peacefuljeffrey

So what plan, by anyone, has so far addressed this potential problem thatdoes not include banning either general aviation or sale of ammonium nitrate and/or fuel oil? THAT'S my point. There hardly seems to be anything we can do that is not an absurd clamping-down on life and liberty as we know it and have the right to expect it to remain. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

As you described it seems. Witnesses (according to the press - so we will have to wait for the evidence in court) say he took the money and went to the car. She got up followed him and shot him at close range in the head through the side window while he was starting the car. I have read that if one believes that an attacker continues to be a threat to others in the vicinity, that one can use deadly force against him. I'm not sure if that just applies (legally) to police, though, because I think what I read was in regard to shooting at a felon who is fleeing. The standard was something about whether he might be intending to do others harm even as or after he flees. Like if a guy was walking down the street with an AK-47 shooting at random, and a cop sees him, and the guy turns and walks away with his back to the cop, and maybe fires in the opposite direction, the cop can still shoot him. Could it be that this woman feared that if she just continued to lie on the ground, or stand around, he was going to run over her with the car? Maybe he had even said something to that efffect. Who knows? All I know is, it is hard to argue with the evidence that she had skull and eyesocket fractures. I'd have fuckin' killed the guy if I were her, I think. Shit, I could see myself donating to her defense fund. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I grant that it is unjustifiable to shoot and kill a person who is no longer a threat. We have to have that established at law. However, I have never been in this woman's position -- i.e. skull and face crushed, etc. She probably didn't even know for sure she was not dying. If I add to that the absolute loathing I have for the criminal shitbag who beat her in the robbery, I cheer the fact that she offed the motherfucker. I rejoice that society no longer has him living as a constant threat to anyone's peace or safety. The world is better for him being dead, indisputably. My "angry post" regards my feelings that it is SICK how many people come out of the woodwork in apparent LAMENTATION of his death! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Paying 38% still leaves you with more money than other people have, by virtue of how much you have to make to be taxed 38%. Quitcherbitchin'. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

We could start killing them and distributing their wealth, at the same time as we are instituting this new system. EVERBODY WINS!!! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Well, the point of my post was to point out that nothing of what is being suggested to address the possibility of terrorist GA action will be difficult to circumvent. So while it is not valid to say, "It hasn't happened, therefore it won't happen," at the same time it is pretty stupid to dedicate a major initiative toward one tiny fraction of the ways in which a plan might be gone about by terrorists. Dude, if this is what you're worried about, then it would be far more sensible to simply shut down GA altogether, because if all you are concerned about is what people might do with GA aircraft, that stuff would still be doable by terrorists even if they had to rent planes to do it. I don't steal a plane when I want to fly. I call up Kemper Aviation and ask them to put me in the book. If I am going night flying, they leave the flight bag in the plane for me after hours, and then I leave it for them to get in the morning. Yes, a terrorist could steal a plane at an unguarded airport. Yes, he could even chance upon the plane that has had the keys left in it for me (though that is an awful slim chance if he is on some sort of plan or schedule to carry out an attack. "I'll just go to the airport and hope that I can find a plane with the keys left in it."). But if there are checks in place to keep him off the grounds of the airport, or cable locks on props on every plane on the ramp, why couldn't he just go to a flight school, get checked out to rent their planes (if he's licensed) or get flight instruction up to the solo or private, and legitimately rent the plane and crash it somewhere or disperse sarin or whatever your current fear is? And if you think about it, when the terrorists want to disrupt our free way of life, this would be even better for that plan, because as opposed to simply stealing a plane and using it without authorization, this would call into question the legitimate renting of planes by even authorized pilots! Much more civil disruption if that happened. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Are you saying that innocent people drowing doesn't bother you? That your right to have fun with a backyard pool outweighs someone else's right to live? Don't be silly. You are comparing a deliberate action (pulling the trigger) with an accident. I am willing to bet that someone has, at some point, certainly deliberately drowned someone else in a swimming pool. Even one is too many. Are you really so callous that you want to allow this to go on? Is your swimming horseplay really worth someone else's life? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Ohhh, sneaky. Now you're trying to put words into people's posts that weren't there. Now it's "your right to have fun with a gun," huh? Are you next going to build a nice, fragile strawman and say, "Show me where you have a constitutional 'right' to have fun with a gun"? My right to FIRE that gun does end at someone else's right to live, except in certain circumstances in which I am justified in taking that person's life (i.e. he attacked me and meant to kill me or cause grievous bodily harm). You will note that we already have strict laws that govern us regarding the right to just casually shoot at people. These are enough. We never alleged that that was something we thought we were entitled, or should be entitled, to do. Besides, going back to the root of this now that we've sidetracked, no one ever said executing the innocent was alright with us. Kennedy was rightly pointing out that if ONE is too many to allow, the logical conclusion would be to take the guns away from cops since that would be the ONLY way to ensure cops never shoot someone in error, and then he implied (also rightly) that it is ludicrous to adhere to a "one is too many" mindset. It's irrational. To follow it is to have to ban all kinds of things that we surely won't tolerate banning. And if you won't ban them, then that's an admission that you don't truly believe your own "one is too many to accept" credo. Try to discuss this without disingenuously suggesting things and claiming that others believe them. Kennedy never came anywhere near to asserting that he had some sort of half-assed "right to have fun with a gun" that outweighed innocent lives. It was scummy to attach that suggestion to his post. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Hell, I have a knife on my right now. Please don't call the police. Just one?? Don't you at least carry a beater so you don't have to mess up the edge on the nice one? I know I do... - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Nope. Someone probably said, "Cutty Sark!!!" - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I hope that any claim of sympathy or remorse is just an act to keep the authorities and media off her back. I hope that she is secretly saying to herself, "Fuck you, assholes. Go on believing I'm sorry for killing the piece of shit who did this to me. All the sweeter." I just don't understand why a thread like this is a magnet for people who want us to go EASY on the kind of sick shitwad who would beat a woman this badly. The time for compassion for such a piece of human waste is long gone by the time he is capable of committing such an act. He is beyond caring anything for at that point. And to spare his life is to leave him capable of doing the same thing to another woman. Anyone who pussies out of fighting back against such a piece of shit is culpable for the harm he does to others in the future. I'm sick of this "coddle the criminal" bullshit, as though a criminal's life is of the same value as that of his innocent victim. Spread some horseshit on that argument, eat it and die choking. Never will I equate a criminal human life with a law-abiding one. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Prior to September 11th, how many passenger airplanes had been commandeered and crashed into skyscrapers? I don't see your logic... My logic is that they are going nuts with ideas about regulation and security checks and fingerprinting and i.d. cards and all kinds of bullshit that: a) won't prevent a terrorist attack b) won't make terrorist attacks so much more difficult to conceive, plan and execute that they won't happen anymore c) inconvenience and "regulate" people who are doing nothing wrong in the first place (essentially like gun control) and general aviation aircraft tend to be pretty useless for the kinds of attacks terrorists like to do. AOPA cited a study that specified the USELESSNESS of a terrorist attempt at causing a nuclear problem by crashing even a large airliner laden with fuel into a nuclear facility. AOPA's article about nuclear plant crash fears Click on the link "Nuclear Security - General Aviation is Not a Threat" TF, the things that are being suggested to increase "safety" are so easy to circumvent that there is no valid argument for instituting them. Why go to trouble if you're only going to find that you did it for essentially ZERO GAIN? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

