peacefuljeffrey

So, is that a culturally condescending judgment or what? "I don't understand why you like this thing, so I could possibly find myself joining opposition to it." I mean, since when does one have to "get it" in order to be willing to leave those who enjoy something alone?? The pro-gun culture is largely driven by the manufacturers? What a bizarro theory that is! Is the interest in skydiving driven by the manufacturers? Is the interest in woodworking crafts driven by the lumber mills? You can't possibly give credit for a hobby to the people who just like that hobby, huh? How many ads for GUNS do you see on a daily basis? Somewhere 'round about ... ZERO, I'll bet. That is, unless you pick up a magazine about guns and see the ads contained therein. So how does that prove out your theory that gun manufacturers (presumably through advertisement, I assume you to mean) drive the interest in guns, when people have to go out of their way to expose themselves to guns in the first place? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Which is a silly tautological statement, and says absolutely nothing about how people might get killed by the same people who currently use handguns to do it, if there were no handguns. If we had never invented the automobile, people would not be killed by or in them -- but we'd have some other mode of transportation, and they'd probably get killed by or in those. We also have thousands FEWER unnecessary killings than a lot of other countries -- notably countries that attempt to BAN people from owning guns. Check out Brazil, and lots of African nations. Or how about places where there have been GENOCIDES. It's much easier for a government to do that to people who don't have guns. Please explain the logic of this statement, which really does seem to be a non-sequitur: what does making people learn how to use guns have to do with getting "unwanted guns" off the streets. You speak from painfully obvious ignorance, if you think the "gun lobby" does nothing about violent crime. It not only sponsors, it WRITES legislation and works to get it passed, that provides for still penalties for those who use guns criminally. Do a google search for "OperationExile" which has been a rousing success at getting felons who use guns put away in FEDERAL PRISON by allocating sufficient prosecutorial resources to do the job. It is the "gun lobby" that pulls all the weight when it comes to getting things done about gun violence and gun accidents. How many actual safety training programs does Handgun Control Inc. have? How about Violence Policy Center? How about the "Million Moms"? The anti-gun lobby hasn't got squat for "ideals" apart from the mindless, pathological screed of "Guns are bad, guns cause crime, guns cause murder, must eliminate guns." Blue skies, - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I will go on record that it is 100% always bad to have an "irrational" ANYTHING. It shows that you have allowed the smart part of your brain to freeze and stop thinking, and let raw fear do the job for you. You seem to be... well... advocating irrationality! How bizarre! By the same token, whuffos have no idea how to use a parachute correctly, right? Should they have an irrational fear of parachutes and skydiving? What about a person who walks near a swimming pool and doesn't know how to swim? He should have an "irrational fear" of it -- or should he maybe have instead a "healthy respect for the potential danger"? You condition the "inbuilt fear" to be for those who don't know anything about guns. Well, how about we address that by teaching people -- kids and adults alike -- so that they don't have to fear guns irrationally, and so that if they encounter them, they'll know how to handle them safely? Got something against education? Blue skies, -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Nope! My poll, my rules! T.S.! Um, just because we could state the tautology, "No handguns, no one killed by handguns," doesn't mean we wouldn't still be dealing with criminal killings, now does it? No household chemicals, no child deaths by ingestion of household chemicals. No swimming pools, no child deaths by drowing. Are we really willing to get rid of things that can kill, just to save the deaths, with no regard for what uses they have? Would you stop short of getting rid of COPS' handguns? Because, you know, I've read numerous cases (yes, more than two) of cops' kids taking their guns and killing either themselves or others. But you'd argue that cops have their guns so that they can protect themselves and others. Well, so do WE. BTW, what is an "unnecessary gun"? Blue skies, - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I've been mulling the situation with "sex offenders" because I have problems with the way they are being treated in the penal sense. (Do NOT go there.) Why should we accept that such offenders are to be punished after their prison punishment is over? Ostracized? Monitored? Forced to essentially blare a message everywhere they go that they committed this crime? Is the public really so much more at risk from a rapist, say, than a recidivist violent criminal like a robber or murderer? Lots of people get let out of jail far before "life" is served, and they've shown a predilection for harming people for all sorts of reasons ranging from financial gain through just plain malice. Why on earth do we not feel that they must notify a neighborhood when they move in? Why do we not feel that they should have to check in with authorities? Why DO we feel that they alone should be kept in prison after their actual sentence has been served simply because some doctor says he can't guarantee that they won't offend again? Look, I'm a 32-year-old man: I am NOT a target for a rapist. It is very unlikely that in the rest of my life a rapist is ever going to victimize me. I am NOT so fortunately outside the scope of a violent criminal who has demonstrated a recidivist tendency to rob, beat, stab, shoot people. Yet no one is screaming and howling to keep those people in prison or in institutions until we can be assured that they won't do it again (as if that's ever even possible). BTW don't go thinking that I defend rapists of any kind, or that I am one, or have ever stood accused as one. This is not the case. I just think that we are overplaying the danger from them and underplaying the danger from other violent criminals. (yes I know rape is a violent crime, but I'm talking about the standard physical-injury-type crime.) Blue skies, -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

