peacefuljeffrey

You appear to be in favor of the ban, or else you would not have issued a challenge as to why we feel we "need" these weapons. However, you also appear to be utterly ignorant regarding what the ban accomplished. IT WAS NOT ANYTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH AUTOMATIC WEAPONS. It banned various models of SEMI-automatic weapons based on APPEARANCE and various non-firing-related accessories (flash suppressors, bayonet mounts, folding stocks, pistol grips). Had NOTHING to do with rate of fire, or even caliber. Plus, the "ban" never took away a single gun, since the "grandfather clause" held that any guns already owned or manufactured could still be sold and owned legally. And when the manufacturers of the guns produced similar guns with the exact same firing actions but without the various accessories and attachments, they too were perfectly legal. (I own one, a Colt Match Target HBAR -- an AR-15 clone with no flash suppressor or bayonet lug, and a fixed stock.) So let's not pretend that guns that fire the exact same way suddenly became unavailable to criminals and everyone was suddenly safer. They did not, and they were not. Why don't you do some research and learning before you lean in support of a given law? It makes you look bad to indicate support for it (or incredulity at those of us who oppose it) when you don't even understand the facts that surround it. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Sorry to hear that. Good luck. Maybe try having the loyal customers of yours call to tell your boss they won't be using his company's services anymore, since you're not there. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Did any of you try Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency No, but I wasted a whole damned quarter on that useless geek Encyclopedia Brown! I'm gonna spend my next 25 cents paying Bugs Meany to kick his scrawny little ass! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Did they finally make the Lasermax guide-rod laser sight for the 27? How accurate are they? I mean, I never made the connection that one should expect the axis of the guide rod to be perfectly parallel to, or have a consistent point-of-aim/point-of-impact with the barrel. I also could never see spending nearly as much on the laser guide rod as I had on the gun! What are the prices down to, nowadays? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Well, c'mon, in such a short post, unless you're posting drunk, how nasty am I to expect those simple things to be spelled right? Ya spelled "O'Reilly" two different ways, for cripes sake! Well, at least you got "endorse" right in the body of the post... - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Would it surprise you if liberals created a lie just to occupy their opponents' time trying to run it down and quell it? Look what happened when the Glock was a new pistol. The lie-berals lied and said that it was "plastic" and would be the "terrorists' choice" because it could pass through metal detectors and x-rays undetected. The Glock, by weight, is over 83% steel, but that did not stop the lies from issuing forth from liberals, because they knew it would take a huge effort to contain the misinformation -- twenty-one years later, I STILL encounter people who think Glocks are undetectable and made all of plastic! Anyone in the media who put forth reports like this were either lying because they had seen the gun and had to know it contained plenty of metal, or had never seen or examined the gun and had no business reporting on it, or were counting on hearsay and never checked their facts, thereby abrogating their responsibilities as journalists. So why would the left not make up a lie about O'Reilly when they know it will distract him from his message just to try to run it down -- and also might hearten liberals to hear that a staunch conservative supports Kerry? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

As if there weren't enough reasons to be embarrassed to live in this state. But actually, if it's non-Floridians buying this "air" in other parts of the country, I guess it should be more embarrassing to be associated with those places... Is it more embarrassing to be among the suckers, or the ones to take the suckers? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

ABSOLUTELY. Personally, I'm shopping around right now...seriously considering this one. I'm going there now. Is that the Glock 19? I recommend the 23 if you're going that way. Might as well get the power of.40 cal if you are able to fire it comfortably. It's not a lot more punishing than 9mm. Blue skies, - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I have always loved the idea that just as nature has created creatures on earth that can swim in water, walk on land, and fly in the sky, it may well have created creatures that can survive in and propel themselves through space. Imagine a creature that in the process of metabolizing its food, creates a sort of jet that it can direct to propel itself in the opposite direction. Its "excretion" would be a type of exhaust combustion, like a rocket engine. Or maybe, since we have electric eels, such a creature might generate ions that it propels behind it. Or maybe a creature that catches solar wind or other particles or rays, like the "space sails" that have been theorized in magazines like "Omni." (Is Omni still published? Don't recall having seen it in a while.) Well, we haven't been pouring transmissions into space for much more than what, eighty years? So it's not unreasonable to assume that we are limited to having attracted the notice of those alien races within about 80 light years -- NOT very far by universal or even galactic standards. I always wonder what religious people make of conjecture like this. I mean, doesn't common Christianity teach the dogma that OURS is THE civilization made by the god that created all of creation? The ONE god anywhere and WE are his chosen creation, made in his image. Doesn't that dogma preclude any belief that we will find intelligent life elsewhere? Or do they hedge, and say we may find intelligent life, but it will not have souls that god will take to heaven? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

