peacefuljeffrey

Now, I don't go around stealing anybody's anything, but all the same, sometimes people get picked as victims for no apparent reason. That's why I maintain a readiness to use a firearm to defend myself if something bizarre like this were to befall me, and advocate that others do the same. In a case like this, YOU are the only person who has a chance of saving you. There may have been a cop on patrol half a block away, but what good did it do these people? The world is a fucked-up place, and people like these animals could be on line right behind you at the supermarket. It pays to be prepared. And you're right, that's part of what's so chilling to me about this crime: what the fuck, these "friends" didn't need any real motivation to go and commit the most brutal murders just to "help" out their buddy?! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

If we don't get BASEBALL BAT CONTROL LEGISLATION, [I]MORE WILL DIE NEEDLESSLY AND BRUTALLY[/I]. SIX people killed with BASEBALL BATS over a fuckin' VIDEO GAME SYSTEM This is one fucked up state in one fucked up country in one fucked up world, man. How is it that people who were even able to bring themselves to do this were walking around as free people just minutes beforehand? That's fuckin' chilling. They were able to get themselves to smash bodies until they were unrecognizable -- there, in person, with baseball bats! Some people who are anti-gun say that guns make killing too "impersonal" because you don't have to get right up close (despite the fact that yes, most gun murders happen right up pretty damned close). I guess this disproves that theory. Imagine the horrifying sound of bat on skull, bat on spine, bat on radius and ulna, bat on ribs, bat on hip... and being the kind of person who can hit again and again and again until a human being is a smashed thing lying in its own blood on the floor. Now imagine doing it not because you were wronged, not because someone had brutally victimized you and been released by the courts -- imagine doing it because your friend was pissed off because his video game system had been stolen, and he asked you to come with him to murder six people for it. Suffocation in a vat of human feces is too kind a death to give these shitwads. Now, it's true that the police claim the victims had no chance to defend themselves. I question whether that is absolutely true. When these guys arrived, what if one person had been in a bedroom when the attacks began, and had a gun in there, and came out with a Beretta 96 pointed at the four scumbags who are armed with bats? So for those who argue against guns for self defense, and tell us that the police are what we should use for protection -- um, why weren't the police like Superman watching over these people? Why didn't they swoop in and protect innocent lives? Could it possibly be that the police are a protection only in the abstract, and we need to protect ourselves? Blue skies, - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Yes, that shit is the basis of our justice system and one reason I'm proud of this country. No, that would be an asshat move. B-Bu-But that's not treating him as "innocent until proven guilty"!! If you truly were treating him as "innocent until proven guilty," why, then you'd let him go off on his way until trial, with no more worry than when the bailiff goes home at the end of his shift. Which is it? Innocent until proven guilty, and we treat them as though they're no threat at all or Not yet proven guilty, but regarded as a threat because there's enough evidence to suspect guilt and bring him to trial. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

The judge certainly would be correct to take into account the seriousness of the charges, and the weight of the evidence that is being used to bring this matter to trial. Strong evidence is cause for being more reluctant to release an offender on bail. Strong charges, likewise. This has nothing to do with the impartiality of the trial. This is about protecting the public from the possible harm from a suspect during the interval between apprehension and a determination of guilt or not guilt. What if a person was charged with killing seventeen people by walking through a mall firing a high-capacity rifle at them? And the police caught him red-handed when he was trying to reload? Still deserves that benefit-of-the-doubt, innocent-until-proven-guilty shit, and the judge should let him see his father's funeral before trial, with no one to supervise him, and no guarantee he'll come back to prostrate himself before a court that may sentence him to death?! Come on. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

