peacefuljeffrey

You might take a moment to imagine how we gun owners feel about being subjected to background checks and waiting periods when we buy our sixth, seventh gun, and being told that it's to make sure we aren't terrorists, or that we don't plan to buy the gun in a fit of anger to go back and use it to shoot our wives. Couldn't we have done that with, say, our fourth gun? Welcome to the club. All you had to do to join is be indignant at the SHEER STUPIDITY and MEANINGLESSNESS of the "we-have-to-do-something" crowd. (The gun-controllers are the ringleaders, by the way.) - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Tho it might be hard to convince the publice to have special courses in gun safety plus gun use, I don't think it would be too difficult to include some gun-safety education as part of health education or whatever. I think this could be done in a way that is acceptable to both pro-gun and antigun parents. There have been too many examples where pro-gun groups have offered to provide programs and materials on gun safety only to be turned down because the info and programs came from the NRA. Well, who else out there maintains state-of-the-art gun safety training programs? Is HCI going to show up at schools with gun-handling safety training, and accident avoidance programs? The gun ban people talk out one side of their mouths about wanting kids saved from gun accidents. Education is obviously the solution that is needed -- but when it's offered they reject it almost exclusively because it comes from a pro-gun-rights group! This gives lie to their stated goals, and makes clear they are not interested in saving kids' lives, only in getting rid of guns rights. If they cared about kids, they would allow the preeminent organization in the world on guns teach them how to not get killed with them. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Oh, and fees of $255 and $99 in order to get the application processed. $354 to find out that they don't think, "I want to be able to defend myself from criminal attack" is a worthy reason to grant you the privilege of being able to purchase and own firearms. Fuckin' NYC pigs. But if you want to go on believing that any old honest citizen can get a permit to have a handgun in New York City, go right ahead. Like I give a shit if you live your life believing a lie. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Yes, RENEWALS. What part of "renewals" is hard to understand? Renewals for people who have the nearly-impossible-to-get permit in the first place. In the seventies, they went around and asked everyone who had guns legally to register them. They swore they would never use the lists for anything but keeping track. In fact, in the face of concern that they would use the lists for confiscating guns at some point, they promised that would not be done. And several years later, when NYC crime was in its 1970s heyday, THEY DID EXACTLY THAT. They used the very registration lists of who had what guns and now came around and said, "We know you have these guns, because you told us you did. Now the law says you may not have them, and we're here to confiscate them. If you don't give up the guns, you're going to jail." Then once the legal guns were rounded up, a person had to get a permit to have them. Guess what? The police grant the permits at their discretion. And that ends up meaning they hardly give out any at all -- and when they do it's to major political contributors, rich people, and celebrities. So you can quote me the NYPigD website all you want, but the fact remains that their so-called permit system is exclusionary. It doesn't surprise me in the least that they claim to renew "the overwhelming majority" of permits -- they're just renewing the connected people who are the few who got permits once the draconian laws were enacted in the first place! Next. Blue skies, -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

The schools that get Fs are getting them for a reason, I think. These are schools generally in "bad neighborhoods" and I don't think I will be convinced otherwise on this forum, in case people think of trying. You are dealing with schools where kids -- and parents -- are more interested in FUBU and Sean-John clothes and "blingbling" than in education, and where gang membership dwarfs school club membership, and where police officers have to be IN the school at all times because of the IN-school crime rate! These are schools where teachers run scared. Is it any wonder why teachers who CAN command a good salary in a better district go there instead? This is not a problem that better teachers can fix. This has to be done from the grass roots up, starting with parents who are present, and who care to get their kids educated. Once the kids care about learning, even a relatively so-so teacher can provide the information they need to learn. And as far as teaching to the test is concerned: I believe that standardized tests DO reflect the learning goals for the students, so I don't see what is wrong with using doing well on the test as an indication that you have learned what you attended classes to learn. It is one thing to say that a kid who does poorly on a test is "dumb" (it's not necessarily true) but if a kid DOES do well on a test, that happens because the kid DOES KNOW the material. That's the goal. I think it's sick that they will force teachers to go to these F schools, because it's about far more than putting the teachers into a challenging learning environment: in many cases, it's about putting them into HARM'S WAY. I'd resign under protest, and sue the shit out of the school district. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

