peacefuljeffrey

That's partly because in today's freaked-out paranoid pussy scaredy-cat milquetoast anti-self-sufficiency society, the general public soccer-mom yuppie sissy boy people would just melt down if they saw people carrying on their hip. It's also partly because the idea of "keeping the criminals guessing" is also at work. If it were known that IF a person were carrying a gun, it would be carried in the open for sure, then criminals could attack anyone with no visible gun with confidence knowing he did NOT have one. They could do this after surveying the area and noting that no one ELSE had a visible gun, either. Thus the criminal enjoys the ability to ply his trade in relative safety, with no concern for armed resistance. Is this beginning to make sense to you yet? It should. Since the Second Amendment does not specify concealed or unconcealed, the government would have no power to dictate which way we could carry. (Yes, I know that we have long been suffering under a usurped "power" of the government to do exactly that.) To be clear: the Constitution does not "give" us ANY rights. It guarantees rights that are understood to be ours by virtue of being human beings. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

The difference between examples is palpable. In yours, I can definitely claim that bad things come of having the smoke around, be they cancer, emphysema, or just a stink-ass stench of cigars in my house. The same cannot be said of CCW. CCW LOWERS crime rates, and makes people safer. And at the very least, since it definitely cannot be shown to WORSEN crime rates, there is no call for the neighboring anti-CCW state to be concerned. The statistics exist to back up the claim that they really have nothing to fear from CCW. The only reason there would be any need to try to defend the lack of reciprocity would be if the anti-gun states could show they were keeping out a known bad element by barring CCW reciprocity. That they are not. Their refusal to honor other states' CCW, even if those other states require less training, is a response in search of a problem. They're standing on ceremony, and they certainly have no call to. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Well of course, but that's because the less law-abiding persons aren't able to get CCW's in the first place. Then I guess the system is working. Great.

Except, sometimes they shoot an unarmed kid, or flash their gun and claim to be a cop. I am sure there are many good gun owners like yourself Dave. personally, I don't see what is wrong with ensuring that all legal gun owners are. Look, I (staunchly pro-gun) posted those three examples to dispel the myth that we are claiming that nothing ever goes wrong with people carrying guns. If you want to use those aberrant circumstances to try to justify citizens not being allowed to carry concealed guns, then I guess we'll have to trot out the stats on POLICE shootings of unarmed victims. I personally recall two such instances, one of which involved a guy I took jiu-jitsu instruction from, who later became a Suffolk Co. NY cop. Shot a guy in the driver's seat of his van because he thought the guy was reaching for a weapon. No weapon. The other was a cop who had stopped a college student after it was reported he used a stolen credit card at the Smithaven Mall in Lake Grove, L.I., NY. Apprehended the kid, had him face-down on the pavement, handcuffed, Glock to the back of his neck, and what do you know, "It just went off!" The Glock was analyzed, all of the issue guns now became "suspect," until it was found to be utterly non-defective. The cop had -- gee, guess what -- pulled the fuckin' trigger! That's usually how a modern-manufactured gun "just goes off." I did not post those bad civilian gun incidents to show that civilians and CCW are a bad mix -- I posted them to keep the pro-gun side (MY side) HONEST. We can easily be honest about any and all bad incidents and STILL show that statistically, civilian CCW is overwhelmingly safe and lawful. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Nope, but we certainly mandate training, don't we. Who does? The U.S. government? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Was it important to mention that he was black? You don't know who was searched before or after the photo was taken. Was he the only one with a bag large enough to search? I agree though with your statement about warrantless searches. Bullshit. - Jim You're right, I don't know who else was or wasn't searched. I thought that it made the police intrusion seem a bit more pointed. Okay, forget about the fact that he's black, then. Why are they searching the belongings of people just for being near the convention. Was this guy trying to get INTO the convention? No. He's on a TRAIN. Are civil rights suspended within a certain perimeter of a Democratic Convention? Are there signs up to notify the public of this? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

