peacefuljeffrey

Pro: All those legendary lesbian exploits in the sorority house Con: Difficulty getting your boyfriend to STOP pressing you to involve him in them, once he finds out about it -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Exactly. There is no question that this "exercise" is being co-opted by anti-home-schoolers. Otherwise, why name the fictitious group anything at all?! Why not "Terrorist Group A"? I'm surprised they didn't do something like "Gun-control Opponent Whackos" instead. Maybe if they were doing the exercise in Littleton, CO... -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

It's quite funny that you sarcastically mention this, since this thread originated with a story about a guy whose ENTIRE FAMILY [B]IS[/B] MADE UP OF MURDERERS!! Ya missed that part, didja slug? But you did come up with a very effective way of dealing with the problem. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

BLASPHEMERS!! So I guess that during Ramadan, it might be hard to get late-night customer service on the bank's 800 number... -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

How dumb. Man, the liberals' last gasps are realllly gut-wrenching to witness. To have to stoop to this kind of pathetic "humor" is really indicative of abject desperation. There is nothing more that you can do, is there? It's like you're all gathered in a big pity party trying to console yourselves using sick, unfunny, vindictive "jokes," and all pretending to each other that it makes you feel alright. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

if he did that he'd have alot of empty posts... Dude, if you stopped commenting on what I have to say, you'd barely have any posts here at all! I'm still waiting for YOU to ever say anything substantive. By contrast, you seem very concerned all the time with the stuff I say. And you never adequately rebut any of it, either. You just talk amongst yourselves with other people who think I'm wrong. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

