peacefuljeffrey

Really? Anything that involves fireing a missile at someone designed to penetrate their flesh MUST have at least a RISK of death and by definition it is an injury. That's a nice idea too. You (probably wouldn't) be surprised by the number of people I discuss "rubber bullets" with who seem to think that they are harmless "NERF" bullets that can't cause serious injury or death. I've pointed out articles to some people that detail people in Israel being shot in the head with rubber bullets and killed. The bullets may not deform like hollow points, but they sure as hell can penetrate the body and they sure as hell can cause skull fractures and brain hemorrhaging that can lead to death. But people I've talked with are "okay" with police being liberal in their use of "rubber bullets" because they are misled into thinking they are harmless and safe. I think this impression is deliberately given, too. Blue skies, - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

How about a different example. There are women who get raped who tell no one, and do not report the rapist to the police. Yes, this is the person's prerogative. Women do this for personal reasons ranging from humiliation to fear of reprisals to fear of rejection by a spouse. But refusal to have the rapist prosecuted when you KNOW he is a rapist because he raped YOU DOES MEAN that you are leaving him out there, and everyone else can sink or swim as far as the potential for him to rape her, as far as you the initial victim are concerned. I think this is wrong. I think that no matter WHAT the crime -- particularly the types of crimes that a person is likely to REcommit -- the victim has a responsibility and obligation to society to do what is reasonable to help in the apprehension and conviction of that offender so that others don't fall victim to him. I don't think that reasoning can really be argued with. It does stop short of saying, "You shoulda offed the sonofabitch," but it does criticize one for letting him go scot-free. In such a case, the blood of others very well would be on your hands. You (the figurative you -- I don't know your specific situation) could have handed the very identity of your rapist over to the police for him to be arrested and tried and put away. Why not do that? Ummm, "killing" would be a start, for me. "Raping" is a close second. You're right, that is a strong value/judgment call. I'll go, for now, with "obligated to do something -- at the very least, report the rapist to the police, whether you know his identity or just can give a description so they can hopefully find the guy if you don't know him personally." Is that better? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

So what's so different between Virginia and Maryland, anyway? Aren't they right next to each other? Is there a big mountain separating them? Just a guess, but I think the difference is Democrats. It's Democrats who refuse to see the data from 36+ states that CCW works. Its Democrats who write articles like this, bemoaning a policy that really hasn't caused harm. It's Democrats who loooove to allege that gun owners are all just a bunch of lunatic hotheads waiting for the slightest social faux-pas to pounce on and empty a magazine. It's Democrats who think so little of their neighbors that they don't trust them with guns, but trust them with 6,000 lb. SUVs. It's Democrats who oppose the exercise of a Constitutional right, because they'd rather suppress it than have to explain to their kids that, although a gun can be used to kill people, it's okay that that man in the other booth has a gun on, because he's a good honest person, not a criminal, and there is no reason to fear that he's going to just go berserk with that gun -- especially because he knows that that guy there, that woman there, and that guy there also have guns on and are very capable of stopping him before he did much harm to anyone. It's Democrats who are unrealistic about all this. And maybe if they stopped their obstructionism about concealed guns, people wouldn't be trying to make a point with open carried guns. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

You know what's really fuckin' dismal? Realizing that for all the wonderful things that computers can do for us, to make life efficient, fun, and informative, we are utterly unable to keep this venue from coming under attack from those who would pervert it through malicious and damaging attacks, or profit-whoring commercialist pollution. Trying to keep the internet free of the sickness that makes it a tribulation to use (viruses, spam, hacking, identity theft, etc.) is like trying to chew a mouthful of gum and a mouthful of peanuts simultaneously, and not fuck up one with the other. And once they're mingled (like predatory hackers and the internet are now), there is no retrieving the wholesomeness of what it could have been if it had never been attacked. In other words, now that it sucks, it's always gonna suck. We will never be free of someone who has some way of making it a fucked-up, unpleasant experience. I think that fucking with the computer's sanctity and security should be punishable by execution. You're a hacker? You die by firing squad. You write and distribute viruses? You die by firing squad. You defrauded someone by luring them to a fake website and got their bank account numbers? You die by firing squad. If you don't agree, tell me HOW ELSE are we going to make using the internet proof against getting a gaping hole gouged out of your ass by these thieves, scoundrels and scumbags?? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I remember that day! I got drunker than you did, and was completely sober and 100% the next day for jumping. I'll add that it'll be a while before I drink anything like that again, not because it was a problem but because I just don't like to do it very often. I will also add that I think it is irresponsible and potentially dangerous to skydive with anything other than a clear head -- that means certainly not still drunk, and certainly not stoned, and certainly not "hurtin'," as with a hangover, which is bound to dull your reactions and awareness. Using skydiving as a cure for a hangover is, in my view, using those around you as pawns in a dangerous game in which you might collide with one, or interfere with the safe operation of one, and end up killing someone. It just isn't worth it. What's wrong with doing your celebration drinking at the end of a jumping weekend, and then getting a designated driver to take you home? BTW, for those who jump at Sebastian and/or Clewiston, I do offer myself as a DD if you need it. If it's far out of my way, I'll just tax you for gas, but other than that, if you need it, yes, I'll save your life for you. Just ask me, okay?

