peacefuljeffrey

All girls, and maybe a gay guy or two. If any straight guys were involved, their input was probably shrugged off with bitchy knowing glances exchanged between the girls. And yeah, what Lawrocket said -- these lawyer-type people overthink the shit out of everything, and fuck it all up for the rest of us. Blue skies, -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

So you took your rig along with you when you cleared out of the storm's way? GOOOOOD! Have fun skydiving! Leave it all behind on the ground!

This story woulda been more fun if the guy had laid in his back seat under a blanket with an H&K USP and surprised the thieves with a dozen-plus-one rounds of .40 cal! -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

OMG I'm sorry! I thought you meant that you had started it and gotten out and walked around, etc. They nabbed it the second time with no key?! Damn! I think you need to do a John Clark, dress as a bum for a while and do recon on the neighborhood, then take out these scumbags with bang sticks in the alleys. (See "Without Remorse" by John Clancy) Blue skies, -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Ooops, I always forget, is it 5, 4, 5, or 5, 7, 5? -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

The storms are over skydiving fun begins again soon -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I could be our version of James Carville -- all full of piss and vinegar, ready to viciously attack anyone who criticizes our company, even if the criticisms are true. I also make closing pin necklaces.

You do know that chocolate is really a replacement for sex, don't you? So, what do you do, sand down a solid chocolate Easter bunny or something? -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Is "assault weapons ban" a term with anything behind it? Because it sure as hell did not ban anything, and they sure as hell weren't "assault weapons." Is this just a term that Democrats use to appeal to leftist pacifist statists? -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

If you vote for Bush, you get "forces spread thin." If you vote for Kerry, you get "forces cut, bases closed, military weakened until it is politically correct and neutered in power." I report. You decide. Blue skies, -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

True. Maybe what the world needs is for no one to be willing to be a soldier, told what to do even though it may mean his death. Oh, and love, sweet love. (The world needs that now -- there's just too little of it.) -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I'm talking about a dire decision in wartime to send a group out KNOWING that there is 99% probability they will die, but doing so in the hope that their deaths will buy time or distraction so that a larger, more important (tactically, anyway) group may escape or whatever. I'm talking about maybe even sending them out with damaged rifles with empty magazines, because the serviceable weapons are desperately needed by the group that is to survive. These kinds of decisions have to have been made historically in warfare. I wonder if you think that the survivors of the sacrificed troops would be justified in being angry, or if you would recognize that in war, all bets are off about who survives -- it's WAR -- and no one who enlists really has a "right" to expect to come home safely. Wars are fought by people willing to sacrifice their lives to keep those who don't fight safe and free. (Or, if you're an Iraqi insurgent killing American liberators, safe and not free.) -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Please answer this question. I understand your point and agree that there is no legal requirement that we treat others as innocent until proven guilty. In some cases, I think it would be reasonable to take certain precautions (e.g. the babysitting thing that keeps coming up despite its total lack of relevance to this discussion). Anyhow, I can see your point. I think if you consider the question above, you'll also be able to see mine. Blues, Dave I can't answer this question without an addendum. YES, I probably would be bothered -- but then again, only I and my accuser would know if I had truly molested a child. If I knew that I had NOT, I'd be frustrated at being treated as guilty. My addendum is this: If I HAD molested a child, what fuckin' business would I have being upset with people treating me as guilty?! Some people here seem to feel that even a person who is guilty and knows he is guilty should be entitled to having those around him treat him as though he is innocent right up until his conviction! I say bollocks. Now, I'm not expecting that guilty people who are free on bail to go skydive are going to tell those around them who are giving them the "innocent until proven guilty" benefit of the doubt to stop doing so because, "Hey, I really am guilty." No guilty person's going to cop to his guilt just to stop his friends from making the mistake of unjustifiably treating them as though they are actually innocent. Do you support a guilty person becoming indignant at not being treated with the benefit of the doubt by his friends prior to his trial? Remember, I'm talking about a guy who knows to himself he really did the crime. I think that such a person should just STFU if people are shunning him -- if he did the crime, he deserves the shunning! (Of course,depending on what the crime was... If it was some heinous violent thing, then yeah, shun away.) Blue skies, -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

So, would the distraught, irate mom of a soldier whose life was "spent" serving as a decoy so that some other squad could accomplish an objective be reasonable or unreasonable to go and blame anyone up the chain of command (all the way to the President, who didn't necessarily give that specific order in the first place)? Blue skies -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Haven't there been times in war, in this country and others, when certain troops were used as a diversion, or decoy, not to be fully supported with backup, while other troops were sent on to accomplish a true objective? I have to believe that sometimes troops are used as cannon fodder just to draw the enemy's attention in another direction while "more important" troops go on to accomplish a real, important mission. What of those "sacrifice" troops? Will anyone tell me this is never done, or never has been done? -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

