peacefuljeffrey

Won't even bother to look -- I already know I just don't like Rugers. I hate magazine disconnects. I don't see any reason for loaded-chamber indicators, I don't trust internal locks, and I don't care enough about this camblock design to investigate it. Give me a simple gun that always works. Give me a Glock. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Huah!! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Maybe because you're talking to a liberal who is very pro gun-rights, an NRA member, and lets his representatives know his opinions. I just don't vote on one issue, though. Steel has a point, though. If the liberals you vote for got full-on in control of Congress and the presidency, you could kiss your CCW and gun rights goodbye. If you make the choice to vote liberal because of their stance on the economy or school vouchers or abortion or whatever, you have to have accepted the fact that each one of them you put in power is a vote AGAINST YOUR 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS, period. (Yes, I know they love to say that they believe in your 2nd Amendment rights, but they don't tell you what follows the asterisk* * except as where nullified by law i.e. D.C., NYC, Chi, and as reinterpreted by courts to refer to possession/ownership/carry of guns only while in service the National Guard. Suuuure, liberals support the 2nd Amendment.... ... for them to poop on!! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

It has always bugged me that modern Rugers (and maybe some other guns) have those stupid warning labels molded right into the polymer, saying stuff like, "Warning: read instruction manual before firing," and somesuch. How fuggin' stupid. Person's already holding a gun and ready to fire -- if he hasn't read the instruction manual, he's gonna put down the gun and read it now?! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Even if you could magically remove all 2x4s from the public, by noon tomorrow criminals would have used a minimum amount of woodsmans' knowledge and chopped down trees to make homemade 2x4s of their own -- and the honest citizen would have NO 2x4 with which to defend himself from the better-armed criminal! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

See, here's the problem: You're supposed to smoke a bud! And drink a Corona. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

This is where I may disagree with you Deuce. If he had a relationship with another woman, he may be 100% hetero and there is a chance he can repair the relationship with his wife. Having a relationship with a man means he has at the very least gay tendencies. If he prefers men, he cannot repair the marriage.

Hate this kind of bullshit. Where are my fuckin' rights to take a pass on a felony?! If I don't have them, neither should someone who is entitled to make laws. Shouldn't they be held to an even higher standard than I am?? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

'zactly. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

HARDLY! He believes in god! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

You got her misspelling wrong. It was "cumplimet." - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

"I did not have sex with that homo!" - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

People, this is the pith of what I was getting at -- NOT "who is doing torture to whom, and where." All I'm saying is that -- no matter if the torturers are the Iraqi governing council, Israel, Britain, U.S.A., whoever -- a country that acknowledges it will make use of torture-derived information is an enabler of torture, just as someone who seeks and views and buys child pornography is party to the abuse of children. The first step toward eliminating torture is beginning to forego the "bounties" provided by torture. I don't see this as much different from U.S. courts refusing to consider evidence obtained illegally in contravention of the rights of a suspect. Our courts must be more principled than to allow use of illegitimately obtained evidence, and I think governments should be the same way regarding information obtained by torture. Stem the demand for torture and you may help stem the supply. But if you accept the bounty, you perpetuate the use of torture. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

But in the other thread about CA child support, the court made a finding that you said was outside the law, and you appeared glad for it and supported it. You commended the court for doing what was "right." Isn't that a double-standard? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I've lost track of New Jersey since I came to hate it so badly... Was this guy a Dem or Rep? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Don't know anything about this case and haven't gone to the link, but I do have to say that I despise judicial activism, probably even if it "rights a wrong," because judges are NOT supposed to have the power to MAKE LAW. To say, "This case, though judicial activism at its finest, is an example of courts doing the right thing despite what the law says," is to defend a judicial finding that does not have its basis in the law! That is just plain WRONG. How would you feel if you went to court and LOST, because the judge went outside the actual text of the law to side with your opponent? What if you could actually explicate the text of the law to demonstrate that it actually DOES uphold your legal claim, but the judge simply says he's finding for your opponent because he feels it is "more right." That's a legal abomination no matter how you slice it. If the law is so wrong that a court will make a finding outside that law, then that law must be CHANGED to reflect what is right. That's the way it should be. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