The System represents The People, i.e. the rest of the NON-criminal, NON-lawbreaking society, and it is in place to protect them from the lawBREAKERS who are brought before the court. In that sense, the system owes far more to the People than it does to the accused. If what you are saying is true as an absolute, then there would not be varying degrees of BAIL, or the potential for a suspect to be completely DENIED bail, if his/her offense is serious enough. In this case, it WAS. This piece of shit SHOT someone, and threatened to shoot others. How much more serious can it get? He should have been left to rot until his trial, as many shooting suspects would be if not appearing before a liberal bleeding-heart stupid asshole judge like this bitch. What guarantee does the public have that when released on the ostensible purpose of going to his father's funeral, he's not really planning on using the time to go and kill the witnesses against him? Or maybe rob some people to have the cash to pay a lawyer to get him off for attempted murder? Ohhh, wait, I forgot, we have the impassioned plea and promise of a guy who is accused of attempted murder. How could that not be enough? There is nothing about denying a person bail that is failing to protect his rights. The judge should realize that this is a person whom the police and prosecutor believe, strongly enough to bring charges, actually shot someone -- an act that can only be viewed as an attempt to end that person's life! Yes, the system must protect the rights of the accused, but that does not mean they have a guaranteed right to go around free until their trial. Some people are too much of a danger to let free on bail -- and then they go and don't come back, like this piece of shit, because, well, we were counting on the word of a suspected criminal, now, weren't we? So you're saying that we allow the criminal to dig himself in deeper, and then we can go full-bore on him? First of all, you're wrong. Just because he has broken faith with the court does not mean that he has forfeited due process. Do you think that now when they arrest him, they're allowed to violate his rights? That's absurd. And what of the people he might violate while he's out? Yes, if he kills another person, that may make the judge decide to be "really harsh" on him and not let him out a seconde time... But it cost someone their life just to get the judge to take this shit seriously. (Sort of like parole for violent criminals. They get an undeserved second chance, and we gamble with the lives of the public in order to just put them back in jail where we already had them. And a large percentage end up going right back anyway.) Blue skies, - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I'm a private pilot, airplane, single-engine land. My dad took lessons and got licensed in '82. I used to fly with him all the time around Long Island, and then I took lessons in high school and college. I didn't get the license then because I was lazy about the book-work. I finally did in 2002.

Clinton is not running for president. Yeah, like Napoleon, Stalin, Lennin... Uh, I think his point was, "great leaders who maybe weren't understood at the time but who LATER WERE respected for their decisions." Who is now respecting Stalin for his decisions? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Misconception? I've been called a flaming liberal by you guys a few times. But I agree the judge is an asshole. Not every liberal would do what she did, but everyone who would do what she did is a liberal. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Ah, yes, the multimillionaire mega celebrity "everyman blue-collar joe" who goes home to a mansion to sleep at night. What an iconoclast. Eat the rich! Ohh, uh, wait, that's me! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I admit that I would probably be less likely to leave if I liked or agreed with the message, but I would think it out of place nonetheless. And I would not fault others for leaving if they opposed the views. A concert where you pay to hear the MUSIC is not the place for the artist to do political grandstanding. Are you saying that it is? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Who gives a fuck about a GPS tag?! Does that tag act as a physical impediment to MURDER? Can that tag keep someone from going to the home of a witness and executing him? This stupid sow of a judge should die at the hands of the scumbag she released. That would be justice. "Compassionate to both sides"?! ONLY ONE FUCKIN' SIDE NEEDS COMPASSION HERE. THE OTHER SIDE IS THE FUCKIN' [I]CRIMINAL[/I]!! BTW I've heard of endemic problems with that supposed "we're watching where they go and we'll pick 'em up right away if they stray" system. They're full of shit. These people wander wherever the fuck they want to. I remember reading about a guy who cut off his ankle bracelet and put it on a fuckin' CAT. Blue skies, -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

He pushed through an ill-conceived legislative abomination that took a giant shit on the first amendment, in the name of futile "campaign finance reform," that is now roundly condemned by both the NRA and the ACLU alike. That's integrity?? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Never fear. That's exactly what I'm going to do. I'm going to vote for George W. Bush because he is not a sworn enemy of my right to own and carry firearms, like John Kerry is. Thanks for the reminder, TK! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Watch for Democrat efforts to discount military absentee ballots, just like in 2000, because of the real or perceived tendency they have to vote Republican. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

