peacefuljeffrey

Puuuulease Paul. Why on earth would they wanna face reality??? Oh, go back to sleep, willya? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

THEN EXPLAIN WHY THEY ARE SO POPULAR WITH THE ANTI GUN CROWD. My theory is that intellectual honesty is DEAD in the anti-gun crowd. They are ruled by hysteria, so facts and logic mean NOTHING to them. That's how they can get behind the doublethink necessary to spend MILLIONS OF MOTHERFUCKING DOLLARS ON THESE BOONDOGGLES! You should be outraged, like any gun owner, any time this sort of SCAM is payed for with your tax dollars. What is it about the anti-gun mind that cannot grasp that criminals will not willingly give up their weapons, even for a hundred bucks?! TF, do you not see now, why gun owners call everything anti-gunners say into question?! WE CONSIDER THE SOURCE. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Because I can't be judged for it until and unless I hurt someone with it. Same reason you can have a chainsaw, kitchen knife, or even a bulldozer in your back yard. I don't have to justify my exercise of my right. You don't have the power to say that my right stands to be taken away unless I can "justify" my use of it. Why would we offer a reason besides "because a 200 year old document says so" when that's all we need? Why don't you try making the case for why we should not be able to have assault weapons... and while you're at it, we're going to need a comprehensive definition of "assault weapon." You're the one saying our right to have them is questionable; you're the one who has to make the case for taking them away. My reasons? They're fascinating. They're fun. They're good for defense, whether you live in a suburb or out in the sticks on 200 acres. They can be used in times of civil unrest, and even in war. (Think "Red Dawn" but more realistic.) A big reason is, "Why the fuck shouldn't I, since I'm not a criminal and I don't go around hurting people?" - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

LOmofoL!!!! Hey, I read in the paper yesterday that Brazil is planning to spend three million dollars on a "gun buyback" that they *gigglesnickerguffaw* hope will "keep firearms off the streets..." From the Miami Herald: OMFG. Just what idiots are in government who think that gun buybacks are apt to get any guns from criminals who use them to hurt people?! They "HOPE" to take 80,000 guns off the streets. They'll be lucky to get EIGHTY guns. What excuse could they possibly have for such a misguided scheme given that these "buyback" programs have been DISMAL FAILURES EVERYWHERE THEY HAVE BEEN ATTEMPTED?! How do they plan to apologize to the people of Brazil for wasting $3.3 million dollars?! And how does a government "buy back" guns that never belonged to it in the first place? Let me put it this way: If you were a criminal who uses a gun to rob people, and that's how you make your living, would you give up that gun for $33? When it may be making you thousands? When it may be protecting you from other criminals, or from resistance by those you rob? Just who the fuck is so stupid as to believe that the public stands to be made safer by this program? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Oh, and dont fool yourself. After they come for my guns, they're coming for yours MR Browning and Glock owner. Really? Drunk driving is illegal and they haven't come for my beer. I can't drive 90, but I can still go 65. I can't bang a 16 year old, but I am still fine with a college girl. I don't buy the "slippery slope" argument. It's a cop-out. How can you "not buy" something that can be clearly shown in historical data to actually be in effect?! We started out with no restrictions on guns. We got Dodge City, where they outlawed carry. We got NFA '34. We got GCA '68. We got AWB '94, and all the others in between. We used to be able to have machine guns, but not anymore (don't give me class III bullshit). We used to be able to carry when/where we wanted. Now we have D.C., NYC, L.A., Chicago, Detroit, Morton Grove... We now have the assault weapons cosmetic-features ban. You tell me where it stops. As far as your driving analogy is concerned. If we had started out at no speed limit, then 100mph, then 70mph, then 55mph, then 35mph, then you'd have an apt analogy. There is a clear and defined AGENDA to the incremental infringements on gun rights. Drunk driving laws address a specific problem that lowering the speed limit to a draconian low would not. What is addressed by forbidding rifles to have bayonet lugs, or a magazine capacity over 10 rounds? We can clearly establish the incrementalism, i.e. "slippery slope" of gun laws. That itself is reason to believe in the theory of it. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I am not going to bother to dignify this with a reply. You asked me to define my position; for what I assumed was a reasonable, intelligent point that you were trying to make. Dude, it was a JOKE. LIGHTEN UP.[/I] - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Not true at all. The reason that the amendment process was put in place was to allow the document to evolve with the changing times.Notice the recent furor over the gay marriage ban Well, what we've arrived at here is this: The Constitution may well be a "living breathing document" in that it can be AMENDED. It is NOT "living breathing" in the sense that a specific passage means one thing one day, and then some time years later can be taken to mean its opposit, just because times have changed. The "living breathingness" comes from the ability to be amended to keep with the times, not from the bizarre notion that it is proper to interpret an unrecognizable meaning out of the same old words that haven't changed. Once again, people have distorted what should be a very clear meaning in an attempt to make it mean what they want it to mean -- in this case, "living breathing document." - - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Exactly my point. At the time of the authoring of the Declaration Of Independence, the thought was that there should not be a standing army. That has changed. The fact that a standing army is now considered universally acceptable is all the more reason that the people should retain the means to oppose it should it run amok. How do you not see that? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

