peacefuljeffrey

That is, a gumdrop house on Lollipop Lane... With elves, and leprechauns and magic frogs who wear funny little hats... Great episode! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Why would anybody be surprised? The Democrats are already the party so desperate that they're scrambling to get felons to vote for them. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Is "No taxation without representation" written into the Constitution? Anyway, any child of a parent IS represented -- by the vote of their parent. That same child cannot sign a contract to go attend a private boarding school, or a waiver to take karate lessons, but their parent can. The parent is the proxy for all the legal decisions for that kid until that kid is 18 years old. Period. What would you say of a child of parents who are both felons and who have not had their voting rights restored? None of them should have to pay taxes?? What about babies? Should they vote? How low do you set the age once you establish that 18 is unfair? What about a 7 or 8 year old kid going to the store to buy candy? Can't tax him because he didn't get to vote on a candidate regarding the sales tax percentage? Let him vote so that he can?? No. His parents are his voice in these matters, until he's 18. Yeah, and to supplement for the BILLIONS of dollars that would not be going into all other government coffers, YOUR taxes, and those of all over-18s, would skyrocket. You ready for that, or is this another half-baked liberal scheme that is as unworkable as it is poorly thought-out? Should this plan be based on the flimsy argument that "you can't imagine" it? Again, this "taxation without representation" argument is specious. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

No taxation without representation. I don't think it's a good idea either, but it does fit with one of the primary reasons this country was founded. That's specious. While under the legal care of their parents, they ARE represented -- by their parents -- before the legislature. They themselves don't vote to elect their representatives (on taxation and otherwise) but their parents DO. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I just can't seem to figure out why they would try to do this. I'm thinkin real hard. Do you have any idea why? Because they just haven't thought about how DISASTROUS it would be if CHILDREN at that age, with the attendant maturity level were given power over who GOVERNS us. Ironically, I'd bet that these are the same people who are outraged when children are sentenced as adults when they commit murder at 15 or 16 years old. People dumb enough to wish for something like this are part of the PROBLEM with democracy giving everyone's voice an equal say. Democracy doesn't provide any guarantee that what people suggest (and god forbid we find that they're in the majority) is not utterly stupid, dangerous, unworkable, or just plain wrong. Paradoxically, we cannot round them up and ship them off to an island where their idiotic views can do no harm to our way of life, because that in itself would be unamerican. *sigh* We're resigned to having to simply oppose their moronic schemes whenever they rear their ugly heads. Blue skies, - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I would prefer that homeless people get up off the street, get help (there are loads of social services to help them, I believe), and get a job and help themselves. That said, I do occasionally give them "spare change" because even if they're never going to get off the streets, I have to recognize the fact that life has blessed me quite a bit and these people don't, for whatever reason, have it so good -- so a little from me may bring at least a bit of pleasantness into their lives. Maybe it's a burger because they're hungry, maybe it's some wine if they're a wino -- who knows, maybe it's even crack. I guess I just sympathize with their need and their misfortune and so now and then I give. Blue skies, - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I don't turn into an untrustworthy person because I travel on an airliner. Or because I fly my own plane over a town where a college football game is in progress. Or because I teach a course using model rockets to interest inner city kids in math and science. Poor analogy. If this were to apply to traveling on an airliner, it would have to be so that when traveling in certain places, they let you carry weapons on board, and then not in others. The practice would have to be considered perfectly okay in one place and totally illegal in another. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Congratulations! Now, would that be "black bear" or "brown bear"? Now get some water training so you can work on your B! I gotta get up wayyy early tomorrow morning to go and do just that. Hope I don't drown! I'll bet if I drown they won't give me my B... - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