So, you could ignore the discussion but had to comment on the non-necessity of the bump... ? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

That was hilarious! My favorite parts: - Kerry in bondage gear and ball-gag, "You're a U.N. pus-sy!" - Clinton with boob-babe, slapped by Hillary: "Whud Ah DO?" Genius! And non-partisan, too!

No, this is a guy named Joshua Seth. Checked his website and it's pretty impressive. He's also a psychic. Um, claims to have actual psychic powers, or puts on a psychic show? I mean, if there are any real, honest-to-goodness psychics out there, there are missing people and missing weapons of mass destruction that we could all use some help finding. I've always wondered why these gifted people are so unwilling to help for the good of manking... I've never been hypnotized, but I've gotten myself into hypnotic-like states through relaxation and stuff. White noise and vibration helps a lot. I don't really believe the stories of people doing silly things like they couldn't stop themselves. One of my fraternity brothers went to a show (I wasn't there) and later in the school newspaper he said that he had just been "going along with it." I dunno. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Brought to you by the same people who don't want human beings to ever have to be responsible for their own actions, or to have to exercise self control. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Probably either the fault of the boxing commission or the parole board, for letting that shit-sculpture ever be out on the streets or in a ring again. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

You might also recall that it didn't get the job done, either. Really? What evidence have we found that Saddam Hussein was developing WMDs? The fact that we have no proof from him of the dismantling and disposition of weapons he was known to have had, and used. I find it troubling that you would sooner give the benefit of the doubt to a murderous genocidal madman whose sons tortured for sport (and who probably did, himself), when that man could easily have hidden his program (remember, he was not letting U.N. inspections happen -- so who knows what he might have been busy doing all that time). You are quicker to give him the benefit of the doubt than the president of the freest nation on earth. Strange. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Unnecessary. From what we've found so far, apparently one of the earlier requests worked...unless of course we've found some indication that he WAS building WMDs. Please fill me in if this is the case as I must have missed it. "Worked"? As in, we requested he get rid of his WMDs and he DID? Why then the big problem getting him to show us just how he got rid of them, and where they or their components ended up? You're pretty credulous, it seems, when believing that in the absence of proof S.H. could easily have given us, he did eliminate the weapons, just because we haven't yet found them in great substance. I think that it is less compelling that we haven't found them in a sea of sand than it is that S.H. could easily have proven to us he had dismantled his program if he had, but he never did give the proof. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

DUDE! I had never seen her in live action, or speaking, before. She is FREAKY-SEEMING. That weird shaped mouth, the weird stilted speech and mannerisms... VERY CREEPY... Definitely NOT charismatic as a potential first lady. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

since convicted felons lose a great deal of rights and privacy already..... is it easily removable? how about detectable without the transmiter? if this is something that can be 'installed' on you covertly....well the potential for abuse gets really really high.. It's subcutaneous. It's embedded in fatty tissue under the skin. There will forever be a chance of infection -- even possibly lethal infection -- from the procedure of both inserting it and removing it. Sure it's removable. You want to go through the pain of having your skin punctured and your fatty tissue scraped to get the thing out? Sure it's removable. You could have your arm amputated. That'd rid you of the abomination. We as a society are quick to point out that even convicts retain certain rights. If they retain 5th amendment rights against self-incrimination, and first amendment rights to worship, why couldn't we recognize their right to the sanctity of their person against intrusive procedures ... and branding. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