There was. It was a hot day. (This is Florida, after all.) It was runny. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Are ya getting cool metal like titanium, or is it just something ho-hum like stainless steel? Get well soon! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Thanks, Brent. Wow! I had forgotten about that cheer!! I even took part in a few during SoBe's heyday!... Thanks for all the congratulations, people!

Latka? Latka Gravas?! Is that you?!

So I'm confused. What's the reason for the lack of sexual attention? You and the last boyfriend are over? Good terms, bad terms, what? Or are you one of those girls with a boyfriend who's just away for a week or two and who cry about missing the constant sex for a short time? I see that constantly, all over the place. Makes me want to retch, in light of how long it's been for me. So what's the back-story? Blue skies, -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Yes, I've decided to consider everyone until they say something stupid like that. This thread has been my weed out process! Whew! That should mean I'm still in the running! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Yes, and just like this idea, that was a supremely stupid movie. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Why does it always seem that on the one side, you have women posting about lack of "sexual healing," and on the other side, you have men posting the same thing (If I were inclined to, I'd be posting about the same need) but the twain never seem to meet. It's sort of similar to when I read about a girl who's been dumped on by some asshole boyfriend, and I sit here thinking, "Um, I'd never be like that to a girl," but all the girls seem to be dating guys like that. Makes ya feel unappreciated and underutilized. And yeah, sexually frustrated. Of course, when a girl posts about sexual frustration, guys who might otherwise be great boyfriends to the girl can't simply respond by saying, "Hey, try me out -- I'll have sex with you!" There's really no good way to "advertise" your good-boyfriendness, even to a woman in need. The fact that you come around offering yourself is usually what gets you suspected of being a freak, weirdo, or stalker or something. I think girls just should start keeping their eyes open for guys who seem honest, humble, friendly, considerate, and happy-go-lucky. But instead they fixate on which guys seem macho, drive the nicest cars, fly the nicest rigs... and fuck the most other girls, it seems. (That old syndrome where guys who get lots of chicks ... get lots of chicks.) Anyway, to you from me. Me, I'm still frustrated. Blue skies, - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Gee, someone with one of those would definitely have it over a skilled rifleman with an M-1 Garand. It really looks kewl, and that is important. Blue skies, Winsor I know, I found myself wondering what the hell the need for a different rifle firing the same 5.56mm rounds would be. Stupid bureaucrats. Someone's probably just gonna get rich of the deal, that's all the reason they ever usually need. Why don't we stop pussying around with .223 anyway and arm our guys with rifles that'll really rip up the enemy fuckers? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I once competed in crew (rowing, not parachuting)against a boat called "Captain Slog's Starred 8" ... I don't get it.

Or with an aircraft rented legitimately, by someone authorized to be on airport grounds. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Um, if a terrorist wanted to crash an airplane in some sort of suicide attack, or use an airplane to do something drastically illegal like disperse chemical weapons from a cropduster, why couldn't he just RENT a plane? I mean, we're talking about someone who already knows how to fly, otherwise they wouldn't be trying to get hold of an airplane. They're planning on dying, so they're not even concerned with taking a plane anonymously -- what would that matter? So they could get around all the locks in the world by acquiring use of the plane legitimately. So I don't get fazed by the "ease" with which people can get onto the grounds of a small GA airport. That's because we don't like in a POLICE STATE where in order to go anywhere you have to be subject to the secret police questioning you and keeping track of everywhere you go. Is that what you want? When you bemoan the "lack of security" of these airports, that's what it sounds like you want. Let me ask you this: how often, and out of how many total operations, do terrorists commandeer and use GA aircraft for nefarious purposes? How many GA aircraft terrorist attacks have there been? If there have been any, were they done with aircraft that were stolen because there was lax security? If the answer is "none," or "very few," then why would you want to address a non-problem with restrictions that will inconvenience the general public and treat them daily as though they are criminal suspects? And how, even, would doing so defeat them in attempts to do misdeeds through legitimate aircraft rental, anyway? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"