ROTFLMTO! Thats had me sniggering all afternoon. How dare you use a racist epithet here?! -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Wow, your dictionary must be broken. Mine ALSO contains: "anyone authorized to carry out or assist in the spiritual functions of a church; an ordained member of a Protestant church, esp. a pastor. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Congratulations, nice strawman you set up and beat the shit out of there. Big tough guy. Makes a specious argument on my behalf, even though I never made it myself, and blows it up. You have made the false assumption that anything I said endorses the idea of "Everyone, crack heads, angry teens, drunks, people going through divorce, soccer hooligans, all of them all armed and carrying in public." I have NEVER endorsed the idea of the people who are currently prohibited from carrying guns being allowed to do so. By those, I mean the mentally ill, substance abusers, felons, fugitives... YOU set up the bullshit strawman that "it would be a good idea to let these people all have guns and walk the streets with them." You're damn rigth I am talking about law-abiding, honest citizens. You going ahead and pretending you don't know that does not change anything. And I am not talking necessarily about everyday carry of long arms. Even a Glock 22 is considered an "assault weapon" if it has a 15 round magazine that was made after the "ban." Blue skies, -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Not with "minister." What, you have churchmen guarding your places of government? -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I was referring specifically to the idea that is argued by leftists, i.e. "The police are hired to do the job to protect us, and therefore the common citizen should not attempt to do so for himself." They opine that we should do nothing, or virtually nothing, to effect our own protection, simply because we have a police force -- even though, as is plainly obvious every single day, that the police are not able to protect every citizen on a personal basis, and that the protection they offer is only in the abstract sense. Case law has settled that the police cannot be held responsible for failure to protect any given citizen from criminal predation. But leftists of the type I cited still seek to deny us the right to keep and bear arms in part on the basis that we shouldn't need them because we have the police. It's a fallacy, and I won't subscribe to it. Am I clearer to you now? Blue skies, -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Ahh, I see, unable to discern anything in the middle ground between extremes, huh Nac? Can't fathom the idea of a populace who are secure in their homes because they can keep modern, functional firearms there with which to defend themselves? It's inconceivable, I know. And I couldn't possibly have meant that police forces are not adequate to protect all of the people all of the time, and that the citizens deserve the right to the means to do so for themselves. Blue skies, -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Shouldn't matter. This doctrine of "presumed innocent until proven guilty" that you are leaning heavily upon does NOT specify "unless the crime was done to you or someone you know personally whose word you trust." You're fabricating an exception to cover my example, and it reeks of desperation. Implied innocence until the evidence is heard and weighed is fundamental to due process. That says NOTHING about "presuming" a person "innocent" until proven guilty, now does it?! You can be given a fair trial, receive due process, and not be penalized until convinction even if not "presumed innocent." Please prove to me that this "innocent until proven guilty" thing is not a modern day fabrication, along the lines of "separation of church and state" or "you can have guns if you're in the National Guard," both of which are bullshit recent contrivances made specifically to distort things in a given group's favor, politically, even though they have no historical basis in fact. I have found myself agreeing with this. I see some cases where they have a guy in an orange jumpsuit and chains and his head is shaved. "Looks guilty." They shouldn't be able to do that. It taints the court proceedings in favor of conviction. Blue skies, -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

When you live to kiss arse, why would the people whose arses you moisten get mad enough to blow you up? The British empire stopped being a world power long ago. No one cares enough to blow up Parliament. YET. Look at these psychotic islamic terrorists -- they even take swipes at the FRENCH. NO ONE is not "fair game" to them. Just wait yer turn. They'll "tetch" you too, when the mood hits them. Blue skies, -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

So? Bill Clinton was CONVICTED of being a liar, and he's still the left's darling, and leftist women still cream their panties over him despite him being an unrepentant womanizing scumbag. The word "convicted" matters to some people, too. Blue skies, -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

C'mon, bill, help me out here. You're still on, late at night now, go read my post and answer my question. Where do people get this idea that we "have to" treat accused people as "innocent until proven guilty"? Does it come from a founding document? A famous federal law? Or is it just some more of that "common sense/conventional wisdom" that tells people it's illegal to drive barefoot? (Which, of course, is untrue.) Or did people embellish something they read in the Constitution, like the way they took the First Amendment and read into it "separation of church and state"? Blue skies, -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"