So now that the movie is in wide distribution, and it seems like "everyone" is seeing it... ...what of Moore's self-promoting bullshit story that Disney "yanked" support for distributing it? Remember that? How indignant he was about allegedly being blindsided by Disney's withdrawal? Remember how it came out that Disney had made clear a year prior that it would not distribute the film? This is the Michael Moore that people should be aware of: the lying, self-promoting, truth-shirking one, who doesn't care how disingenuous and dishonest he has to be in order to get people to align against the people and politicians he doesn't like. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Except that in many states it isn't a matter of qualifications, it's a matter of the entire practice being unlawful. Okay, so that would affect someone from Florida wanting to carry in Illinois... but there are other states that DO issue CCW but do not recognize FL permits. There's not even a guarantee of a significant difference between the qualifications to get a permit, here. So what's the rational justification for denial of the right to carry, then? I think it's problematic to have, in one nation, different states with different ages of legality for things like sex, marriage, drinking, driving, etc. When there's one state that allows sex at one age, and another state that allows it at a different age, then that's proof that it is not a moral or ethical distinction but a statutory one. Who's to say what's right? What if a 19-year-old has sex with his 17-year-old girlfriend where the age of consent is 17? They have an entrenched relationship, and then they go on vacation to another state, where they rent a hotel room and have sex. NOW it's a CRIME? How could anybody defend the turning of a legal act into a criminal act based simply and exclusively on geography and jurisiction?! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I wish I could remember who it was about and where I read it, but it was either John Kerry or Ted Kennedy who did not even support the idea of their off-duty police officers carrying concealed guns -- IN THEIR OWN STATE! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I have an N64 system and Pilotwings is one of my favorite games for it. (I also love Perfect Dark) I've spent enough time on Pilotwings to have achieved perfect scores in all but about two or three top-level events. Of course, the best thing about the whole game is "Birdman," which is where you have wings on your arms and you can fly around freely anywhere, in any season, day or night, without regard for score or time!

Oh, ho ho ho... Now we start seeing the pith of the matter. You feel that rights must be EARNED, specifically through police training. And the rest is sour grapes: you would resent having someone's rights recognized if you found they had not had the same requirements made of him. That's just pettiness. You STILL FAIL to establish why it should be any tougher to carry in states that are not the gun owner's home state. Nothing changes when I cross a state line. If I wasn't fucking up with my CCW gun in my home state, there is no LOGICAL reason (as opposed to petty legal reason) to bar me from carrying in other states. This is not a particularly hot issue for me since I live in S. Florida and don't cross the state line except once or twice a year when traveling. Others live in states that border several others, and daily business may take them across the border and back into gun-unfriendly states. It's absurd to pretend that they're suddenly unworthy of carrying a gun in the neighboring state just because an imaginary line on a map was crossed. Yet that's what you're asserting. And you're still holding civilians up to what cops are measured by, despite the fact that they do not share the same duty burden and do not have to function in the same modality. All we have to do is defend ourselves -- something for which top-notch police training is shown over and over again (read NRA's "The Armed Citizen") to simply not be necessary. edited P.S.: It's not as though states with stringent gun laws can legitimately say, "We don't want this proven-dangerous practice of carrying concealed weapons brought in from out of state," because there are ZERO statistics to show that CCW increases crimes or accidents involving guns. In fact, strong statistics indicate that CCW helps to decrease crime. So these states, like MA or IL, are NOT saving themselves from some boogeyman by prohibiting CCW, either by residents or by transients. Blue skies, - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

What about the "full faith and credit clause" in the Constitution, which states: Article IV. Section 1. "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State; And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." Many (myself included) take that to mean that when the official state government of a state grants license -- marriage and driving are two prime examples -- the other states must honor those licenses. Why should it be different for concealed weapons? Here in Florida, without taking driver's ed, a kid can get his license at SIXTEEN. He can then drive into New York, where he would not be eligible for another two years, if he lived there. New York is forced to honor his driver's license even though NY's standards for granting one are more stringent, and the kid would not be eligible. This is an example of a state being "forced" to honor lesser qualifications. Congress could and should pass laws which do exactly what the Full Faith and Credit clause provides. Blue skies, - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