So when someone holds a nonsensical belief that is naive, unrealistic, and does not even pass the most basic logical "smell test," we still have to honor that "belief" as though it is just as legitimate as anything that does make rational sense? I don't think so. Some opinions and "beliefs" just are laughable on their face, and the belief that the public is made safer by a ban that is childishly simple to circumvent and doesn't even, in fact, "ban" anything is certainly in that category. You're right. They're not secret about it at all: "The need for a ban on handguns cannot be overstated. Unlike rifles and shotguns, handguns are easily concealable. Consequently, they are the weapons of choice in most murders, accounting for the deaths of 25,000 Americans in 1991. " -Major Owens, Rep. NY, Introduction of the Public Health and Safety Act of 1993, Extension of Remarks - September 23, 1993 (and I thought that "assault weapons" were the "weapon of choice" in murders!) "Mr. President, what is going on in this country? Does going to school mean exposure to handguns and to death? As you know, my position is we should ban all handguns, get rid of them, no manufacture, no sale, no importation, no transportation, no possession of a handgun . There are 66 million handguns in the United States of America today, with 2 million being added every year. -Senator John H. Chafee, Rhode Island, June 11, 1992 (He must not have put together the fact that if 66,000,000 guns are around, and 2,000,000 more are added each year with no appreciable increase in gun violence -- indeed, with continuing DECREASES -- that maybe guns are not the problem he makes them out to seem like.) "Mr. speaker, we must take swift and strong action if we are to rescue the next generation from the rising of tide armed violence. That is why today I am introducing the Handgun Control Act of 1992. This legislation would outlaw the possession, importation, transfer or manufacture of a handgun ..." -Rep. Stephen J. Solarz, New York, August 12, 1992 "The only way to discourage the gun culture is to remove the guns from the hands and shoulders of people who are not in the law enforcement business." -New York Times, September 24, 1975 "There is no reason for anyone in this country, for anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use, a handgun. The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns. And the only way to do that is to change the Constitution." -Michael Gartner, former NBC News President, USA Today, January 16, 1992 (WOW! An admission that the Second Amendment DOES mean you can't ban guns!) "The goal is an ultimate ban on all guns, but we also have to take step at a time and go for limited access first." - Joyner Sims, Florida State Health Dept., Deputy Commissioner, Chicago Tribune, November 7, 1993 (Wow, that one's pretty brazen, Kev.) "As you probably know by now, Time's editors, in the April 13 issue, took a strong position in support of an outright ban on handguns for private use." -Time Magazine, Letter to NRA, April 24, 1981 "My own view on gun control is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns, would be banned." -Deborah Prothrow-Stith, Dean of the Harvard School of Public Health "Banning guns is an idea whose time has come." -U.S. Sen. Joseph Biden Associated Press 11/18/93 ""If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right ban, picking up every one of them... "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,"I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." -U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," 2/5/95 ""The American people must be willing to give up a degree of personal privacy in exchange for safety and security." -Louis Freeh Director of the FBI, 1993 (Weren't we warned EXPLICITLY and SPECIFICALLY against exactly this attitude?!) And it is unfair to belittle the stupidity and irrationality of this "belief" simply because it is a "belief" and they "mean well"? There ARE countries where gun ownership is OUTRIGHT banned, and they still have guns -- owned by all the wrong people. And they still have murder by other means, too, notably hacking-to-death-by-machete. So then what of the argument that every gun owned by a private citizen is one that may some day enter the illegal market by being stolen? That IS an argument against gun ownership that gun-banners use. And do you mean that if we made a ban on further gun sales, they'd leave all currently owned guns alone? Unless you are willing to assert that all the quotes I just gathered and presented are false, or that all the quoted people were misrepresenting their true feelings on guns and gun control, I don't see how you can argue that prominent anti-gun people are not indeed out to (not-so-secretly) BAN GUNS OUTRIGHT. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Tax cuts have never been a big political priority for me, so I don't care if we have to tax in order to build enough prisons. The fact that prisons cost money is NOT an excuse to not have enough prison space to keep criminals locked up! And LONG have I supported legalizing drugs, and taxing them like anything else. The prison/court savings PLUS the tax revenues would be stupendous. You're using the word in its own definition. Parole boards are required to release a number of parolees? What makes them parolees in the first place? Did you mean to say "prisoners"? If drug sentence minimums mean the prisons are legally obligated to keep the drug offenders in prison, (you didn't respond to this facet of my post) WHY DON'T LIBERALS MAKE SIMILAR LAWS TO REQUIRE [I]VIOLENT[/I] CRIMINALS BE KEPT IN JAIL TOO?!?! If both DRUG and VIOLENT criminals had mandatory sentences, and it came down to a "split the baby" decision of which to keep in prison, don't you think that THEN the drug guys would get let out early to keep room for the violent guys?! Why have your liberals not come back with this solution? Mandatory minimums for violent crime, JUST like the drug minimums! Drop the rhetoric. No one sits down and says "I think I want violent ciminals on the streets to prey on people." Then why aren't they working to solve an obvious problem that the country they serve is plagued with? That's draconian. Judges should be responsible for evaluating the merits of a case and imposing sentence, not legislators. It would be hypocritical to push for something that they are opposed to. Mandatory minimums in all sentencing should be elliminated so that we can actually evaluate criminals individually. Then why don't we read about liberals' efforts to repeal the stupid, problematic mandatory drug sentence minimums? If the solution to the problem is not to make mandatory minimums for violent offenders, then it must be to make room in prisons by preventing them from getting filled with sentenced under mandatory drug minimums. There is quite a large liberal base in favor of reforming drug laws. Unfortunately more people share your attitude so they haven't successfully passed much legislation in that regard. But it is being pushed. If more people in the country want this ("share my attitude," even though you well know it is NOT "my attitude" -- I OPPOSE mandatory drug minimums and have said so) then isn't that democracy at work -- the people getting what they want, from their elected officials?? "It is being pushed," huh? Is that why it makes big news the way the expiration of a bullshit "assault weapons ban" does? Liberals can't manage to get ANY news coverage of this big push for drug law reform? The only thing I ever hear about the issue is when some joker from NORML gets arrested... That's just a complete non-sequitor and more rhetoric. You try and make is sound like people want violent crime to happen so that they can pass laws. If you believe that you're cynical beyond belief. That is EXACTLY how it looks when right after Columbine, lib/dems trot out their gun control agenda, as if twelve different gun laws were not already broken by Harris & Klebold and their associates. Cynical, maybe, but for sure it does seem that leftists love an excuse to push gun control -- the more compellingly tragic, the better. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