A man who has no problem shooting 16 children of that age has no problem beating them to death either. Or using a steak knife to cut their throats. You've done nothing to prevent a reoccurrence, instead you've found a scapegoat for it. Good point. What was that doctor's name, the British doctor who murdered almost two hundred helpless patients? I'm still trying to figure out how he managed to pull that off without having to use a gun! He must have been some sort of superman... - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Oooh, so far, 100% pro-gun and zero hypocrites. Amazing. No one wants to admit they support restrictions on everyone but themselves, I guess. BTW, sorry some poll responses got cut off for being too long. It allowed me to type them so I thought they'd go through. And yes, I see that I typed "potect" in the last choice. "I'm just a man." - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I will kill or die before I ever allow someone to put that shit inside my body. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Well, I'm seeing a lot of what I consider hypocrisy from the anti-gun left. Think Rosie O'Donnell's screed against gun owners, but sending her kids to school with armed bodyguards. Think Dianne Feinstein railing against gun ownership but having a nearly-impossible-to-obtain California CCW license herself. So I want to find out where people stand about guns. I want to say in advance that no offense is intended nor should be inferred. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

There is a subtle difference between saying something like, "Militarists, make up your mind," and "Make up your mind, you Militarists." When you tack "you" onto something, it becomes a "name" in the sense of "name calling." That can easily make "war monger" or even "militarist" able to be construed as meant to be an unflattering epithet. So absolutely, I think you were name-calling with the header of the thread. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I call bullshit. From the subject header on down, your post was a troll. The only thing is, now you're trying to bullshit us into believing you didn't mean it -- not even having the courage to back up what you did. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

There must only be one reason? If we're going to war, seems to me there better be a lot of good reasons. ...and there are. Exactly. Some variegated groups can get behind the same action even though they support it for different reasons. This is why both "moderate" gun control supporters line up alongside extremist gun BAN supporters to push things like the "assault weapons ban" or one-gun-a-month. Each group wants varying degrees of gun control, but they all push the same legislation. It's just that one would (possibly) be willing to stop sooner than the other. The same can be said of those who support the war in Iraq. Maybe some of them just want Iraqis to live free as we do. Maybe some want the oil. Maybe some want to protect us from those who are building strength to attack us. Maybe even some just hate them on a racist level. Some will have noble goals and interests, some ignoble. But they're all cheering the same action, just for different reasons. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

WTF are you talking about? Is this some sort of "clever" personal attack? Dude, you should chill about that. Everyone here knows that your poll was itself a NOT so clever backhanded personal attack at anyone who supports Bush. YOUR implication was akin to the "anyone who supports X is an idiot" without calling any one person an idiot. So I think you should just recuse yourself from this one. Your antics with posting this poll are essentially why a good guy is banned right now. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

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

You "poll" is full of shit. You think you've proved something because of the fact that "Bush's ego" got a bunch of votes? You telling us you honestly believe those votes haven't come from ANTI-Bush forumites, when clearly you asked the CONSERVATIVES here to vote? Do you honestly think that those conservatives here who are supporting the war are doing so because they simply want to bolster Bush's ego? Your poll is a crock of shit troll, for the simple reason that it was never meant in good faith. And it's obviously been tainted by people who are anti-Bush hitting the "Bush's ego" button. Nice try. Not! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Here come the "Oh, that's different though" and But what MM said was TRUE! Bull shit! If Charlton Heston would be wrong to criticize the "creative editing" in Bowling for Columbine (as we have been told by Moore's apologists that we are wrong to do so), then so will Kerry be wrong to criticize the Republicans. But Democrats are famous for wanting it both ways. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"