OK, so I'm a little slow 'cause I just noticed this, but . . . You have 1133 posts and you don't know who JP is? In all honesty, you might want to read a little more and post a little less for a while. At first I thought you were just misquoting and changing things around to be "edgy," but now I wonder if you've just been kinda missing the point. Unless I'm mistaken, billvon was sarcastically referring to ME when he said "JP," but "JP" is not the usual "PJ" that people use to refer to "PeacefulJeffrey." I typically strive to not misquote, or even take quotes out of context, unless there is some joke meaning to be gained from it. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Then they should get their asses out in public and come forward in favor of CCW in states where the advocates are having trouble getting it passed. Then where are the stats, from THIRTY FOUR states, showing that this has turned out to be a big problem? Surely if it's as big a problem as you are alleging, it has shown up in someone's study? Find it for us, if you are going to make the assertion. Or are you making the assertion with nothing factual or statistical to back it up? Your common sense hunch is all we have to go on? "Main reason" for what? For cops not supporting CCW? I thought you said they DID. If you wouldn't feel comfortable with a 50 state carry law for CCW holders, how on earth could you feel comfortable with CCW at all? If I'm in Florida with a CCW license, and I come to Kansas, what's different about me that I was safe to carry a gun in FL but not in KS? Your position makes no logical sense. Either you support CCW or you do not -- 50 states recognition doesn't change a thing about it unless you believe there's some magical difference between carrying in one state and carrying in another. As far as your training discrepancies are concerned, please account for the shooting of that guy in NYC, where the cops fired 41 times, hitting him only 19 -- and on top of that, the guy was not holding a weapon, but a cellular phone or a wallet or something! Contrary to what you're saying about currency training, I've heard that lots of cops shoot maybe ONCE a YEAR, just to requalify. There are many many shooting enthusiasts (who probably make up the bulk of CCW holders) who are such ardent shooting hobbyists that they are FAR more competent with their handguns than the average cop is! Besides which, you are holding CCW holders up to a level of training that is not generally necessary to accomplish the basic SELF-defense mission that they carry CCW for in the first place. But once again, if cops won't stick up for general CCW, don't expect gun owners to stick up for cops' right to carry in 50 states. There's no contradiction between peacefulness and guns. I don't use guns to harm people, first of all. Second, a willingness to engage in self defense should one be threatened is not an indication that one is not peaceful. And as far as "If you want to carry in all 50 states, put on the funny blue polyester suit and badge," I thought the point is you cops DON'T yet have that right... So doesn't that make this bad advice? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

You apparently missed all the clarifying posts regarding that bank account / rifle deal. It is not that the bank does not give away a rifle if you open a certain kind of account with at least X number of dollars deposited. It is that Moore depicted himself as though a typical customer could walk in, plunk down money, fill out some paperwork (Moore glosses over the background checks and the fact that any customer doing this deal has to pass FBI/BATF checks), and walk out of the bank right then and there with a rifle. Moore also does not clarify exactly what would be so bad about that even if it were true! The bank does not give out ammunition, and I doubt someone would stand by if a customer brought his own ammunition, got the rifle, and proceeded to load it so that he could do mischief. (For one thing, why would someone who wanted to rob the place, who could obviously pass a gun-purchase background check, go to the bank and first have to acquire the gun through them, rather than pass the background check elsewhere and go there with his own gun?) The reality is that Moore's acquisition of the gun was arranged in advance of the shooting of the scene for the movie. Typical customers would receive credit for the gun at another location and would have to select and obtain the rifle there -- they would NOT be handed a rifle at the bank, which does not keep them in inventory for dispensing to new account holders. Glad I could clear this up for you. Michael Moore IS a deceitful, disingenuous shit who doesn't have any scruples about twisting the truth to advance his agenda. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

For a one off handbuilt custom bike I can justify big prices, hell, do you know how much a car would cost if built like a true on custom bike? But are we talking about such a custom bike? I don't think so. I think we're talking about some of the standard higher-end Harley Davidsons, and I just don't think they're worth it. I can barely see why a Honda Nighthawk should cost what, $6000, $7000??! I used to think I'd end up buying a bike; I've always always wanted one -- but they're just too damned expensive. Even people selling used ones haven't got prices low enough that I'd feel comfortable paying them. Of course, I did blow 4 grand on a skydive rig that I could have used for a motorcycle... But I couldn't go on without my own rig. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

That's just fuckin' insane. I don't care what fancy schmancy shit is on the bike, or how much chrome it has -- you're paying for a NAME in that case. Besides that, I can't see why any motorcycle should cost as much as or more than my CAR, which was sticker priced around $18-19k. If I had the money, the bike I'd want is the Honda Nighthawk 650. I have always loved the way it looks, and I don't need the ridiculous power of a crotch-rocket, or the too-laid-back riding position of a cruiser. Something that says "athletic" without saying either "slob" or "irresponsible" either. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