- and I do not appreciate the comment being referred to as 'jerk-off' If you would read what I actually wrote more carefully, you would see that you were not called a jerkoff. I said it was a "jerkoff fantasy" -- a fantasy used for jerking off. Get it straight, and don't accuse me of name-calling when I did no such thing. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I could argue that gun manufacturing leads to confiscation. Afterall, the manufacturing came first right? Then the confiscation? Tying the registration with the confiscation it a stretch in the USA. THEY USED THE [B]REGISTRATION RECORDS THEMSELVES[/B] TO FIND THE PEOPLE WHO HAD THE GUNS!![/I] Still think it's a "stretch"?! Sometimes the police track down a person who committed a hit-and-run with a vehicle by tracing the license plate number to the owner. That owner also has a birth certificate. Do you want to tell us that the birth certificate is what helps the cops find the driver, or is it truthfully the car registration? Your intellectual dishonesty appears to have no bounds. With this post, you descended to a new low. It's almost hard to believe you mean what you say. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Okay... here we go. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

There is no legislation, no law, no regulation that forces people to EDUCATE THEIR CHILDREN ON HOW TO SWIM. This ability could save thousands upon thousands of lives, and yet people neglect to teach it to their kids. Just three days ago, an 8 year old boy -- of his own volition -- sneaked into a neighbor's property with some friends and jumped into the pool despite not ever having learned to swim. He drowned. He is now dead. The irony is, the pool owner is virtually certain to be named in a lawsuit by his mother, who never taught him or got him taught to swim. SHE won't face any charges. No one will be trying to extricate millions of dollars from HER or HER INSURANCE policy. In fact, even if it is found that the pool owner had the required fences, etc. around the pool, the lawsuit will still be brought on just the hope that money can be collected. You can "insist on" all kinds of safety methods around pools, such as parental supervision and fences and lifeguards. This instance proves that kids can get around that with ease, and find themselves in circumstances -- however they do it -- in which nothing is there to save them. The only thing that will, at that point, will be the education they should have received onhow to swim. The same goes for kids who come across guns. There is no excuse for people to not teach this to their kids, or find someone who will teach it for them -- even if they don't, as a family, have any guns. Does their not owning any guarantee that the kid and his friend won't find one that's been discarded by a fleeing criminal (happens) or one that belongs to the friend's family (happens)? Again, you don't know what you're talking about. What do you call the Eddie Eagle program, which teaches kids who are too young to be taught gun safety to "STOP! DON'T TOUCH! LEAVE THE AREA! TELL AN ADULT!" if they chance upon a gun? What about all the gun use and safety classes run through the NRA? You appear unable or unwilling to differentiate between a simle scuffle and a situation in which one person means another grievous bodily harm or death -- and then you go and insinuate that we are equally unable or unwilling to do so, and would shoot a guy over a parking space. Maybe you're projecting what you would do, and your own lack of control... but I know the difference between someone who is a threat to my life, and someone who is merely inconveniencing me. When someone tries to rob you, particularly if he presents a deadly weapon, you are not under an obligation to determine, in the heat of the exchange, whether he means to kill you or not, because presentation of a deadly weapon is enough of a fair indication that your life is being threatened. At that point, if you do not act to save your own life, you may lose it. You cannot be expected to divine the mind of the attacker and come to a certain conclusion that he means or does not mean to eventually kill you. You may proceed, morally and legally, as though the presentation of the weapon implies an intent to use it. That is plenty fair to your attacker. If he didn't want to give the impression that he is a threat to your life, he should have not produced a weapon that could end it. He gets what he gets because he broke the social contract that says "I won't hurt you, you don't hurt me." You are making your ignorance of this subject loud and clear. The 2nd Amendment was NOT "an afterthought" any more than the FIRST Amendment (freedom of religion, speech, assembly, and petition against government) was. The Constitution was not ratified -- would not have been ratified -- until various states were satisfied that these conditions were met. You are INCORRECT in your implication that the Constitution was written and adopted, and then later on sometime they said, "Oh, yeah, maybe we should protect gun ownership too." You are confused by the word "amendment." You really need a history lesson. We don't need an amendment to accomplish "tough laws on people who are not responsible." We have lots of laws, and some very basic ones that make clear you're not permitted to HURT OTHER PEOPLE. Why is the absence of your little amendment here an impediment to prosecuting someone for criminally causing the death of another person? Your arguments are very nearly nonsensical. I agree, and a very rare one. Do I keep a defibrilation unit in the house in case I have a heart attack - most people cannot affford one. But it is a good idea, does not necessarily justify owning one. But I COULD have a heart attack at any time. I guess you don't bother to keep a fire extinguisher in the house because it's rare that you'll have a house fire and need it. Ron's example may be "rare," but it sure is clear that if the guy hadn't had a rifle at the time, his property would have been stolen from him, and he very possibly would have been threatened during the course of the theft. Tell people who are struck by "rare" disasters that preparedness for such rarities was a waste of time. They'll laugh in your face. If you want to deliberately, wilfully, and bull-headedly maintain a state of NON-preparedness because you fear or worry about the means of preparedness, by all means, go right ahead. Don't bother with a spare tire, don't bother with jumper cables, don't bother with flotation vests, don't bother with fire extinguishers, and don't bother with guns. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Really? What about the guy you get into an arguement with at the shopping center line about cutting in line? He takes a shove at you.....is your life in danger? Do you shoot him? Puh-lease, dude! Talk about your inane example! For one thing, THE LAW DOES NOT RECOGNIZE YOUR RIGHT TO SHOOT SOMEONE UNLESS YOU (AND ANY REASONABLE PERSON IN YOUR SITUATION) REASONABLY FEAR FOR YOUR LIFE OR A DIRE THREAT TO YOUR SAFETY. No one would be justified in SHOOTING someone in your example. Case closed. Why don't you show us that there is a statistically significant occurrence of this little pet situation you describe before you advocate banning guns as a means to address what essentially is not even a recognized problem? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