A photo appears in today's Miami Herald showing the interior of a commuter train. In the aisle is a SWAT-type cop. The caption reads: "A transit security guard checks the bag of a passenger in Boston near the FleetCenter on Monday as a heightened security presence is evident before the start of the Democratic National Convention, which began later in the day. The photo shows the cop prying into a medium sized black duffel bag of a 20-something black male -- the only black in view in the photo, of 7 or 8 discernible passengers. I want to know when it became okay to subject commuters to random, warrantless searches of their belongings or persons. Is this not the type of thing Democrats scream about? I guess it's okay when it's done to keep them safe from attacks. Always the hypocrites. I really find myself wondering what would have happened if this guy had told the cop to piss off, there was no probable cause for a search and no warrant. They probably would have had him face down on the filthy floor of the train car with plasticuffs behind his back cutting into his flesh and a "drug-sniffing dog" going on-point for the bag of crack they planted in the duffel. Random warrantless searches of commuters. This is fuckin' SICK. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

"One way or the other", i.e. Clinton's way or GWB's way. Both were effective, but Clinton's way didn't require the lives of a thousand American troops and tens of thousands of Iraqis. You might also recall that it didn't get the job done, either. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

By jove, you're absolutely right! We could have asked him AGAIN to not build weapons of mass destruction!! That woulda taught 'im! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I agree with you, that is what would make the experiment even better. To see what would happen to the US if John Rich was making the laws. Well I'm certainly glad I've made sure to flatter him now and then! "I know this is all hypothetical and probably will never happen. People will have to try and remember that not everybody, specially myself, understands this fixation with freedom of speech." That's just a minor twist on what you said, even though you probably don't realize it. You're probably thinking, "Where the hell did he come up with that?" and you'll continue to wonder until you make the realization that we don't have a fixation with guns, necessarily, but a fixation with being able todefend both ourselves and our liberty. Just as most would not yield to encroachments against their right to free speech, we value our right to be armed as well. You are not yet thinking of this issue in the correct terms. The fight for gun rights equates to the fight to remain free and independent, and not under the thumb of oppressors, be they common criminals or government criminals. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Hmmm... bizarro. I wonder why Cox News Services (which is notoriously NOT Republican-leaning) would have skewed that story to favor the notion that Kerry was denying an accusation that she had said something she did in fact say. That chunk I transcribed was verbatim. Clearly, the writer or editor has changed the meaning of what went on by omitting that the guy who questioned Kerry added "activities" (assuming what you said is accurate). That's inexcusable on the part of the news media. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

The paper I have here says: The incident occurred shortly after Heinz Kerry, a philanthropist and heir to the Heinz family food fortune, told convention delegates from her home state that a change in tone was needed in American politics. "We have to turn back some of the creeping un-Pennsylvanian and sometimes un-American traits that are coming into some of our poliics," she said. When Colin McNickle of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review pressed Heinz Kerry on what she meant by "un-American," she said repeatedly, "No, I didn't say that, I didn't say that." She turned away, then returned moments later. "You said something i didn't say, now shove it," she said, pointing her finger at McNickle. Now... I haven't seen this on t.v. or anything, since I don't have cable and don't watch much t.v. , so I haven't seen the actual video of what happened. I just find it very ironic that she displays lack of civility immediately after giving a speech on it, essentially scolding others, lecturing them from on high. Compound that hypocrisy by the fact that -- at least according to what I'm reading here in The Palm Beach Post, that she most certainly IS quoted as having said "un-American," and you find she's denying having said something that it can be proved she said -- and then getting mad at someone and accusing him of lying AND telling him to shove it, all in one fell swoop! AMAZING! And it reminds me of another prominent Democrat who had a penchant for "pointing fingers" when lies were being told... That irony is certainly not lost on me. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Crossing into another state isn't BS. You proved my point by again, not offering anything about the relative difference between Person A carrying in one state, and Person A continuing to carry across a state line. Nothing you said addressed what is ostensibly the real concern of the laws that govern how much training a given state requires before a person can carry concealed. That would be about supposedly ensuring that the person is safe and reliable before he can carry concealed firearms, right? That would be the point of the laws? You proved my point about how no one adequately addresses this. Let's say State A has 1, 2 and 3 requirements for concealed carry. Neighboring State B has 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 laws -- they are more stringent in the training required to get the permit. What if State A can definitively show that even though they lack items 4 and 5 in their training requirements, the accident rate and the crime rate among their CCW holders are actually about identical to those of State B? Sorta would illustrate that maybe there's no real need for those two extra requirements. And I'd be willing to bet that there is virtually no discernible difference in crime rates and accident rates among CCW holders from state-to-state. Both are probably statistically insignificant, no matter which CCW state you're talking about, from the most stringent to the least. No, I don't have data. Call this a strong hunch based on other stats I've seen about the law-abidingness of CCW holders in general. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Crossing into another state isn't BS. It's not just an imaginary line, it's a border between separate states which reserve the right to legislate within their borders. If you're talking about the relative difference to public safety involved in letting that individual carry a firearm, then it is an "imaginary line," and that's exactly the point JohnRich and I are making. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