It's not whining, it's pointing out one very important fact: Many gun owners who would support this bill for cops to carry in all 50 states resent the fact that as far as us legal CCW holders, cops leave us in the cold. They don't vocalize their support for CCW, which is an unbounded success just about every way you look at it. In the meantime, we get the politicized police groups, like FOP and Association of Chiefs of Police palling around with Bill Clinton on photo ops to support the "assault weapons ban" and to CONDEMN CCW when it comes up for votes in various states. You can't deny the righteous indignation of civlilian gun owners when police want public support for something like this, but withhold that support for us, when we know we are not part of the problem. That's all I'm sayin'. If cops want supporton this issue from the many gun owners who resent not being able to carry in different states, they need to give at LEAST a nod toward legal CCW holders, and vocally support that concept. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Really? So let's turn the tables....I can change a tire, change my oil and know how to use jumper cables. Do I have to give up my female card? Nope. As long as you can cook, clean, and "satisfy," you get to carry both the Woman AND the Man card! P.S. The"satisfy" part should be both a male and a female requirment. I'm not trying to hold you to something that I'd let guys slide on. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I'm not big on people not being at least competent with a gun, but I can see why you were off-put by these two morons. Anyone with that kind of attitude should probably not have guns. (And blanks can kill too, you know. They are not, at least, 100% harmless.) - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Regardless of the fact that I don't go through the training you are talking about, my state HAS seen fit to grant the CCW permit to me. This begs the question, "Apparently I'm OK to carry in Florida; what about me is different if I should, say, pass through Kansas or Illinois with my concealed handgun?" The facts bear out one thing in particular: it is NOT cause for alarm that your state has such 'lax' requirements. Concealed weapon permit holders, by all accounts, have sterling records regarding the rate of accidental gunshot wounds or deaths, as well as sterling records regarding criminal behavior. The rates of these things are FAR below the rates of the public at large. Remember, these people are not generally having to clear houses or conduct traffic stops, etc. They are just defending themselves. It's not something that you can be assured 100% success at, but it's a lot harder to shoot the wrong person when you're the victim of a robber, and not a cop showing up at the scene to see two guys going at it with weapons or even just fists. You are saying that you would hate to be forced, as governor, to allow civilians from 'lax' states to carry in your state. WHY? Is there some statistic you can point to that shows the present criteria for giving, say, Florida CCW permits is allowing dangerous incompetents to carry guns? If this is your assertion, why don't you back it up for us? If not, I think that 1987 to the present is time enough for your predictions of bad news from permit holders to have shown itself. Fact is, it hasn't happened. FYI Florida is pretty darn lax when it comes to granting permits. I took the course at the local gun show in '98: all that was required was about a few hours of lecture covering legal usage of deadly physical force. NO range time. NO gun handling. These are things that, after all, behoove the gun owner to get on their own. And in spite of this laxity, problems with permit holders (while they do occur) are few and far between -- a statistical anomaly. I put to you again that there is nothing about a pistol permit holder in one state that should prevent him from carrying in all 50 states, unless you're saying that he's simply unfit for even his own state in the first place. Fit for one is fit for all. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Since it wasn't broadcast on TV or radio, no. I think this is hilarious. Leahy is a two faced little bitch who questioned Cheney's integrity in public then tried to be pals with him afterwards. He deserved it. Cheney should have punched him to accentuate the comment. In an article in Saturday's Palm Beach Post, there's mention of a Carolina senator "taking his cane to" an abolitionist and leaving him bloody and near death on the senate floor. The whiny libs should be counting their lucky stars Cheney doesn't walk with a cane! edit: Oh, it took place in 1856, not recently. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Outline for me the reasons why this should apply only to LEO and not to those like me, who have been investigated and have applied for and received a permit to carry concealed weapons from the state in which I live. Why is it reasonable for me, a civilian with a carry permit, to be treated as worthy of the right to carry concealed weapons in one state (plus that grant reciprocity) but not in all 50 states? If your answer is, "Well, you're not a sworn and trusted police officer," I guess I can come back with about a dozen instances of police officers betraying that trust by raping, stealing, murdering... Being a police officer is NOT proof of having the character that one should demand of someone entitled to carry weapons. I want 50-state reciprocity FOR ALL PERMIT HOLDERS. We do not change into untrustworthy people just because we drive over an imaginary line! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"