This point is academic. Is there any possible workable plan to get rid of all handguns? Not just the legal ones, that have paper trails leading to them, but the ones stolen from legal owners (including from COPS). If you can't propose a plan to effectively remove all handguns from all hands, then what is even the point of sitting here fantasizing about a world without them? It's a jerkoff fantasy for disarmament buffs. We're not living in denial. We have laws that address the people who kill, and efforts are made constantly to stop violence, to get people to seek other redress for grievances. We have training programs to stop accidents with guns (which are at an all-time low, and have been declining every year since they started keeping stats on it). We have programs and background checks to weed out those who, for criminal or mental health history, should not be allowed to own guns. We have prosecutorial programs like Project Exile to put people who use guns criminally into prison for a long time. How can you possibly say that we are "in denial" about gun violence when we do so much to combat it. YOUR problem is that you seem to think that the only valid way to address the problem is to COMPLETELY GET RID OF GUNS, which ain't gonna happen. But just because we won't do it your way, doesn't mean you're credible when you say we're "in denial." The person to ask is NOT the person who is emotionally traumatized. Of COURSE he's going to give an emotion-based, irrational response. Me, I would be distraught for sure over the death of my kid, but rationally I could still realize that the guy had a right to own the gun. He might not have been right if he left it accessible to an untrained, irresponsible kid, but that's not the same issue. Do you really want issues like this to be decided based on what a hysterical grieving parent would "want" right on the heels of a tragedy? I'm sure that people whose kids die getting hit by cars in the street curse CAR ownership, too! Should we advocate for a ban on cars because the victims left in the aftermath loathe them? This is your "logic." First of all, your claim of how much more likely an innocent will be harmed than a defender will use the gun is a fallacy. It's likely that you're basing this on the debunked "research" of Dr. Arthur Kellerman. That's an entirely different thread. And I take umbrage and offense at your use of the term "redneck." It's a cultural/racial epithet. I know people you would probably think of as "rednecks" in your supercilious tone. Why don't you have equal scorn for the "niggers" who have their .357s tucked into their waistbands? DO YOU SEE HOW OFFENSIVE YOU WERE NOW? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

