peacefuljeffrey

Hey, I've been wondering for a while now... Do tigers even live in caves? Blue skies, -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Yet another fine example of how draconian gun control laws do nothing to effect crime, other than promote their rates. If I am not mistaken, gun deaths in this city have gone down while the ban was in effect. And if I am not mistaken, I've pointed out that I very much alive and have never needed to use a gun to defend myself. Gun deaths have gone down steadily in this country since even before the '94 ban went into effect! So it's quite possible that they went down in Chicago as part of the overall decline. It's also very likely that they did not go down nearly as much as in those places where concealed firearm carry is permitted, since it has been shown in repeated studies that concealed carry has helped control crime. Your city's gun bans may well have precluded the drop in gun crime from being more significant. Blue skies, -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

And if your example was going to be at all consistent, you would draw the parallel or "removing skydiving" (either by prohibiting it or just not engaging in it) in order to reign in the danger it poses. You are not comparing apples to apples, if you say that to get rid of guns to stop murder is appropriate (despite admitting that someone has to be the criminal and pull the trigger) but NOT to stop skydiving in order to stop skydiving deaths from occurring. Blue skies, -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Chicago is one of the murder capitals of the world -- in spite of having a virtual ban on gun ownership. Curiouser and curiouser. And you use the fact that you have never needed a gun for self defense in the "murder capital of the world" as demonstration that you don't need a gun. Apparently some people there might benefit from being able to defend themselves -- or else how did Chicago earn that monicker? You ask who is it you need a gun to defend yourself from. How would I know? I don't know who your uncle needed to defend himself from, either. I don't know the specifics of any of the numerous people you say you know who have been murdered. Were they even all murdered with guns? Who is it that a young, pretty woman (or even an old crone) might need a gun to protect against being raped by? Well, she doesn't know until he comes along to raper her, now does she? I carry a gun for protection. I have never even had to draw the gun, but I know that some day it might be the only thing that keeps me from getting killed by a violent criminal. I could give it up, having observed that I have never needed it yet. But that's about as reasonable as stopping wearing my seat belt, since no seat belt has ever yet had to save my life in a crash. Blue skies, -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Until someone creates and sprinkles some really strong magical fairy dust around the world, that will never happen. But in the period between now and the Sprinkling, it is believed by some that it is best to remain unprepared to defend oneself against the guns and their users upon which the dust has not yet worked its magic. OMG I do believe that between you and me, we have coined a new term for the ridiculous panacea that all anti-gunners hang their hopes on: The Sprinkling -- when yet-to-be-created Magic Anti-Gun Dust will be Sprinkled around the world to rid us of the Evil Guns... I propose that we use this term more and more, explaining it as we go, until it is as common a term of ridicule of anti-gunners as "assault weapon" and "gun-nut" are for gun owners. Blue skies, -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Europe has a history of appeasing dictators and murderers and the U.S. has a history of going to bat for those appeasers when theire asses are against the wall, thanklessly ridding them of the dictators. When a U.S. president does this, he makes the powermongers of European politics look like a bunch of pansy cowards, and so they hate him and criticize him viciously and endlessly in order to deflect attention from their own pathetic failings. At least, that's how it seems to me. Blue skies, -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