After that, you can blame other people? Sweet!! I'd better get movin' though; I hit 00098 this weekend. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

\ "rigger stiffing" is that a technical term? ~R+R... Maybe he meant "rigorous stiffing." And I vote for the "pull silver" idea, too. OR, Couldn't a rigger put a "mechanic's lien" on a rig, just like anyone else who does work and is not payed for it per a prior agreement? I would confiscate the rig when the non-payer wasn't watching it, and lock it in the rigging loft -- again, on a nice blue Saturday morning. Give the deadbeat time to get to an ATM. You'll probably get your liquor or your money. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

That is the consequence of lack of reciprocity that I have been repeating over and over here, asking ANY defenders of that aspect of the gun laws to defend it, and so far, no one has. No one has come up with a decent reason for it -- only b.s. like "it's a state's right to decide how they want to restrict people carrying guns." NO comment on why you should be treated differently for going over an imaginary line. NO comment on what makes you supposedly worthy or unworthy -- which SHOULD be the basis for such a law -- depending on which side you're standing on. No one can defend this. No one has really even tried. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Hee hee. Y'all are crazy! Who here is an expert on what happened Sept, 11? Every damn one of you/us is relying on what we heard! My favorite put-down for MM is that the [patriotic] american people[/patriotic] are too stupid or naive to do their own research or study beyond what's spoon fed to them! FFS, don't hate tha playa... Um, I personally don't have the time or inclination to do the background research on everything I wish to know about. That's why I read the papers about a train wreck/chemical spill rather than go on down there and take a look-see for myself. Moore prides himself on having done loads of research, and employed loads of "fact-checkers" for F-9/11, so yes, it IS fair to say he is palming himself off as an "expert" whereas we ordinary citizens have not pored over Congressional documents, business documents, transcripts, ad nauseum. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

No, a documentary is a film based on, related to, or consisting of documentary evidence. F911 meets that criteria. It is the viewers responsibility to not blindly believe what they see at the movie theater. And for the record, has Moore ever called this movie a documentary or advertised it as such? I'm not sure, but I don't recally that being the case. He was given an award for it that called it a documentary and everyone's been calling it that ever since. I knew I could count on a hedged response to this, including the idea that an audience that turns to an "authority" for information needs to already be so knowledgeable about the subject that they'll be able to tell lies from truth. Can you say "circular," boys and girls? Um, we may not be talking about the same movie, but when Michael Moore accepted an Oscar for "Bowling for Columbine" as "BEST DOCUMENTARY," he tacitly agreed that it WAS a documentary. So it doesn't matter if he ever uttered the word or not. I don't have to ever say the word "check" in order to get one cashed at the bank, do I? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

He sure is working his butt -- he's even painted it up to look like a pair of human facial lips! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Hell, in PA ours never expire. And think of Vermont. They don't even have licenses. Everyone is legally permitted to carry concealed. Residents, non-residents, felons, the criminally insane. Only restrictions are that students can't carry to a school (but non-students can), can't carry into state institutions, and you can only carry a loaded long gun in a car with you if you're a parapalegic hunter (I kid you not). Please supply some source material to bolster the claim that nothing legally prohibits felons, the criminally insane, or drug abusers (which you didn't mention but who are typically prohibited) from carrying concealed firearms in Vermont. I was under the impression that you had to be the typical "law-abiding citizen in good standing." - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

