peacefuljeffrey

Could be? Flying "HIS Cessna 206" -- even in the U.S., let alone South Africa... Smells like...money!! SkyDiva, just how rich IS your guy? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

That ought to tell you just how much of a "Republican" John McCain really is. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Let's nitpick grammar, spelling and usage while we're at it, then. I think you meant "lose," not "loose." - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I took the poll question to mean that orders from the superiors were not involved, and I stipulated in my response that if they did not give such orders then I thought they were not to blame.. I don't think the question was as ambiguous as you say (regarding whether orders were given). - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Silly me, I thought that new laws had to be proposed and passed by CONGRESS, not the president. The so-called "assault weapons ban" is a useless, idiotic, wrong-headed piece of trash and MUST be allowed to sunset. There is absolutely no point to its continuation since it never went near to reducing crime or limiting the number of guns possessed by criminals. - I believe the import ban was an executive order signed by Bush 1. Thats why you cant buy cheap Polytech M1s. Or Polytech anything for that matter. I'm no fan of the chinese but it was an executive order. I bought a cheap Norinco SKS in 1994 or '95. That was well after Bush I. I do recall an "executive odor" that Clinton made that banned more imports, sometime in about '99 or so. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

The part where I criticized the spelling of the guns was a minor part of my post -- but it is the ONLY part you really responded to. I wasn't picking on you, and I realize that English is not your native language, and no, I can't speak or write German. But please, realize that there was a much more central part of my message that you conveniently ignored. Why won't you face the actual issue? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

JohnRich: This answer is a good one. And just now see it related to all crimes happening in the world. We cannot control every felony happening everywhere, how the hell will you prevent anything? So, we simply created laws. Even they are not accepted by everyone or simply will not work on everything. That's it in my opinion. And that's why i always will support the laws. Hee hee. You sound cute but incredibly naive. I support laws too. Just not stupid laws that are unconstitutional and dont work. Bah bah little sheep. Exactly. We are not arguing for the abolition of all laws on the basis that they don't work because people still commit the crimes. We still need the laws to delineate between the behaviors that are permissible and those that are not. Keep a law that says murder is illegal, even though it obviously cannot prevent murder: it still is useful when society wishes to punish the murderer. The law provides the ability to say, "See, here's where it says you weren't supposed to kill anybody but you did it anyway." With gun laws, the situation is different. Nobody is harmed by the simple action of someone owning a gun. Gun laws seek to prevent the act of murder by backing up a step and trying to keep people from having the tool to commit the crime. We don't need such laws, since (a) they do not work and the criminals who want guns for hurting people will get them anyway and (b) we already have the "no murder" laws which cover the unwanted behavior. Gun laws to keep people from murdering are as sensible as a law that says people can't have cars just to prevent speeding. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

How the fuck could anyone who did not pull the trigger AND did not give orders to pull the trigger be guilty of the crime? It's the same anywhere: supervisors of others cannot be in full control of their subordinates' every action. They can be responsible only for how they handle dealing with those actions after the fact. I have always disagreed with the principle of supervisors biting the bullet when a subordinate does something that is not official policy, could not be foreseen, and could not be prevented. This asks (demands) that the supervisor be omniscient and omnipresent. It's impossible. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Does anyone think that people who have their licenses revoked stop driving because of it? They just drive more and hope that they don't get stopped. I knew a guy who had such excessive speeding tickets that they suspended his license. He got caught again and they revoked his license. Eventually he got caught again and they charged him with "aggravated unlicensed operation" but that didn't stop him from driving. In fact, he drove right on through both the suspension and revocation periods. (Well, revocation is permanent.) He paid several THOUSAND dollars in fines, took the tests again (necessitated by revocation, which is the utter cancellation of the license as opposed to suspension, which temporarily takes it away). Now he's back on the road with a license, and although I don't think he drives like the idiot he used to, this shows me, at least, that license suspension and revocation are meaningless. Down here in Florida, every week we read in the paper about some illegal immigrant killing someone in a traffic accident. No license -- not even in the country legally! These laws really don't stop anyone except the most honest people from driving -- but then the honest people usually are not people you even need stopped from driving. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