You don't seem too desperate to spell my name right. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Some promises are more, or less, believable than others. Before I decide whether to believe one, I take the measure of just how likely it is to be able to make good on the promise and complete the promised act. When it comes to Kerry, I don't find him believable. When it comes to Bush, probably not too believable either, but I prefer someone who goes out and kicks ass over one who I believe won't; and I will go with the proven pro-gunner over the proven anti-gunner every single time. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Because - isn't marriage between only a man and a woman? Even California says that. Adultery is SEX outside of marriage, not MARRIAGE outside of marriage. Since a man could have SEX with another man outside his marriage to a woman, yes, it's clearly adultery. Only a person trying to hedge around doing what is right would try to excuse it as not being adultery. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

wire story (appears in The Palm Beach Post, 8/12/04): Now, I haven't heard proof uttered that U.S. forces have tortured information out of detainees, and I don't even know whose authority governs this Bagram air base in Afghanistan. (Before you bring up Abu Ghraib, I don't think that any of the mistreatment that occurred there was intended for seeking information.) Presumably, Britain would use torture-obtained information from wherever it came. Israel is known to continue to torture detainees. Plenty of other countries do it. So I don't think it matters that this case claims torture in American detainee camps. I think that if the British government is going to accept and use information that was obtained through torture, by not condemning the torture and refusing to use the information, they are welcoming and inviting the further use of torture. In fact, this in a way makes them guilty of complicity in the torture, akin to how a person who never harms any children but buys child pornography has, indirectly, harmed children. Does ANYBODY in this whole shitstorm of a world hold legitimate moral high ground anymore? Apparently the British can no longer claim it. Canada is said to be a haven for terrorists who come and go freely, so they can't claim it. France was owed millions of dollars by Hussein, which may explain their unwillingness to help unseat him, so they certainly can't claim it... - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Pretty damned stupid. I see what Quade was talking about with regard to that awful monotone delivery. He was trying to sound like the original Grinch but could not maintain it, nor could he modulate his voice and inflection where needed. But more to the point, this thing seems like it was written by Michael Moore. No conspiracy theory or unfounded jab was spared. It reads like a page out of the Democrat Whine-Hymn book. Stuff about cops stationed at precincts to intimidate black voters... what an utter load of shit that is. No one has ever substantiated those asinine claims, and no one has brought suit about such claims, so who believes such claims, but people who desperately want to feel that Bush "stole" the election. Pure pap. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Whoa whoa whoa... Wouldn't that mean that JOHN KERRY would also be obligated to explain HOW he plans to create a new American Utopia without increasing the size of government, raising taxes, or building prisons to house criminals? Or maybe how he plans to create world peace without eliminating any of the enemies who swear to destroy us or die trying? I mean, he talks a lot of shit about how good he's gonna make everything, sure, but he never explains beyond vague, dreamy, ethereal terms how the hell he's going to do anything. You mean these things don't pay for themselves?? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Interesting. I already had read plenty of articles that indicate that England has turned into a madhouse of thuggery, rampant criminality, hooliganism, and fear on the part of the law-abiding. I didn't know that there were many people trying to stand up for law and order. I have a problem, though, with Michael Howard's apparent support for a policy of being able to have police simply stop people on the street. This, combined with the erosion of privacy and the institution of citizens being watched nearly every minute they are out in public -- a la 1984 -- are troubling developments. While I would want the authorities to be "hard on crime," I do not think that warrantless searches are the way to accomplish that. And I question the chances of success for a society to be able to ENFORCE its way to civil behavior and law-abidingness. If such large numbers of people are prone to reckless criminality, as seems to be an increasing trend in England, all I can see happening if the police "crack down" is that there will either be a lot of frustrated would-be criminals, or a lot more people arrested, tried and incarcerated. I think of it as an analogy: If I owned 10 large dogs, and I needed them to stay on my property, I would much rather have them well-behaved and trained to stay there, than have them constantly be trying to get out, but have a really good fence. If the dogs are well-behaved, it won't matter, really, if I get lax and leave the gate open once in a while. So wouldn't it be better if, somehow, England could address this rampant rise in lawlessness rather than simply try to rule over it with harsh policing? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

What does this mean, "License 18517CN"? Do you have to have a LICENSE, where you live, to learn a martial art? Do you have to register your hands and feet? Are you held to different legal standards of when you may engage in self-defense, and what you may do to protect yourself, being "licensed" to have martial arts knowledge? If my impression is correct, and you have to obtain a license to learn martial arts, I think that's just sick. Should I have to obtain a license to learn chemistry or machining, because I could theoretically use that knowledge to create weapons to harm people and property? Please clarify. Blue skies, - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I find it extremely odd that you don't consider the right to keep and bear arms lost in NYC, Chicago and D.C. simply because the loss of it could be challenged to the Supreme Court and hasn't been. So, the people there who maybe don't have the time or money to bring a challenge before the Supreme Court -- they are not currently deprived of their right to keep and bear arms? If I steal candy from a baby, is the baby NOT deprived of its candy simply because it has yet to try to take it back from me?? The fact that people are not able to legally buy, own or carry firearms in those places is proof that their 2nd Amendment right has been denied them. Your statements are bunk. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"