It does not surprise me that you don't feel anything could change your opinion, when you freely admit to closing your mind to any information that could cause you to do so. Do you suppose that without going to any credible pro-gun information sources (NRA is chief among them), you'll get a fair and objective view of pros and cons of the ban? If you believe that the ban is good, apparently you agree with Handgun Control Inc.'s rhetoric. Why are you open to listening to theirs, but not the NRA's? Perhaps you're afraid that their line of argument will be that much more rational and compelling than HCI's? It gets a little scary to have new information challenge and change your worldview, but believe me, it's better than continuing on in ignorance. And I can't find any other word for it when you freely admit to screening out the other side's viewpoints as you do. Blue skies, -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Technically, they are rights given to us by God (or by virtue of being human, if you don't believe in God, as I don't) -- and acknowledged by our forefathers. Just as the Constitution does not grant, but rather protects rights that are already ours to begin with, neither was it the purview of the founders to be "giving" us anything, except maybe a legacy of ardently protecting our inalienable rights. Well, I think it's incongruous that you divorce yourself from the discussion just after you plant a seed of debate, and then claim that you don't care much for or about guns, BUT, you are displeased with the sunsetting of a law you don't seem to really understand -- said lack of understanding probably largely due to the fact that you "don't even bother to listen to the NRA rhetoric on why the expiration is a good thing. Apparently, you DO listen to the HCI and VPC rhetoric on why the expirationis a BAD thing, otherwise you'd have said you have NO opinion on the expiration. Why would you feel the expiration is bad unless you believed the continuation of the ban would accomplish some GOOD? If you "listened to the NRA rhetoric" or even just looked at this website full of facts about the "ban" you would understand why the so-called ban was a piece of useless fluff legislation and really should expire, as it has now done. Blue skies, -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Well, the Left will also tell you lies like "tofu can be made to taste great, a wonderful substitute for meat." It's not unlike their other lies, like, "The assault-weapons ban expiration is going to result in a torrent of bloodshed and cop-killings, even though rifles that fired the exact same ammunition the exact same way have been available all during the ban's lifespan." You can always count on the Left trying to convince you of things that are false on their face. Blue skies, -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Also from that article: "State Police Superintendent Col. Rick Fuentes said the bullets fired by assault weapons can penetrate the protective vests worn by police officers. "They make police armor very, very vulnerable," Fuentes said. Oh, yes, so very unlike DEER RIFLES, which can't penetrate that armor. One in five officers killed in the line of duty is killed with an assault weapon, according to FBI statistics. What kills the other 4, and why aren't you moving to ban whatever it is? Law enforcement officials said it would be easy for someone from New Jersey to buy the weapons from out-of-state dealers or by using straw buyers _ those with clean criminal records who buy guns legitimately and then sell them to others. Only six other states ban the sale of assault weapons. You mean, those with clean criminal records who commit federal felonies that could get them 10 years in federal prison on every count? Those straw buyers? Besides, everyone knows how keen corner drug dealers are to tote those eminently concealable M-14s and M-16s on their nightly excursions. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

That's ONLY because the guy was awakened early and hadn't had his morning 32 oz. Big Gulp Martini. -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

OMFG will the leftists' lies never end?! That story you linked to contained this: "Assault weapons are guns capable of firing up to hundreds of rounds per minute and firing them farther than rifles or handguns." WTF are they talking about? How can you make a more bald-faced LIE about the performance and function of so-called "assault weapons"? It should be no surprise that this bullshit propaganda is on an ABC website. Blue skies, -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

It seems that the only gun McGreevy doesn't loathe is the one in your pants! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I wonder if we'll hear from any gun-control supporting liberals here who claim there is logic to the expiration of a less-stringent law's expiration spurring a tightening of the already-more-stringent state laws that preempted it. What the hell kind of mandate or imperative can there be for tightening Jersey's laws when they're already tighter than the federal law ever was?? This is pure and simple evidence of just how intellectually bankrupt the left is in its push for gun control. Any lie, any deliberate misinformation, to justify a policy that fails on every count, every time. That's the Left in America. Blue skies, -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Been there, done that, got the tshirt. It's amazing when you stand on a stage in front of a few thousand people with a mic in your hand. And I've addressed groups in the size of hundreds quite a few times. From radio, to leading protests, to leading orientation at a college, etc....I've done more than my fair share of public speaking (not bad for a guy that has a slight fear of public speaking, huh?) Let me guess? Fire extinguishers don't kill people, people kill people? Go ahead, ignore and ridicule the salient points I made in my post. You'll just be one more person whose nonsense I don't feel the need to respond to. I made legitimate points there, but they were apparently too much for you to deal with seriously so you hid behind sarcasm. Oh well. -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

In strict answer to your question: No. I was not around then. In loose answer to your question: Yes, I'm aware of that time. The only thing is, in that instance, they were used to ENFORCE the Constitution, not to shred it. Blue skies, -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Haven't been availing myself of the recent stories, but I have to say, I thought that DE and NJ already had laws that were more stringent than the federal "assault weapons ban" and that its expiration therefore meant nothing to them. This is just Democrats playing on hysteria that is based upon LIES, in order to ban those hateful evil guns so that, you know, murder can't happen anymore. Blue skies, -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

So, I first heard of these things back at the Skydive SoBe boogie in January. They were being sold at the DZ largely in part because of the name, which certainly resonates with skydivers! Have you tried these things? I got mine at Walmart in the candy aisle. They're chips of chocolate shaped, essentially, like a Pringles potato crisp. And they're awesome! I find it amazing that my enjoyment of chocolate can have so much dependency on the shape of the stuff. Isn't that funny? If I were simply eating blocks of it, it wouldn't be as "fun" or as enjoyable! Go figure.

