent than other places, why would you deny citizens an effective tool for self defense? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

That's what I just don't get about Lucky. He seems to despise everyone with power and wealth, but he expects someone with wealth and power to fix things and make everybody share and play nice. He doesn't trust people, but he thinks if you give enough power to a few, everything will be fine. Lucky, have you realized you are a socialist yet? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Wow. You go from saying how rare it is that a person needs a firearm for self defense to how often a person is killed with their own firearm. Professor, that's ridiculous for two reasons. First, you're simply contradicting yourself. What's more, law enforcement officers are required to respond to threatening situations. They also wear their firearm exposed. Concealed carrying citizens do neither. Even if you include law enforcement, it is incredibly rare for a person to die by their own weapon. If you compare time drawn in defense to death by own, it's rare. If you compare times fired to death by own, it's rare. Whether you include LEOs or exclude them it's rare. Care to explain how the victim on the above example could have been hurt more by having a handgun? What, he be extra dead. And don't forget to take into account how many people are NOT victimized becase they or someone near them had a handgun. Kinda makes your reasons completely insignificant. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

You'll get no disagreement from me. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

They weren't required to go. It was attend during normal working hours, or do your normal work. The military is extremely sensitive to its service members' religious preferences. However it does require them to put service first. Things like requiring kosher plates that have never touched pork, doing no work on Sunday, or praying five times a day at certain hours won't fly. Remember Paul, this is military service, not civilian life. Things work differently. And like the man said, one whiny snotnose wet behind the ears trainee with a problem does not equal servicewide indoctrination and denial of rights. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*