peacefuljeffrey

If I'm reading you right, no one is ever justified in being dissatisfied with their current condition -- much less complaining a bit about it, because there is always someone who has it worse. That's sophistry. Let's see what happens if this notion holds up. You, Zenister, go with your date into a fine restaurant, dressed to the nines. You each order the Surf and Turf. When it comes out, your steak is cooked so much that the innermost meat is brown, the outside is charred, and you find it inedible. Her lobster is so overcooked that it has shriveled inside to a tough, stringy mass. The tail looks more like what should come out of one of the skinny legs. You telling me you won't complain to your waiter, and have the meals sent back, because you're aware of the fact that there are starving children in Ethiopia who would eat it all and smile and wish for more?? We are not unjustified in feeling dissatisfaction when a standard to which we are used to living suddenly and precipitously drops. We are subject to conditioning, and we are certainly not used to comparing our day-to-day living conditions to those of some faraway culture we never experience or interact with, just for the perspective of it. That's a ridiculous standard to hold people to. Do you wear shoes that are too tight just because some people can't afford shoes? Do you drive a shitbox car just because some people have to hoof it? I have never said that things couldn't be worse. What I am disputing is that we have to have lived at the worst, bottom-most level for our dissatisfaction with current conditions to be justified or defensible. Are you saying that it's just Americans who live an "I-don't-know-how-it-works-but-want-it-fixed-now" lifestyle? French people, Italians, Germans, Brits, Chinese, Japanese -- all these people know how their calculators, cellular phones, automobiles, aircraft, televisions, refrigerators work?? Amazing! If anything, what you point out is true of people around the world -- certainly not just Americans, and even more certainly not just Floridians. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I've been groovin' this whole time on the phrasing of the thread header: "Sunset clause ends next week" I swear, before I entered the thread, I thought it was gonna be about the end of Daylight Saving Time -- and I thought, "Shit, is that over next week, already?!" - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Anybody who does not like HK's rifles... does not like rifles. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Allow me. Are they any more rapid fire than my post-ban Colt Match Target HBAR, which is exactly the same in function as a banned AR-15; or an unbanned Ruger Mini-14? If not, then what use was the ban? Can't the bullets from an unbanned Remington model 700 firing standard hunting ammunition also "easily penetrate a ballistic vest worn by officers"? Can't the bullets from my unbanned Colt Match Target HBAR also do this? Again, if so, what use was the ban? Exactly. California should not care about the extension of the federal ban, since California law already "protects" Californians with more stringent rules than the federal ban set down. In 2002, 100% of my flat tires were caused by nails I had driven over. By 2003, only 50% of my flat tires were caused by nails. A huge improvement. But then, I had only had two flat tires in 2002, both caused by nails, and again only two flats in 2003, one caused by a nail, and one caused by a screw. Can you really in good faith say that the 50% decrease in nail-induced flats is such a success, given that (a) there were very few flats in the first place, and (b) it is very easy to have a huge percentage drop when total numbers are small? Ahh, yes, Bill "We'll Change the Rules and Never Inform You" Lockyer. Hey, Bill, how many of those 1,012 seized weapons were seized for having been used in a crime? How many were simply found in someone's possession? How many belonged to people who had registered them in good faith under your deceptive legal definitions, and then not realized the guns they retained were now illegal? Anyone see anything wrong with "violent parolees" even being parolees in the first place?! Could it be that violent people are a larger part of the problem than "assault weapons"? "Designed to kill people." Gotta love that one. I have something like 7 or 8 guns. None of them ever killed a person. I really must send them in for warranty service -- something's obviously wrong with them. Now, Undersheriff (oooh, that sounds so dirty about this "guns designed to kill people" thing. Do you mean to say that there is no danger from guns that were not "designed" to kill people, even though they CAN be USED to kill people? Take, say, a lever-action Winchester .30-30. Not a "weapon of war" in the current modern sense, right? A "ranch gun." A hunting rifle. Not on the banned list, but it holds a good number of rounds, right? Quite powerful -- more so than a banned AR-15 in .223 cal. Could this not be used by criminals to kill innocents if there were no more "assault weapons"? Would you not be arguing for a ban on these if the killings persisted after all the assault weapons were gone? Excuse me?! "The bill that included the ban extension?!" That bill didn't have the ban extension in it until the last minute when it was amended into the bill to POISON it for its original sponsors! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Question: Is there ANYONE here on the forum who believes in the ban, feels it has done noticeable, logically and factually demonstrable good, and feels like explaining why they feel so? (I understand that you realize you'll be jumped on and called to defend the position, but please, we need to understand the opposition's view on this, and up til now it's just been a preaching to the choir.) Thanks, - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Whoa! D'you feel that? It was like a..a...thread drift or somethin'! Okay, I'll bite: Do you mean as a U.S. soldier, or an Iraqi, or Saddam Hussein at the height of his power, or what? For my part, I can't see a comparison: over here, it is not unreasonable when people pay money for a utility -- part of which is used to assure prompt repair capability as well as durable materiel to withstand a hurricane as much as is practicable -- and expect satisfaction. When you go somewhere like Iraq, all bets are off, and if you told someone you were disappointed that they didn't provide reliable electricity and water, they'd look at you like you were crazy, and they'd be right. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Yes, and children should not be left unsupervised near swimming pools, and you should open soda bottles with the cap aimed away from your face. Now, chief, please comment on the assault weapons ban. (You fucking mendacious prick!) - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