You are certainly right -- but all you've done is state a tautology. If everyone decided to be on their best behavior, needless deaths would decline. If criminals decided to not commit criminal acts, there would be fewer victims. But getting rid of ONLY GUNS -- I can think of no other such crusade, not against knives, bats, swimming pools, or anything else that causes "needless deaths" -- will not address the many many things that cause MORE needless deaths than guns do! I think it would take society as a whole deciding to be more gentle to each other to get needless KILLINGS to decline. The only trouble is, historically, BAD PEOPLE are ALWAYS the LAST people willing to give their weapons up!! So good, non-violent, non-criminal people like you do not do society any good by giving up (or not owning) guns because you owning guns do not present a threat to those around you. It's like when Sharon Stone went and surrendered a bunch of guns to the police department. Sharon, were you planning on killing anyone with those guns, and now you won't be able to? No? Then who have you saved? Do you remember the recent killings in Florida, where a gun got three of his friends to storm a house where six people were bludgeoned with aluminum bats AND stabbed? A sextuple murder -- committed with nary a gun. And they had a dog, which was also killed by the murderers. Some of the people were killed in their beds as they slept. Guns would not have saved them if they were asleep, obviously, but the dog didn't save them. Oh, and the killers didn't need guns to murder six people. See, I don't take issue with you deciding to not own a gun, although to me, the decision is similar to any other decision to not avail oneself of protection that one could easily obtain. What I take issue with is the implications that good people owning guns creates a problem for society, or that good people owning guns are not able to use them effectively for protection. Somehow, some people believe that guns are great for criminals and make committing crimes a breeze, but those same guns cannot be effectively used for self-protection. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Do you think it's conservatives or liberals who perpetuate this insane parole system? -Jeffrey Both. Some extreme liberals push for rehabilitation of people that can't be rehabilitated. Some extreme conservatives push for incarceration of perpetrators of victimless crimes who could be easily rehabilitated outside of a prison causing overpopulation and necessitating excessive paroles. You're using conservatives pushing for incarceration as a means of demonstrating how they're responsible for PAROLING criminals? Sorry, if drug sentences mean that there's not room in the prisons for all, you build more prisons -- you don't do what the idiot liberals do and LET THE VIOLENT CRIMINALS OUT, claiming they've been "rehabilitated." This is NOT a function of there not being enough room in prisons. If that were the case, they would simply pick violent criminals and let them out. But that is not the case, because paroles come up for review and are given a YES or a NO. If the overpopulation were forcing them out of prison, there would be no chance for a NO, now would there. If the liberals did not believe in letting violent criminals out of prison to prey on the civilian population (oh, and cops, let's not forget that they kill cops, too), they would PROPOSE AND PUSH LEGISLATION FOR THE SAME MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCES FOR [I]VIOLENT[/I] FELONS AS THE CONSERVATIVES DID FOR [I]DRUG[/I] FELONS. And then, if it came down to it, they would have mandatory sentence butting up against mandatory sentence, and there would be only two things to do: either let the drug criminals out first, or build enough prison space to house everybody. I don't see liberals rushing to pass mandatory sentence laws for violent crimes, nor to repeal drug sentence laws, so I don't believe they are bothered at all by violent criminals being forced out of prison. It gives them more ammunition to push for gun control, anyway... -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

How exactly do you comply with a proposed law? Is he supposed to create his own paperwork and hire his own ATF agents so that he can comply with hypothetical laws? Please re-read that and tell me it doesn't sound ridiculous. Call the ATF and tell them that you want to register a gun that's not one that you are required to register and let me know how that works out. Um, Kev... Kerry wants "assault weapons" BANNED, not "registered." Could you try to stay with us, please? -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

How exactly do you comply with a proposed law? Is he supposed to create his own paperwork and hire his own ATF agents so that he can comply with hypothetical laws? Please re-read that and tell me it doesn't sound ridiculous. Call the ATF and tell them that you want to register a gun that's not one that you are required to register and let me know how that works out. Kev, you cannot be this ignorant -- I am sure that you are playing devil's advocate, because theres' no way that you could be able to use a computer and not understand that we mean, "Before you go advocating that everyone else should rid themselves of these evil 'assault weapons,' rid yourself of your own first, to demonstrate your conviction." What are you failing to grasp about that? -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

And I would fully expect him to comply with any laws. There currently aren't any that require what you are asking. He's advocating that some get passed, I don't agree with that. But if they were passed, I don't doubt that he would comply with them. If someone was proposing alcohol prohibition but continued drinking regularly right up until his own legislation was passed and then he stopped, I'd think he was a hypocritical asshole. Why, if you believe people shouldn't be legally allowed to drink alcohol, would you yourself not stop drinking until drinking became illegal? Either you believe in the spirit of the law or you do not. If the law is good enough to pass, the idea behind it should have to be good enough that you believe in adhering to it law- or no-law. Kerry is not that big of a man, apparently. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Nope. Here's a couple of pages of them http://www.bmezine.com/pierce/11-surface/uvula1.html I was gonna say... I thought it was fake. DAMN! How the hell does one get that thing pierced?! That's pretty incredible! Does anyone remember an old Saturday Night Live skit with Chevy Chase as a doctor on a house call? Gilda and Laraine were at a house and Laraine was feeling down. Gilda asked her, "Babs, did you ever think that it could be your uvula?" So they called Chevy, and he came and fixed her up. At the end, they said the public service slogan: "It'll behoove ya, to care for your uvula!" Blue skies, -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I'll guess right around 2000. Blue skies, -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

When I get home tonight, I have homework to do: I have pics of my face to post, and I do have pics of my feet. I think you'll like 'em! Should be up by 3 a.m. Thursday.