Sorry to hear about your friend's illness. You know, sometimes it starts to seem like our entire environment is just hostile to our continued existence, period. It reminds me of the Simpsons halloween episode where Bart wakes up from a nightmare about the teachers eating the students, and Marge is there to reassure him that there's nothing to be afraid of, "Except maybe that fog that turns people inside out!" (at which point the fog gets through Homer's "stupid, cheap weatherstripping" and turns the family inside out) Hope your friend recovers. Blue skies, -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I think that the only big secret is why on earth you would have believed that he would not ever find out about your big secret! Dunno if you would be justified if he never told you he knew about something that you never planned to tell him because you thought he didn't know. I think your secrecies cancel each other out. Blue skies, - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Stop using IE and these worries go away. Save it for the relative small number of sites that are not compliant with html standards. Why MS isn't joining everyone else in viewing the users' needs above that of the web sites puzzles me. Who is "everyone else," and what other browsers should we use, then? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I understand wanting to shoot for sport and fun (and I look forward to finally getting a chance to use one on the range), but it cracks me up when people claim lack of personal safety by not being able to own an AK-47. A good friend of mine is a huge pro-gun person, last night he claimed that he will be safer now. I asked him to give me one example in the last ten years when he needed an assualt weapon for his safety or anyone else's. And it would crack me up if they passed a law that said you can't use your First Amendment freedoms to speak to any group larger than 1,000 people. When was the last time you needed to address a group that large? Couldn't you accomplish the same goal by speaking to 10 friends and asking them to speak to ten more, etc.? When was the last time you "needed" to invoke your Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination? Or your protection against unreasonable search and seizure? Who ever said that you don't protect the rights that you don't have a daily need to exercise? And when we can clearly demonstrate that the AK-47 that you don't see the need to protect ownership of doesn't fire any differently from other guns that are not banned, how do you defend the ban? What if your friend were talking about fire extinguishers? What if he had gone 10 years without a fire extinguisher, but never had a fire, and then he went out and bought an extinguisher and a smoke detector, and proclaimed that he and his family were safer now? Would you still laugh at him, and assert that he is not safer now simply because he had never had to use a fire extinguisher in the past 10 years when he didn't have one? No. You'd have to say that he got lucky to not have needed it when he didn't have it, and now he is better protected for the future. Blue skies, -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Funny, I thought that link said the reasons were Unknown. But I guess Kallend has all the answers. Would you like me to post the other 16,399 links? Even the Florida GOP has admitted using faulty lists of felons to disqualify voters in the 2000 election. Oh, so the Republican Party is in charge of elections in Florida, not the Board of Elections? You said that the "GOP" is the entity that disqualified voters. While the elections supervisor may have been a Republican, that is hardly "the GOP" running the election and disqualifying voters. Once again, you embellish to the point of making it seem like you're lying or misinforming. And when faults in the lists were discovered, they were NOT USED, meaning that the droves of disqualified voters as well as those who should not have been disqualified WERE able to vote, and even that didn't turn the tide for Gore (even though we all know that felons tend to vote overwhelmingly for soft-on-crime Democrats). -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Yeah, the ad that Handgun Control, Inc. (I will not call them by their bullshit PC name) is running on that site says, "Doesn't President Bush know that every national police organization is fighting to renew the ban on these cop-killer guns? (emphasis added) Who in this day and age would give society's worst killers -- terrorists, drug dealers, violent gangs -- the means to commit mass murder in a matter of seconds?" What a load of utter shit -- the hallmark of the anti-gun liar. Blue skies, -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I heard a segment on NPR today that was pretty slanted. It was in two parts. The first part contained a lot of sound bites from Kerry. It began by saying that the Assault Weapons Ban expires today, and Kerry blames it on President Bush. Ummm, if this were not a biased report, it would treat the expiration as a neutral occurrence. You don't put BLAME on anyone for neutral or positive occurrences. BLAME is reserved for negative occurrences. CREDIT is for positive ones, and if it's neutral, usually it was "CAUSED" or "BROUGHT ABOUT" by someone. Saying that anyone deserves BLAME for the sunset of the AWB is directly implying that the sunset is an objectively undesirable thing and should have been precluded somehow. Those of us who are honest know that this is not the case. The rest of the first part of the report was much the same. Only in the second part did they bother to interview a gun shop owner who described a Colt Match Target M-4, and tried as best he could to explain that it was just cosmetic differences between it and a pre-ban weapon. They DID NOT give him enough airtime to articulate anything about caliber and rates of fire being identical between pre- and post-ban weapons, so only if you knew that already would it be clear to you after this story. And the whole crux of the so-called "support" for the ban rests squarely on the MISCONCEPTION the public has that the banned guns fire faster or more powerfully than non-banned guns -- a LIE that has been DELIBERATELY PERPETUATED by anti-gun people. Blue skies, -Jeffrey - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"