He knows what the fuck he is doing when he parrots those lies. Don't be naive. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

They have my sympathy. I hope I don't end up in the same boat. FWIW, when Hurricane Gloria hit Long Island back in what, '86, my family was without power for a full week +. We had gas heat and cooking, so our friends came by all week to take showers and cook the food they had that would have spoiled. Back then, I used to blow my hair dry (hey, it was the '80s!) and life sucked. I'm lucky that the coldest the water gets in Florida here is still tepid, so I can take a "cold" shower that really isn't too bad, since I'm stuck with electric (non-functioning) cooking and heat. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

What I'm saying is that if a person feels the ban is bad because of the reasons stated above, that research and knowledge upon which the opinion is based removes it from the realm of opinion and places it into more of a factual debate area. Once an opinion is based on solid, measurable fact (statistical analyses, crime rates, actual intent and ability of the law to materially effect what it sets out to effect, etc.) it really is no longer "opinion." If an "opinion" is so solidly based upon studied fact, it is simply "a correct and logical position," not an "opinion." "Blue is the best color there is," is an opinion. "The 'Assault Weapons Ban' is a worthless law from the standpoint of making society safe from gun violence" is not an opinion. It can be researched, debated, explicated, and found to be TRUE in an objective sense! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

If it's that unlikely we'll ever have to use our firearms to rise up against a tyrannical government... I call them a successful deterrent.

Trust me, my diatribe is NOT representative of my overall attitude during this whole ordeal, and if you knew me in person you'd already know that. I recognize that I was blessed with a minimal amount of damage, and inconvenience, compared to many many people. (I also didn't build a house on the shore of the ocean, or one out of aluminum foil, for starters, but that's a different issue.) In fact, when the power first went off, I accepted it as an inevitability and I went into "camping mode" complete with my Princeton Tec Aurora LED Headlamp and everything, and rode it out. I didn't get really pissed off until I had my power restored in record time only to have it yanked OFF again for what I consider to be a bullshit reason. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Well, now, bill, I have to grant that this is a completely fair question, since I am a trained electric power technician, with a crew of four, and an FP&L crew truck complete with one of those big augers and spools of cable and everything... Gee, and in that I must alone among all dropzone.commers. Tell me more about this system you're talking about (are you talking about where you make your own electricity somehow and sell the extra back to the company?) and what I should expect it to cost, and maybe I'll consider doing it. Who knows? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Sorta like commas, then? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