do you REALLY believe that if we polled Americans that own guns, their first reply would be "I own a gun because I m afraid that the government someday will try to commit genocide?" Most people either hunt or have it for self defense. (meaning they too are willing to kill someone) You did not address the first part of my paragraph, where I mentioned that other places have thousands more killings than the U.S. I wonder why you chose instead to focus on the issue of genocide, and then attempt to pursuade us that it is not the possibility of genocide that spurs gun owners to own guns. I for one DO consider that one of the reasons I own guns. Civil unrest or breakdown are lesser degrees of genocide or tyranny, too. And you bet your ass I'm willing to kill someone -- but the criterion is that I'll kill someone only if it is clear to me that he plans to take my life if I don't take his. That's fair, yes? They support gun safety by being there to provide training to whoever wants it, at either no cost or minimal cost. It's a free-will thing, don't you understand (apparently not -- you seem to want to force training of all sorts on all sorts of people) and a person has to want to be trained for training to have any effect, anyway. Where are you getting this nonsense? Yeah, and this is such a prevalent problem. It's more common by far that people come at you with a club, axe handle, or tire iron. You're inventing a major rate of incidence where there isn't one. And it's only because of guns that you have to feel this way. Right. Uh huh. Suuuure. It seems to be you who lives in such fear. I live in preparedness. It counters any fear I might have, a lot like skydiving with a reserve parachute. Hey, I'm the one who has guns in order to protect human life. The circumstances under which I would use them would be if someone had gone off kilter and was planning on trying to end a bunch of lives. I'd end his to save numerous others. Which of us values life more, the one who would stop a murderer from killing innocents, or the one who opposes having the means to do so? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Yes, but the automobile (and household poisons and knives and other ways of dying) actually have some OTHER useful purpose in life, whereas a handgun does not - it was designed solely for the purpose of killing. Until you demonstrate that all killing is equally bad -- and it's not -- this point is inconsequential. So what if guns are designed specifically to kill (and even that's not true of 100% of guns)? Do you put the killing of a rapist by his would-be victim on the same level as the killing of a convenience store clerk for the $85 in the register? Some killing is morally, ethically, and legally justified, and is possibly lamentable when it is necessary, but still not bad by its nature. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

You know, the word "great" can be used to mean "huge"...

1) Registration leads to confiscation. Period. There are no two ways about this. If you want to claim that we gun owners are yelling about a boogeyman with regard to this equation, we have only to point to NEW YORK CITY, WASHINGTON D.C., CALIFORNIA, ENGLAND, AUSTRALIA, and NAZI GERMANY. Those are real-world examples of exactly what we are concerned about: GUNS WERE FIRST REGISTERED, and then the knowledge that the police had regarding who had what guns and where was used TO GUIDE THE POLICE IN THE CONFISCATION OF THOSE GUNS. How can you argue that we are making a big deal out of a phantom fear when it's a fear that has become reality already, even in parts of the United States?! 2) "Cooling off periods" are generally unnecessary. Many of the "heat of the moment" killings take place at a time of day when gun stores are not even open, so it's not like people are rushing out, buying a gun, and then going and killing someone. I think this concept is largely a myth. And there should definitely be no "cooling off" delay if a person is buying his second, third, or thousandth gun. If he already has guns available to him, if he wanted to murder someone, he'd just use those. 3) If a person mislays his gun or allows it to fall into the hands of a child in the household, there are penalties in place in many jurisdictions that will apply. But if a person's gun is STOLEN in a criminal theft, I hardly think that he should be held legally or criminally responsible for crimes that are then committed with it. Your car could be stolen and then used to run someone down. Should you then be held accountable as though you were the murderous driver? What about your kitchen knives? Your chainsaw? Your can of gasoline? Are you referring to those major metropolitan cities like NYC, D.C., and Chicago, where despite the most stringent gun control there is -- BANS -- they still lead in gun murder rates on a consistent basis? Seems to me that you provided the biggest argument yet for the abandonment of the very policies you are advocating: they're abysmal failures. Blue skies, - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

OMG I hope this doesn't screw things up for me and my weekend up there but I only just realized that you've been talking about FRIDAY the 30th... but Wendy, didn't you tell me on Sunday that there was a SATURDAY event going on? Please tell me that it's an all-weekend affair or something! I'll be there Saturday as early in the day as I can, do a few jumps and then jump also on Sunday. I just bought a tent and stuff but will overnight at Casa Waller still be available Saturday into Sunday as well? Blue skies, - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I did not see the speech. I saw a clip of it. I thought it came across as rehearsed and insincere, like a kid practicing public speaking in high school and not doing too well at it. Would it be so different, so new, for a Democrat to TALK a wonderful message ("I am a gun owner and hunter just like you all and I believe in the second amendment ") and do so only because he knows it's what people want to hear him say? I've heard enough lies from them to suspect them of it again anytime they say something that begins to sound reasonable. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