High Times And pedophilia is not a valid example because the act involved in creating it is a crime. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I definitely agree with the above. Based on this, "we" (gun owners) are still operating on the ORIGINAL principle of the 2nd Amendment, the change in technology since its writing notwithstanding. WE are not the ones who have sought a change in how the 2nd Amendment is interpreted. It still means that the everyday citizen is entitled to protection of the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of the fact that guns are much more advanced than they were 228 years ago. That's what it meant back when it was written. So the only "we as a society" that has perverted the meaning of the 2nd Amendment to mean what they want it to mean (contrary to what it does mean) are those who now wish to use it to keep the everyday citizen from being able to own guns. (i.e. the discredited "Collectivist" interpretation) Do you realize that if the technology of the day is used in the "interpretation" of a constitutional right, like saying that semi-autos are not protected under the 2nd Amendment because they weren't around when it was written, then you can forget about being entitled to publish newspapers with offset printing, laser printers, the Internet... these things could not have been dreamed of by the framers when they guaranteed freedom of the press in the 1st Amendment, so who knows, maybe they're too dangerous to be protected! They do have the power to incite large populations to action both good and bad. They can be used to spread vicious lies, dangerous propaganda, instructions on how to make bombs... You see, you can't have it both ways, and that's what anti-gunners forget when they raise the specious "the framers didn't see this technology coming" argument. There's no way they'll concede that it applies to what they hold dear when it is redirected against them. Then get it repealed, because unless you do, IT STANDS. There is no provision at law or in the Constitution whereby parts that are considered anachronistic no longer have to be adhered to. I have seen this argued time and again, and anti-gunners never grant that it would be terrifyingly dangerous to allow anybody to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution apply today and which do not. Who would have the authoritative say, anyway? Would King Solomon show up to split our Constitution down the middle because both sides couldn't agree on which parts to obey? As long as it says what it means, and it does, there is no room for "interpretation," intelligent or otherwise. You either agree that it must be abided by, or you get rid of it so that you are no longer acting unconstitutionally if you fail to abide by it. "Matt's position..."? Isn't that usually, "on the floor, getting stepped on"? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

The huge trouble arises when those who hate guns and the right to have them try to use this area in which there must be consensus and twist it to serve a clearly anti-gun end. They launch from the thesis, "Well, clearly there must be some 'common sense' restrictions on some weapons," straight into camouflaged attempts to incrementally reduce the types of allowable guns until there are none left with any semblance of utility, until all we're left with is single-shot .22s. If the gun is too big, it's "high-powered." If it's too small, it's "too concealable -- a Saturday Night Special." If it's any good for killing deer or elk at 300 yards, even though it's bolt-action, it's a "sniper rifle." If it's semi-automatic, it's an "assault rifle." If it's made with some plastic in it, it's a "terrorist special." The .50 caliber is too big, the Raven .25 is too small. You'd think the .380 would be just right, but they can't even import Walther PPKs because they don't score enough BATF points to meet the "sporting arms" definition. But it's not high-powered! It's not high-capacity! If the anti-gun morons would just enter the discourse IN GOOD FAITH we could just arrive at some basic level and establish some protected classes of guns based on RATIONALITY and FUNCTION rather than hysterics and cosmetics, and maybe if that were solidly codified in law we could say, alright, we'll give up these other guns. The only problem with that is, if we were left with anything close to reasonably powerful guns that function well for defense and sport alike, it's hard to imagine what would be being saved by banning any of the remainder. I mean, if we said people could keep their HK USPs and their AR-15s and their Glock 22s, 27s, 19s, 17s... but couldn't have a Raven .25 -- what would be the need or argument for banning that Raven .25?? It's like the claim that the AWB prevented murders -- HOW? If someone wanted to murder, he didn't go to a gun shop, find out that he couldn't get a rifle that had a flash suppressor AND bayonet lug, and walk out without a rifle saying, "Shit, now there's no gun I canuse to commit this murder," because he could just buy the same gun without the cosmetics! So what is saved when one "type" of gun is eliminated but hundreds remain available? So anti-gunners screw up the discourse by constantly lying about what they want, constantly asking for this but with their eyes set on the goal of that. Some of them have actually had the balls to ADMIT that their goal is to take away all guns, incrementally, but most of them are full of shit and lie and say, "All we want is common sense laws." Well, we HAVE those already. They're called the law against murder and shooting people. So because the anti-gunners are not willing to discuss this in good faith, we cannot even get NEAR a discourse on which arms qualify for Second Amendment protection, because they march in and start wanting everything in the store to be outlawed, granting nothing and conceding nothing and compromising nothing. That's why NRA-types have to stand fast and say NO arm is to be allowed to be infringed, even though we all off-the-record agree that the average citizen shouldn't have RPGs and Howitzers and stuff (or DO we? Some argue that they are necessary to be in the hands of civilians in order to be a constant deterrent to a tyrannical government.). - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