I've done it once and only once. I rarely drink, ever, in the first place. On Saturday I was at a DZ party after night jumps, (I had not done any night jumps, btw), and I had about 6 or 7 shots of tequila (they may not have been full "shots," either). I got decently drunk, and drank a lot of water before bed. I got up the next day feeling 100%, so I had no trouble at all in my head or my body. Skydives #99 and #100 went very well. I suppose it will probably be another year or more before I have that much to drink again. I guess my short answer to your question is "No. And if I were hung over, I would not jump at all. I think that's stupid, and asking for a fatality. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Falafel is also good. Love that yogurt-cucumber sauce! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

The words you're looking for are "eloquence" and "self control." I try to emulate such revered qualities. There are those in politics and Hollywood -- a growing number of them -- who not only don't practice those virtues, they don't revere them, or consider them virtues, in the first place. In fact, a growing number of people in the general populace now regard those virtues with scorn. To demonstrate them, though it costs you effort, scores no points with many in this era. Continuing to practice them is its own reward, one might feel. But continuing to practice them when one's political opponents (both in political races and in the media) won't, is akin to refusing to hit below the belt, scratch and bite, when your fight opponent has no such compunctions. You're gonna get your ass kicked if you take the high road, usually, because the dirty tricks enable your opponent to really do a job on you even when you're a good honest man. The article, by the way, was excellent. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Same with Uter-braten, Sloppy Jimbos... and anything else they serve in the cafeteria at Springfield Elementary around Halloween time. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

As you've said yourself, you've never been in a similar position, so that statement hasn't got much credibility, has it? That aside, if someone doesn't exact the kind of retribution you'd like when they have the opportunity, maybe its because they know they wouldn't live happily with the fact, maybe they feel that even if someone does something evil to them, their life is still of equal value. Why is that wrong? The devaluing of people's lives is what causes the shit in the first place. I stand by what I said at the first. I do NOT consider the life of a violent person (rapist, mugger, murderer) to be of equal value of a non-violent, peaceful person. So realize that that is where I am coming from with my views and statements. It may make vast differences between how you would react and how I would react. I think it is incredibly selfish of a person to put "how they would feel later on if they killed their attacker in self defense" because refusing to stop the person and prevent him from doing more attacks amounts to giving him license to victimize another woman just as he has already done. How many more victims, just because one person who could have stopped him did not do so, for personal compunction reasons? Someone does something as evil as RAPE to me, and I still think that his life is of equal value to mine, a non-rapist? HARDLY. Just what would someone have to do in order for you to think they are not every bit the moral equal of you?? If I were a woman, and were raped by some piece of shit, and I killed him in self defense, I would not have that resentment. The issue would be over, and in fact I'd feel much BETTER because I knew I had protected untold numbers of women from him, as well. By the way, we're not really talking about revenge, which we have already said is illegal (and somewhat immoral) if you seek it after the threat is over. We're talking about being prepared and willing to act in lethal self defense if attacked. I think doing so is far preferable to just surviving an attack and letting your rapist go off on his merry way, since you KNOW he is extremely likely to do the same thing again. I wonder what the law would say about a woman who was raped by person X, does not kill him, and on another occasion she sees him storming toward her in an unpopulated area, and she has now armed herself, and she shoots him because she's sure he's come to attack her again. I wonder how far into the attack he'd have to be before her right to defend herself was recognized... She has foreknowledge that he's a rapist, since he's raped her before... Blue skies, - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

There was such bipartisan support for the CCW bill that the governor's VETO was overridden! It's probably safe to say that either way, enough people were pissed at him for essentially saying he had no faith in the goodness of those who would get concealed carry licenses, that they held him accountable for it. When a governor's veto is overridden, it pretty much says that either the state house is overwhelmingly republican and/or libertarian, or the democrats there are somewhat pro-gun also. Quade, your insinuation is irresponsible. You are unjustified for implying that they are threatening the LIFE of a politician through sniper fire; the metaphor works simply because hunters (gun owners) tend to do their thing in tall grass. They didn't say something like, "The bullseye is on the forehead of any anti-gun governor" or some shit like that, which would have more directly implied the "gun owners will getcha" threat in more concrete (though still metaphorical) terms. Blue skies, - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I'm with ya on this. It's really wearing on a person's nerves to have to listen to all this shit on the news, in the papers, even on here. Look at how divisive this is! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