What difference does it make how "fast" it occurs? The news recently has told us of a male nurse in England who has killed 173 people over several years. Is that somehow less horrible, because it took longer for him to accomplish? Is England going to ban nurses to prevent a repeat of this mass murder? What about the Yorkshire Ripper in the 1970's, who killed 13 people with nothing but a knife? Why didn't England ban knives after this horrible tragedy? And then in Japan just a couple of years ago, EIGHT children slaughtered by a guy who invaded their school classroom with a knife. Then there was the naked dude in England somewhere who attacked in a church with a sword -- an off-duty cop (who was of course unarmed) had to use an organ pipe to subdue the crazed naked swordsman! But eight schoolchildren, killed by a guy with a knife. Do any of you gun-banners understand how rare multiple firearm killings are? They are FAR in the minority of all gun crimes. But when people go nuts with knives, it seems, they go big! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Is it me, or does Kerry's face look like a Monty Python drawing by Terry Gilliam?? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Just a quick off-topic question. Do you feel the same way as you've stated above about other issues, e.g. gay marriage? Blues, Dave Yes. If someone's not gonna harm me or bother me by pursuing their interest, fine with me. You get these idiots who take a $15,000 Honda Civic and put $17,000 worth of engine, suspension and other mods into it, deck it out with spoilers and decals so that it just can't help but attract cops and speeding tickets, and add an obnoxiously loud stereo that just doesn't even seem to have midrange or tweeters in it whatsoever, for all the damned bass you hear -- and I just don't get it. But I'm don't take any kind of active stance in opposition to them doing it, and I don't question them for it -- I just know that other people have other interests that don't necessarily coincide with mine. Like that guy inthe article JohnRich posted, who seems to just live to collect beetles! WTF? But hey, them as likes it can have it! You won't see me getting all judgmental and condescending just because I don't get it. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Oh yeah?! Not even if they're haunted by evil ghosts or imbued with demonic powers, like that house in Amityville, or the one in the woods in The Evil Dead, or those cursed antiques in Friday the 13th: the Series??! Those inanimate objects scare the shit out of me! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

lol... from your article: Incredible! So, since making handguns illegal, cgun crime (which by all understandings must include owning a handgun) had gone up! wow! You seem to be confused. "Gun crime" was still illegal before the ban. It's not as though sticking someone up with a gun, or killing them with a gun, was criminalized in 1997, and that's why your gun crime rate went up. The gun crime they're talking about is most certainly USING a gun against someone in the commission of a different crime, like robbery or murder, because after the ban, 90-some-odd percent of the legally held guns were successfully confiscated. So it's very unlikely that a major part of the currently-committed "gun crimes" are simply the act of possessing a gun that is now banned. This one is good too... Since when did NYC allow concealed guns? I mean, mugging could only be dettered if your victim had one on him, right? So, until you can distill the number of crimes that are realted to woning a handgun from thses numbers... Are you posting drunk?? What's with the steady stream of typos (to say nothing of the illogic)?? your argument is baseless. Not hardly. Your argument, it seems, is that the bulk of the crimes involving firearms are simply people getting caught having them now that they're banned. Well, since the LEGAL owners' guns have all been accounted for, it seems that anyone still in possession of one was not in legal possession of it before the ban, i.e. there's a good chance he's one of those "outlaws" we refer to when we say, "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Data has already been posted here showing that the RATE of violence in UK and Aus. are already higher than that of the U.S. It is the NUMBER that is still smaller, the higher rate is something that is at work to change even that. Blue skies, - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Yes, of course, and that is why our currency still has a picture of the Quee-- oh, wait. Nevermind. Forget I mentioned it. I guess you didn't kick our ass after all. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Of course not. First, I haven't been arguing for regulation. I've only argued two simple points. a: guns are dangerous, and b: they are largely unregulated. Which is an absolute falsehood -- a lie perpetuated by the anti-gun lobby and press. -You have to have a government license to manufacture guns. -You have to have a government license to sell guns as a business. -You have to keep accurate records of how many guns you manufacture and sell. -Each and every gun you make must have a serial number, and the vector of sales must be recorded on down the line to the end user. -If you have these licenses, you can be inspected by the BATFE at any time, and you MUST open your records and your facility to them. -If you want to purchase a gun, you must pass a government background check first, giving up your name, address, social security number, and an oath (punishable by 10 years in prison for perjury) affirming that you are not a felon, a fugitive, a drug abuser, or a mental defective. -In all but two states, you must get a license if you want to carry a gun concealed on your person for self protection. In 36 states, the government must issue this license if you meet objective requirements. In 12 states, they can tell you to just fuck off if they don't feel like granting the license. Several states have NO provision for such licenses. So please, tell me again how guns and their sale and use are not heavily regulated. That's a slur. I would like it very much if you ceased referring to people whose side you don't agree with as "nuts." I we were people demanding gay rights, would you call us "fags" or "goddamned homos"? If we were women seeking equal pay, would you call us "bitches" or "dumb broads"? What makes assailing us with epithets okay? The fact that our interest is not politically correct? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"