an opinion NOT based on observation is simply ignorant. I am thinking of things like the assault weapons ban (on my mind a lot lately -- sorreeee): If someone has an "opinion" on it that is not based in fact, it's ignorant, right? (You just said so.) So if two people are asked about supporting the ban -- one does and one does not -- and they are quizzed about their reasons, each offers his opinion, right? "I feel that we should renew it because it is saving lives." "I feel that we should let it expire because it couldn't possibly be really saving lives." Those are opinions. But the ban either IS saving lives or it ISN'T saving lives. How could it be both saving lives and not saving lives? But each person may harbor his "opinion" either with or without having looked at ("observed") factual data -- about what the ban is empowered to actually DO, and what the crime rates have done during the life of the ban. If the "opinion" of the first person is to support the ban because it is "good," but it can be proved (pretty easily, I might add) that the ban couldn't possibly have been doing the alleged good things that its supporters are claiming it's been doing, then that opinion is pretty worthless. But people are always trying to make the specious claim that "all opinions are valid and worthy of respect." I argue that many opinions are bereft of any true rationale and are NOT necessarily worthy of respect. People are ENTITLED to them, but not necessarily to RESPECT for them. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Again, I saw no evidence of this. To what are you referring. What I saw were small events, properly permitted, logistically managed, and run smoothly. Oh yeah, and an exercise of the first amendment. What's your problem with it besides that you disagreed with their opinions? Specifically, I was thinking of the several groups I had read about that intended to engage in deliberately disruptive activity: - volunteer as "moles" and then not show up for important assignments - misdirect delegates and other out-of-town visitors who need help with locating hotels, events, etc. - throw pies at delegates I don't know if any of this actually took off -- who knows how large, or pissant, these "groups" really were. I simply read an article in my local paper that there were groups on the web that claimed they had hundreds, or thousands, of people coming from out of town and in town to engage in deliberate harassment of the Republican delegates. But like many Democrats, most likely they couldn't get out of their own way and the plans turned to shit. I do not recall hearing of any major disruptions actually occurring. Most of those who planned to do so probably just slept in, then got stoned and ate Cheerios straight from the box and watched Spongebob Squarepants. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I think I also understood what you meant by "meaniless," too! Damn, I have good intuition! Hey, are apostrophes now also reserved for a special function? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Nice. Do you have an undamaged place to live? Food to eat? Water to drink? A vehicle to drive with gas in it? A phone? A job to go to? Expecting a paycheck soon? If the answer to any/all of those is yes then you're better off than thousands and thousands of other people in FL. Ever think that some of those FPL employees may wish they could go take care of their property and families instead of working their asses off in the heat and humidity trying to get YOUR power back on? I appreciate you and others pointing out the over-the-topness of my initial post. I made it in utter frustration and anger and disappointment. I don't truly wish death on anyone. Call it frustrated futility, but I needed to vent. Cripes don't you people take stuff seriously! It's true, I did get through the hurricane 99% unscathed. (I have food in the fridge that's long past no good.) Please don't think that I'm not grateful for that -- or even that I have not articulated my good fortune to people I know here. It's not lost on me, trust me. Blue skies, - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I don't consider her a bitch. She's beautiful. It's the fragility of what man has made and put in her path that is the bitch. I stood out in the hurricane and got rained on just for the sheer pleasure of it on the night it happened. I don'thate the hurricane. I hate the bureaucracy that keeps my power off even though it could just as easily be switched on at this very moment. Do you understand? One guy's paranoid fear of a sturdy-but-tilted power pole is why about ten families don't have power on my block right now. Across the block, blazing electricity reigns. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Yeah, for 28 hours now.... Thanks bill, it's all clear to me now. The ease, low cost, and feasibility of this must be why I and all the renters I know are doing this by the score. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Um, FP&L has REFUSED any contact from customers since the hurricane. If you called, you got a message saying that they were not responding to calls because of the volume (?!) and of course how busy they are trying to get us back online to buy their overpriced juice. Oh, and their website, as of last night, said that they were "Not currently accepting emails." So YOU tell ME how the hell I should contact them! As it turns out, my neighbor is the fire marshal. Due probably only to his connections through the Emergency Operations Office for Palm Beach County, he was able to find out from FP&L that a neighbor about three or four doors down called them to complain about a power pole that runs behind his back yard was leaning. THAT is why they SHUT OFF our power. The pole is not going anywhere, and the electricity was being conducted just fine, but this ninny had to go and screw it up for us, because no doubt FP&L is just covering its ass against potential lawsuits. I apologize for the "wish they fry" comments. I was pretty damned angry at the time. Sleeping last night was misery: earplugs to keep out the noise of my neighbor's fucking generator, and heat and humidity and stagnant air like you would not believe (most of my windows are still shuttered). Today I took a shower in cold water. Actually, since Florida tap water is never colder than "cool," it ended up being sort of refreshing once I got used to it. I still want my fucking power back on. FP&L issued statements in the paper that as of 5:01 p.m. Thursday (today) you could call or go to their website to find out about your estimated scheduled resumption of electric power. I entered my account number and the website told me that "my request could not be processed." A manager here at work tried his number, and it told him that "power has been restored" -- and then had YES/NO buttons to answer the question, "Is your power on?"!!! He called his wife, asked her if they had power, she said NO! (six days now) and so he hit "NO," and when the page refreshed, it said, "FP&L is aware of the widespread outages in your area." SO... WTF?! I STAND by my statement that FP&L -- the bureaucrats there, at least -- are incompetent fuckwads. The rank-and-file linemen, however, are heroes, that is sure. But the logistical people seem to be absolute fucking morons. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

After the exodus from the ranks of the government's troops--those unwilling to kill their fellow Americans on behalf of a tyrannical government--I would say the people would be well equiped with the big stuff. This is the biggie that everyone who tries to belittle the significance of our Second Amendment rights tries hard to ignore. How long could a government that uses F-15s to bomb Main Street USA remain popular? People are fed up here in Florida with the anti-looting curfews! And it's not like the police are killing people and destroying homes, highways and other infrastructure! A government that tried to use the most potent weapons of war that it has against its own people, even a small subset of those people (and gun owners are NOT a SMALL subset) could never prevail. The very potency of those weapons is what would preclude their use. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Unfortunately the government will also have tanks and helicopter gunships and A10s and artillery and mortars and RPGs... And a willingness to use these against its own people? And an ability to do so and retain support of the people, who are not their (initial) targets? And a willingness to destroy the infrastructure of the nation in a guerrilla war that would be, to other guerrilla wars, as the planet Jupiter is to a grain of sand? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Hey Mr. Articulate, have you ever heard of the grammar rule that you begin a sentence with a capital letter? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Yes, right after they come clean about the "assault weapons ban." Hold your breath; it's coming right up after these commercial messages. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"