There you go, taking me seriously despite my But in answer, no, it does not say that, because if you do not limit "arms," with a word like "small" or "personal" or "fire-" or "repeating," you DO mean ALL ARMS. If someone brought a "fire-arm" to you, you'd have to say, "It's an 'arm.' " If he brought a "repeating arm" to you, you'd have to say, "It's an 'arm.' " If he brought a "small-arm" to you, you'd have to say, "It's an 'arm.' " Do you get it? You don't sound very pro-gun... You seem argumentative against gun rights and an individual interpretation of the Second Amendment right. What's the story? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

The stated reason, I thought, for doing the early pullout, is to appease the terrorists in their demands and save the single life of this one hostage. What I'm saying is that wouldn't it be funny if after the Philippines pussy-out and cave to terrorists, the terrorists decide to make the Philippines look even worse by beheading the hostage after the last Philippino goes home!! -- because they're fucking terrorists!! (I say that facetiously. I would not find it funny, but it sure as FUCK would be IRONIC.) - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Oh oh oh I remember now. Back 7 years ago (the last time I lived near a range where I could fire my AR-15) I was pretty good (for a self-taught civilian) at taking down and cleaning my rifle. In about half an hour I could probably be just as good as I was 7 years ago. I seem to recall, though, an admonition to NOT swap parts between rifles, as this could be dangerous. Am I imagining that I remember reading that in the manual? (I have two manuals -- one for the Colt HBAR I have and one for the actual M-16, but they're almost interchangeable.) As I recall that thing was a LOT of fun to fire, and so gentle, too! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

You trying to say it's not?! -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Could you explain what is meant by "piston-driven upper"? Are you saying an AR that is not gas-operated? I am not sure whatdifferentiates the "upper receiver" from the "lower receiver" on an AR -- and mine is not in front of me to look at. Could you explain that? And if you have time... how the hell does a rifle fire from an "open bolt"?? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

This is America -- you don't have to do it... - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

If you are they typical "liberal who supports gun rights," it probably means that you support them for yourself but don't trust anyone else in the population to have them. But really, what kind of crack are you smoking to say that Kerry is anything but an ardent enemy of 2nd Amendment rights?! His voting record is 100% hostile to guns and gun owners, and he has supported every possible restriction of them since he's been in congress. Just because he mouths the words, "I believe in the 2nd Amendment" means nothing when his actions are diametrically opposed. The funny thing is, he's so out-of-touch with the people that he really believes we're stupid enough not to know an anti-gun lying shitbag when we see one! LOL! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Well, maybe Bush is trying to destroy everyone else's environment, but cares about his own... Just like Kerry and other liberals like Dianne Feinstein want to destroy Americans' right to own guns as long as they get to keep their own. (Feinstein is rabidly anti-gun but was found to possess a difficult-to-obtain California concealed carry permit even as she crusaded against gun rights in her state and in the U.S.) Maybe they're both all about "me my mine" and so their ads prove nothing? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

If you love someone deeply, it can be a great expressionof that love -- fulfilling for both people -- to agree to give half and get half of what each other has and is. It's about commitment to share forever, and to trust forever. In this modern era of everyone being in it for only themselves, it is not surprising that people are so untrusting of others that they enter marriage half-heartedly, half-trustingly, and do these pre-nuptial agreements. All they say to me is that if you have to have one of those, you shouldn't be marrying this person because you don't fully believe and trust that you can make it work for the rest of your lives. I believe in marriage, but I haven't found the right girl to make a match. Here's to hoping. Blue skies, - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

There is a difference between "inflammatory" and "humorous/sarcastic". And quite frankly, I did not know there was a "Smiley Code". Sounds kind of idiotic, to tell the truth. I will spare you the "Chill out, dude!". Are you saying that your penis-size comment -- which, absent a "" or a smiley of some sort to indicate it was a JOKE, is easy to take as serious -- was meant to be a sarcastic "this-is-what-an-anti-gun-person-would-say" joke? It's the opposite of your actual stance and belief? What would be the harm in making that a little clearer next time? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Yes, I understand that. But am I out of line to point out to someone that they have declined to be courteous? That's again, my opinion and I'm entitled to express that I feel a person should have observed and honored a simple and reasonable request. I'm not saying that people are obligated to be courteous; just saying that it'd be nice if they volunteered to be. Of course, out of spite, I'll probably have a lot of clickies thrown at me to prove I've been discourteous in the past. You know, because everyone's got something to prove. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Dont live for the smilies Jeff. They aint always there. It's just that if someone wants an inflammatory post to be taken as a tongue-in-cheek joke, it behooves him to make that clear. Yes? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

If your comments were meant to be tongue-in-cheek, where was the appropriate emoticon? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Maybe the future is overwhelmingly liberal, where they believe in punishing people before they can even do wrong -- just like they believe in keeping you from having guns just so you can't possibly use one to shoot somebody. -- which makes as much sense as banning cars so that people can't drive drunk. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"