What is the big mystery?? If you want to drink a lot and not get rip-roaring wasted from it (i.e. "hold your liquor") all you need to do is EAT before you drink. Eat stuff like popcorn, potato chips, absorbent stuff that will keep the alcohol from getting into your blood until the food does. This is long-ago divulged wisdom. I have to admit that I don't understand the NOT wanting to get wasted from the alcohol. Alcohol tastes so awful that the ONLY reason to drink it is to get the intoxicating effects! There is no other good to expect from it. When I was in college, I made the mistake of eating snack food before doing a bunch of shots of vodka. I had to choke down the vodka because I HATE the stuff and it really mistreats my stomach. So then because of the food I'd eaten, I didn't even really catch a buzz! (150 or so lbs. at the time, and six or seven shots.) If all you want is to drink and not get drunk from it, (although I question why you'd want to do that) just eat food first. Have a hot dog on a bun, or two. Then drink. Should have the effect you want. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Oh, the heights to which you aspire... Is this really such a high priority for you? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Couldn't you JUST... FUCKIN'... LET... US... ENJOY... THE... FOODS...?! We're gonna DIE, ANYWAY! Why make us worry about what's in our food so we don't even get to fuckin' relax and enjoy it before it kills us?! 'Cause unless there are safe, easy-to-obtain substitutes for all the foods I love that are dangerous, I just don't wanna fucking KNOW. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I eat corn on the cob raw all the time. It's just as good that way as it is cooked. And I never boil it if I do cook it -- I steam it so I don't lose the nutrients to the water. Remember Wargames? The kinda flaky mother served raw corn and the father got shocked when he bit into it. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Idiotic, ugly, egotistical, stuck-up bitch comes to mind too. And talk about a FUGLY MOUTH! I've seen prettier mouths on BASS. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

They're all pink on the inside... - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I'm not a hunter so I truly don't know. I see. Why... um...why didn't that stop you from spouting off in opposition to them, then? Just because you have ten rounds available to you does not mean you can't limit yourself to firing just one, if you're trying to "test your skill." What if, due to something unforeseen, you don't score a lethal shot on the deer? Maybe a second or even third shot might be necessary to keep a wounded deer from running off and suffering before dying. The thin veil covering your hostility toward gun owners and their freedom to not have to justify the kinds of weapons they prefer is now transparent. You're already entrenched in your bigoted stereotypes of gun owners (implying that they are all irresponsible and break one of the cardinal gun safety rules -- that of not mixing guns with drugs or alcohol). Why bother pretending you're "neutral" on the subject. Just unload your actual true hostility toward gun owners and guns. Trust me, you'll feel much better not having to hold back. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

If it were vaginally, the Bush daughters. If it were in the ass, and rhino-hard, it would be the Kerry daughters. I'd give it to 'em so hard that HIS anus would rip! Hey, at least you know that if you knocked up the Bush twins, they wouldn't pay a doctor to tear your child out of their uteruses piece by piece! Can't say that about Kerry's familiy... - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

One is a college kid being a playful smartass, and in a cute way (I read that she smiled after doing it); the other is a grown woman who had just given a diatri...I mean "speech" about civility. Worlds apart. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Well, they've chosen to live in ILLINOIS, right?! Get all the skydivers out of Illinois -- it's time to fuckin' NUKE that place. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

No, I'm NOT kidding you. This sort of thing has happened in Florida PLENTY. Sometimes the situation involves a traffic altercation, or a home invasion, or a jewelry store robbery. But I have 100% certainly read of cases in which the shooter was NOT arrested and held, because there was clear indication of having acted in lawful self defense. Maybe Philly is just fucked up. It seems lately that the closer you get to the geographical historical seats of our government (Boston, Philadelphia, NYC, D.C.) the more fucked up things are regarding guns, and self defense. Just a coincidence I've noticed. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I have to say that you seem to be utterly clueless about what you're talking about, in a manner that suggests you have never read up on the subject of self defense, never been forced to act in self defense, and think of this type of scenario in very static and unrealistic terms. It has been demonstrated that an attacker armed with a dummy knife can lie on the ground face down, and on a start signal can leap up and run at a defender, "tag" him with what would be a lethal stab with the knife, before the defender can unholster a handgun and bring it to aim, from 20 feet away. This blows your theory of how a gun with a claimed range of 100 meters (yeah, like you can accurately fire your handgun at that distance, especially under stress!) is not justified for use against a weapon with a 3 meter range. Your claim is false. You can be in GRAVE danger from a bat or knife wielder even if he is 7 yards away, or even more, since unlike in the tests he is already standing. Think of how short a time is needed for you to sprint at someone from a standing position and reach him from a scant 20 feet away. 20 feet is nothing. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I don't agree. If, for example, there are witnesses to the altercation who tell the responding police that you may have argued with someone, but you only responded in self defense when the other guy went from yelling at you to coming at you with a 5-inch blade in his hand, and then you shot him, I doubt they'd arrest you, and I doubt they'd recommend charges to the DA. There are plenty of cases where the police arrive well after someone has shot someone else, and it is so clearly a case of self defense that they determine that it is unnecessary to have the courts bring the circumstances to trial. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"