What would be wrong with the Republicans using footage of things that Democrat supporters actually said and did in an effort to make people see the actual mentality of Democrat supporters -- AND the Democrats that they were speaking in support of? I think it would be rather enlightening to see someone who would be president laughing his ass off at someone (allegedly) calling his political opponent a "c*nt." If he were not proud of it, he shouldn't have laughed at it; he should be admitting that she said it; he should be admitting it was wrong, immature and undecorous of her to say it; and he should be renouncing it. But he is not. I suspect he is simply embarrassed of the very people who support him, and with good reason. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I would. And, I'd watch it. I'm not an ostrich - I like to be informed. And I recognize that - just because MM might exaggerate and portray the worst aspects of the sport to make his point or to get people to wake and take notice - there are ways to address the 'real' issues that may (or may not) come to light. Just because I love the sport of skydiving doesn't mean it's above question. Nothing is. Unless Michael Moore put footnotes into his "documentary" on skydiving, how would you know, with confidence, which parts to believe and which parts to think he twisted, distorted, or lied about? I'm talking if you were watching it as someone who is not "in the know" about skydiving. Because to hear his apologists tell it, MM's documentaries are "taken with a grain of salt" even by his fans. In fact, to hear his apologists tell it, EVERYONE knows that MM puts a slant on his work, but everyone also knows that they are to keep in mind where this movie is coming from, who made it, and what his tendencies are, i.e. watch it, but don't go believing it as gospel. THEN WHAT GOOD IS IT?! If an audience is full of non-experts on a subject, they are counting on someone who has done research and who IS an expert to INFORM them. They are NOT [I]CAPABLE[/I] OF determining, through the filter of their own knowledge and expertise, which parts are accurately represented and which parts are disingenuous. So they either are skeptical about it all or they believe it all. There really is no room for gray area. What purpose would it serve if I, knowing nothing about quantum physics, went to a "newbie seminar" about it and the guy doing the seminar was apt to fill it with SOME stuff that's true, and SOME stuff that he made up himself and which is not true? By the very fact that I am a newbie, I don't HAVE the knowledge I need to counter the bullshit. That's the whole point. If people are counting on MM to tell them stuff they don't know, how can they at the same time be able to tell what is false? They would have to know stuff they didn't know in order to detect a lie! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Actually the goal is to not come off like a bunch of juvenile jackasses like they did with Whoopi and Gore's silly outburst screaming like a moron. I'll agree with you here, at least in a large part. Conventions are for presenting your candidate as the man for the job. You can take some jabs, but the focus needs to be on your guy, not their's. Behaving on the nationally televised equilivent of that Whoopi event would not be a good move for the DNC. But we don't know how they all behaved at that Whoopi event! They're afraid to let us SEE how they behaved at that Whoopi event! But, they swear, it was nothing they should be embarrassed about! Nothing that would be a black eye for them! ...Just, we can't let you see for yourself how innocent it was. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Because cops are responsible for doing a lot more than the average civilian has to: recognize that a crime is being committed; determine who the actors are and who the victims are, and differentiate between the two even when arriving on-scene after an attack has begun; arrest said actors in compliance with their civil rights, department regulations and procedures; maintain public order during a crisis, possibly using non-lethal or lethal force ... probably a lot more. All that a civilian is generally going to do with his gun is defend himself or his family; he is not going to have any possible confusion about who is attacking him, because he won't be arriving midway during the commission of an attack against him. He will be either justified or unjustified to use lethal force; this won't be changing from year to year, either. He will have learned those differences during his initial training to qualify for his CCW permit, and from then on it is his responsibility to maintain familiarity with the conditions. Generally, he will not be in nearly the kinds of situations in which a police officer can easily find himself, and therefor does not need nearly the scope of training -- and proficiency-maintenance training -- that cops need. Is that an adequate answer to your question? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"