"This is my rifle, this is my gun!... - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

That's exactly what the problem IS. They are beating us with their political views. The musicians who I will not cease listening to are the ones who have the sense to realize that their political views are best kept between them, their friends/family, and the ballot box. I'd be pretty turned off if I went to a Rush show and Geddy Lee started berating the President! I'd probably walk out! I didn't pay to listen to a diatribe, I paid to listen to music (note: Rush is just an example here, since they are a band I like. Haven't heard of them doing political crap and honestly don't wanna know, if they have.) There's nothing wrong with musicians and entertainers having their own political ideologies. The problem, for me, arises when they abuse the fact that they have the public's ear to amplify their individual views to distorted levels. Just imagine what kind of crap would ensue in the politcal reality of this country if someone with droves of mindless drone fans, like Christina Aguilera, started "mobilizing" those fans to vote a certain way. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Um, how was this woman going to get a 13-year-old boy pregnant to add to society's problems? And as I am aware, it is NOT illegal for two 13-year-old heterosexuals to go at it and make a baby. I have never heard of a 13-year-old getting in trouble for getting pregnant, or getting another 13-year-old pregnant. Is it only a problem for society if a 13-year-old is having an adult's baby?? [replyFlying in your dad's plane? His call, as was everything else you did with consent from your parents. You did not take those risks on your own. What if my dad had decided I was going flying with him whether I liked it or not, and I, kicking and screaming, said that I absolutely hated it and did not want to? That's not harmful to a kid? But sex that the kid WANTS, that's harmful? Talk about your one-size-fits-all legislation. You end up "protecting" a kid who does not either want or need the protection. The fact that this teacher and student had two kids together indicates that she's a fuckin' moron who either didn't do what she needed to do to prevent pregnancy, or even worse, wanted a 13-year-old's baby. I just don't see the clear-cut criminality of what they did. Forcing yourself, as an adult, on a kid who does not want the interaction, yes, that's obviously wrong. (Same as an adult forcing him/herself on another adult.) But I am sick of people saying that just because they haven't crossed an imaginary line in age, kids of X or Y age are not capable of making decisions that are valid. We seem to be picking and choosing which decisions we consider a 13-year-old "able" to make "validly." (flying, karate, sex...) There is no logic to saying that a 13-year-old can make decisions about some things and he's making an informed, valid decision, but then change topics and now this is a matter on which he can't be said to make a valid decision just because he's too young. What about a 16-year-old? He can solo an airplane and fly 150 miles away! If he wanted to, he could do it in a complex high-performance plane, to boot! And then put him in bed with a 26-year-old woman and you'll say he "lacked the maturity to make a valid decision to have sex with her." - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I'm pretty low-key in person. I have a sense of humor in person. I'm relaxed and actually pretty "peaceful" in person. I have never had a Red Bull in my life, and I limit my caffeine intake to one can of Pepsi a day (though more for limiting the empty calories than anything else). Maybe I come across as high-tension here because this IS where I vent my tension, and it's easy to do because it's just me and the screen -- I don't have to scream over other people or even be embarrassed to say something provocative. Plus, I probably come across as real verbose because with my typing speed, it's easy for me to cram a lot of words down onto the screen with very little effort. (In fact, it's fun for me to type.) Come on down to S. Florida and jump with me at Sebastian. You'll love the view, and we'll have a good time. Blue skies, - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Pfft! Gee, I'm really gonna miss those bands! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Think back to when you were 13. If some hot female -- whether 13 or 34 -- offered herself for sex with you, you woulda done it. You would have known, to yourself, that it was YOUR CHOICE to do so. No one would have been able to convince you that she took advantage of you and made you do something you didn't freely decide you wanted to do. Why is the decision tohave sex one that a kid can be said to have not made on his own (i.e. he was manipulated and taken advantage of -- "raped" -- by an adult woman) but, say, the decision of a young female figure skater to devote every waking hour to harsh and strict training so that she can possibly -- possibly -- go to the Olympics (foregoing nearly all the pleasures of childhood for this "Olympic dream") is a freely-made choice? You see this all the time. Kids' decisions are made for them by adults. The utter direction of their LIVES is dictated by the overbearing parents. But when some adult comes along who LOVES the kid, even though he's a "minor," and he is a PARTY to the decision to enter a love relationship that includes sex, that decision to affect the kid's life is wrong. How many kids are pushed along by the parents' dreams when the kid doesn't even want what the parent wants for him? That's just as damaging, or more so, than giving a hormonally-charged adolescent boy the sex he's fantasizing about every night anyway, because at least, in whatever capacity a young boy has, he does want it. I think there are no easy answers here. But if I had had the opportunity to have sex when I was 13, whether with a girl my age or with, say, a college girl, I would have jumped all over that and been glad for the chance, and I would have fought against anyone who tried to step in and tell me that I was just not old enough to decide that for myself. I was old enough to decide I wanted karate lessons. I was old enough to decide to accompany my dad when he went flying in a Cessna. I was old enough to be able to come home to an empty house if Mom and Dad were out, and be trusted to use the stove and oven and stuff. But not to have sex? Bullshit. Blue skies, - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I am with Steel on this one. I can like something produced by someone, and then find out something I find really really objectionable about them -- for example, they are staunch gun control supporters -- and I will find myself thinking about that whenever I see their movies or hear their music, and yes, it robs me of the unrestrained enjoyment of it that I had previously had. And yes, I will find myself listening less, not making purchases that will put money in their pockets, etc. You said that no one is buying a political opinion when they purchase a CD -- but sometimes that is EXACTLY what they package with that CD. If I found out that Rush was using the money they earn from their music and funding HCI or AGS or any other gun control group that engages in actions that are contrary to the preservation of my rights, I will yank my support from them. I won't want them to be using MY money for things that are antithetical to MY interests. That is part of the two-fold reason I would stop listening. The other part is that I would be reminded of their position whenever I listened, and it would annoy me. So I'd stop listening. Blue skies, - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Oh, I see, so we should all respect all opinions, except those who choose to not support bands or individuals whose interests seem opposed to their own. Steel is not entitled to feel distanced from bands he may have used to like because now he finds that his and their politics are dissimilar. His opinion -- that he should withhold his support from them -- is not valid, but all other opinions must be considered valid. You set up a nice double standard, there, Kev. What's wrong with feeling different and at-odds with the opionions of others. Just because they HAVE opinions does not mean that I have to RESPECT those opinions, or even the people who hold them. This is not the same as trying to suggest they don't have a RIGHT to their opionions: they do. But there is no truth to the bizarre notion that all opinions, no matter how ill-conceived and how frivolous, must be given equal respect. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Your avatar is giving me an eye fetish -- to add to my other fetishes... - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Rock ON!!! Congratulations!! As a matter of fact, you now display one more jump than I have: I did #100 last Sunday! LOL!! We're a cool club! Keep on keepin' on, man. I'm sure it only gets better. Be safe and have fun! Blue skies, - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Unless you desperately need the money from the sale of the gear, I think you should keep the gear. Why don't you consider just not jumping as much? You can still enjoy skydiving without necessarily investing the concentrated effort to become a "great" skydiver. And if you just keep it at a moderate level, you could jump on one weekend a month, maybe do five to ten jumps over the weekend, and you won't lose too much skill (maybe even gain it) and you'll save money as opposed to jumping every weekend. I wouldn't leave skydiving. I don't see how someone who loves it could ever stop until and unless the love is just gone. Is that what's happened? Are you sure? Blue skies, -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"