Imagine my delight to find mention of me in the very first sentence of your thread! You're sweet to think of me, VanillaSkyGirl! So where's the picture of your cute tootsies? Blue skies, -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I wonder, do they have a month-long Ramadan bank holiday? Sign in window: "Closed for Ramadan See you next month" -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Nah -- club 'em to death with baby seals Wendy W. And then feed the Homeless to the Hungry. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Hmm, besides self defense ever hear of target shooting, skeet shooting, hunting of various varieties, or pellet gunning the freaking cat that keeps trespassing in my yard and killing stuff? Anything can kill. I can do just as much damage with a sledge hammer as a gun (and have the torn down walls in my house to prove it). They are tools, nothing more. Tools that can kill, but tools that can benefit as well. Just like any other tool, not everyone needs one, that is a choice. A choice that I have chosen to have multiple firearms for multiple purposes in my house. None of them are loaded. And generally are not kept loaded in my house. But there is a gun with a full clip next to it very accessable. Safety is important. My kids will know gun use and safety as soon as they are strong enough to hold my .22 Jen Nice job. But I think that Angela is still under the myth perpetrated by Dr. Arthur Kellerman, of the Centers for Disease Control, who lied through his teeth to produce a "study" that said a gun in the home is 43 er 27 er 13 er 9 times more likely to kill a family member than to be used to kill an attacker. The "study" has been utterly debunked, but we all know that a lie can go halfway around the world while the truth is still putting its shoes on. MANY people believe this -- even to the point of refusing to own a gun because they think there is nothing they personally can do that makes a difference in how likely a loved one is to die from his or her gun. Kellerman arrived at his (ever-changing) numbers by discounting any defensive gun use in which the attacker is not KILLED (i.e. he didn't count it if you shot and wounded an attacker, or even just scared him off by presenting a gun). He counted as "loved ones" any acquaintance whatsoever, even if it was two drug dealers who knew each other on adjacent corners. Angela has some reading to do. Search Google for "arthur kellerman gun" Here is a good place to start: Kellerman's Lies Exposed -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

says "peaceful" Jeffrey. hey, wouldn't you want to see detailed proof of these accusations before making a statement like that?? Before making a statement like that? No. Before actually conducting the beheading, probably. I'm not into executing innocents. And it took you a lonnnnng time after people began doing it to start in on the sarcasm about my screen name. "Speed" racer? Why so slow? Maybe you need a new screen name? LOWspeedracer? I mean really, people, it begins to seem like I'm the only person who must be held to being true to his "name" at all times. Ridiculous. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

ASPECTS of McCain-Feingold -- absolutely are violations of the First Amendment. Telling people that they may fund ads, and may run ads, but then saying that there is a deadline after which they may not run those ads, is clearly an infringement on freedom of speech. Telling people what the ads may or not mention, is clearly a an infringement as well. I can't for my life understand how you can legitimately fail to grasp this. You must be trying really hard not to. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Touche. That was good. But seriously, he's on the list because he gave to Muslim charities, some of which have (allegedly) been linked to suicide bombings. I think the no-fly list should be for those who present a security risk. Giving your money away is the same as expressing your first amendment right of freedom of association (and speech); no really a security risk. I'm pretty conservative, but I will agree that Ashcroft is a little over the line. Giving your money away to someone or an organization that you reasonably believe will use it to fund criminal enterprise (including murder and terrorism) is conspiracy, and is punishable. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Life in prison without parole does not eliminate the possibility of a convict ESCAPING -- and this DOES happen. To argue that there is zero chance of it is to lie through one's teeth. Execution is the only way to be assured a murderer will never kill again. There should be no such thing as a life sentence with anything other than "absolutely no parole or release, ever, until death." I think that the killers should also never have their bodies released. The prison system should cremate them and dispose of the ashes in the trash. Yet another deterrent to being a murderer: your family does not even get to have your remains for a "proper" burial. Too motherfuckin' bad. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Do you think it's conservatives or liberals who perpetuate this insane parole system? -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"