"Spacealienish" I LOVE it! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I won't have a problem as long as "O'REILLY" does not "ENDORSE" Kerry. I don't know who this "O'Riely" is, and I don't know what it means to "endourse" someone... But I think the television pundit Bill O'Reilly is most likely to NOT endorse Sen. Kerry for president. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

The article you linked LEADS with this: Right off the bat, it lies. "FAVORED ban on assault weapons"? If it were truly favored, it would be extended. Simple as that. Unless people really expect us to believe that Congressmen are intent on risking political suicide by letting the ban expire rather than meeting the so-called mandate from their constituents to renew it. There IS no public mandate for this law to be renewed. Any public support for it arises from an utter lack of understanding of what the law actually does. (Most people I talk to who claim to support it really do think that it targets full-auto guns! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Sounds quite bad Do I need to know him? See question above, otherwise cannot answer LOL!! Janet Reno -- a him!! Well, I guess it's an easy mistake! Janet Reno was the ultra-corrupt U.S. Attorney General under the ultra-corrupt President Bill Clinton. She was the one responsible (she PUBLICLY CLAIMED RESPONSIBILITY, by the way) for the fiasco at Waco, Texas that killed a number of Branch Davidian men, women and children, and numerous federal agents. She now suffers from Parkinson's Disease. If you wish choking on a pretzel on George W. Bush, and even go so far as to snidely offer him a pretzel, I see nothing wrong with wishing Janet Reno would tremble down a flight of stairs. She's evil, just like you claim Bush is. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

This "article" reads like an assault-piece on anything and anyone pro-gun. There is not even the PRETENSE of objectivity, or even truth, in this thing. To you anti-gunners out there, how do you justify that this is the only way your side can get people to support your ideology? Lies and misinformation and mischaracterization...and appeals to hysterical emotion (or else why try to hold a meeting at a memorial to slain officers?) From the article: Clear indictment of the NRA as though it is some huge overlord threatening all elected officials who stand in its way, when really all it is is another civil rights organization fighting legally for what it feels is right. "More lethal"?! Because they guns will now have flash suppressors, bayonet mounts, and fifteen instead of ten-round magazines? They're still gonna be guns that fire bullets. "More lethal" is a preposterous claim since we're already talking about guns. Also, the claim ignores the fact (in fact, the BAN ignores the fact) that these guns have remained legal to purchase and sell and own -- they were just more expensive because you had to buy pre-existing supply. No one was ever truly kept from getting a so-called "assault weapon." The senate voted earlier this year on an UNRELATED BILL to which this bullshit extension was TACKED ON DELIBERATELY TO KILL THE BILL. When the opposition to the original bill poisoned it so that its supporters didn't want it, the supporters scuttled it, and rightly so. "Defeated at the NRA's behest"? I guess every gun control law that congress approves because they claim to believe in it is really just "passed at HCI's behest." This is the biggest line of bullshit in the whole article (apart from the "streets being flooded"): how is complying with everything the law mandates "finding loopholes"?? What are they going to do and say when "the problem" does not grow worse when the law expires? I know. They'll be going after "sniper rifles" next. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Dude, the liberal media are so eager to claim that the gun ban has popular support that if they found just two police officials who said the ban is good, they would say "police officialS said..." - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

They would have said no because a pre-emptive war of aggression against a sovereign nation is an international crime and the reason for the first Gulf War, because that's what Hussein did. You pretty much summed up the actual reason for the invasion, but to state that would be commiting a crime. Instead we had to trump up a "pre-emptive self defense to an imminent threat" that didn't exist. What about the fact that Hussein was shitting on the reputation of the U.N.? What about enforcing the terms of Hussein's surrender? Didn't his failure to accede to the terms invite military action against him? Otherwise, what was held over him if he were to fail to abide by the terms of his surrender? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

No, I never would say this, I just would offer him a fresh pretzel A schmuck is what? A schmock? For every time you wish this on a Republican, I feel it is fair that I wish ill on a Democrat. Right now, I hope baby-killer Janet Reno falls down a flight of stairs like that priest in The Exorcist. How's that for maturity, christelsabine? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Bush went in in 2003 to depose a murderous dictator who did just what you said international law prohibits but was never deposed for it back in the '90s. The U.N. also fell down on the job of keeping Hussein in line, and he walked all over the supposed sanctions and terms of surrender imposed on him. So in the long run, we got rid of a guy who illegally invaded sovereign nations, just like you said. Our reaction was delayed, but is essentially part of the same campaign, which clearly was justified in 1991. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Don't forget, he could have pushed the point that Hussein was flouting the U.N.'s sanctions and resolutions, and the terms of his earlier surrender, and making the U.N. look like a bunch of fuggin' losers. (Well, they are fuggin' losers, but they didn't need a shitstain like Saddam Hussein parading that fact around in front of the whole world proudly!) If the President of the U.S. went before Congress and the U.N. and said, "Well lead an invasion to depose Saddam Hussein with the goal of holding democratic elections in Iraq within five years," how could they have said no, if he made clear how the U.N. was being made fools of, and caused to look extremely impotent? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Conventional is less restrictive, more variegated, and therefore much more likely to provide the nutrition kids require -- particularly without much concerted effort or planning. If you're gonna be a vegan and force that on your kids, you'd better be sure you're not fucking it up. And this asshole did not. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

That was in the '70s, I believe -- and the story I read in a book of strange-but-true stuff said that she was tucked into the tail section of the plane, which fell to earth probably with some degree of aerodynamic slowing, like an ouce of water in one of those conical water-cooler cups would. Not the same as just a body falling at terminal velocity, I think. But who knows, I haven't done tests... - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

If Kerry does happen to win, there will be one positive side effect: tunaplanet will pretty much be a gone-ass from Speaker's Corner. Are you kidding me? With all the things that Kerry would no doubt fuck up to write about?! We'd be entrenched here! - Both of you will be repeatedly posting threats to move to Canada, but never actually following through with it. Maybe I could move in with Alec Baldwin. I hear he's in a flophouse since Kim kicked his bitchy little ass out. Imagine -- he was TOO spineless to move to FRANCE! Ahh, the irony -- it's like filet mignon with a fine bordeaux! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

No, but he has precisely the lack of moral strength and willpower of the typical plaintiff who would bring this type of suit. I suspect it's a small nudge that would send him over the balance point in either direction. Remember, it was his "Justice" Department that brought precisely this kind of suit against the gun industry, and helped municipalities all over the country to do the same. It speaks huge volumes about the integrity of the various attorneys general that NO such suit has been found in favor of the plaintiffs and/or survived appeal. NONE. And there were DOZENS. What does that tell a person about their validity? These predatory, "go-after-an-innocent, highly-regulated-industry" suits have been legally, morally and ethically bankrupt from the start. It is perfectly in keeping with Bill Clinton's legacy to perpetuate this kind of legal "theory" for personal gain and to escape personal responsibility. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Vegan couple missing with malnourished son Apparently, the crackpot husband, who refers to himself as a "radical environmentalist" and a vegan, was angry that his malnourished son had been fed non-vegan food by his in-laws, and that child protective services had been interested in taking the boy away from his parents, and he absconded with the boy, telling his in-laws that if arrested, he will kill himself and his child. What is fucking wrong with people? Why do such whackos inhabit this world?! Blue skies, - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

It's what da beeyatches do when dey slammin' down my man-meat, yo! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"