This is laughably silly (and I'm not talking about both brand names being spelled incorrectly). The entire point you are missing is that if such a maniac decided to shoot up your market over the price of a chicken -- this itself is a paranoid fantasy blown way out of realistic proportion -- if he's someone who's inclined to be this violent, he'll be one of the ones who got a gun from the black market in spite of your gun laws! Why are you not able to see this? You have already admitted the fact that the gun laws don't/can't stop the black market, but you have not gone the logical step further and realized that bad people who want guns will therefore not be stopped by your silly futile laws and will always get the guns they want, regardless. By the way, there have been lethal incidents of wild STABBINGS in settings like you describe. What about laws to prevent people from owning deadly KNIVES? Your laws do NOT address whether "every fool" has access to a weapon, because if such a fool wants one and can't get one legally, he has those 20,000,000 illegal guns in your country to choose from. That ol' black market that you admitted your laws don't have any effect on. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Bush passed Right-to-Carry legislation in Texas when he was governor, recognizing your right to defend yourself with a handgun -- when his female predecessor refused. That alone is enough reason to vote for him. He made good on the legislature's efforts to recognize your right to self defense. You know for sure that Kerry doesn't give a damn about your right to keep and bear arms. In fact, he's contemptuous of it. (Not that his ads will say anything but how he's a "gun owner" and "lifelong hunter" and respects the hell out of the 2nd Amendment -- what a joke!). - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

In the entire story, THIS is all the mention that the other side got: That's unbiased reporting, yes sir. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

From the story on CNN's website: Can anyone tell what the hell this guy is talking about?? "...Allows the owners of legal firearms to replace the housing..." WTF?! This guy sounds about like I would if I tried to talk about nuclear power reactors. There can be no question when an anti-gun legislator speaks gibberish like this that his position is absolutely intellectually bankrupt. If anyone took a post-ban firearm and added to it any of the accessories or attachments that are banned, that would be illegal. What is this bullshit about replacing a housing whoosamawhatchits, and turning a legal gun into an illegal one? And DUH, turning a legal gun into an illegal one is.... ILLEGAL! This idiot must be talking about the changes that manufacturers made to their models in order to make them LEGAL UNDER THE LAW THAT WAS PASSED. There is no "loophole" there: the law outlined what was illegal, so anything else that didn't meet those standards was legal. End of story. ONE GLARING THING I NOTICED: In the story on CNN, there are two groups mentioned: those for the ban and those against it. The CNN writer says that the Second Amendment Sisters were several hundred strong at this rally, and were any of them quoted?! OF COURSE NOT. THIS IS CNN. They have an unabashed axe to grind against gun ownership in their left-wing agenda. I challenge any DZcommers who don't believe that CNN is leftist and anti-gun to explain why no PRO-gun people were quoted in the story, and why the PRO-gun side's arguments and agenda were not mentioned at all. There is not a trace of a statement like, "We're here to fight for a woman's right to be armed for her own defense against a rapist, robber or murderer. The assault weapons ban doesn't protect anyone, and it leaves civilians defenseless and chips away at our right to keep and bear arms." No, instead we got ONE SIDE and ONE SIDE ONLY in this story -- the ANTI-gun side. These people at CNN are not reporters, they're activists. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Alright, I borrowed Moulin Rouge free from the library and still I couldn't watch more than the first fifteen minutes or so. What the F*(& was that dog supposed to be about?! Oh, and the sequel to Desperado really sucked and even though I paid to rent it, I turned it off and didn't finish watching it. The title... what was it... oh Once Upon a Time in Mexico. Don't bother with it. Belongs on the trash heap. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Not so much talking about country estates here. Most farmers and landowners happily let the hunt ride across their land, foxes are pests right? The point was that if the fox happens to run into your garden (yard if you like) its pretty difficult to stop a large pack of hounds from running in after it and digging up all your plants. Then those responsible should be held legally and financially liable for damage their uncontrollable dogs (and horses) cause. Just because the dogs can't be stopped from running where they will does not mean that those who set the situation in motion from the start should not be held responsible for what comes of it. If I were an 85 lb. woman and I went out with a Bull Mastiff that weighed 150 lbs., and it pulled away from me and mauled someone on the street, should I be able to just point out how large and difficult to control the dog is and say, "Meh, what could I do? The dog goes where he wants and bites what he wants."? No, of course not. The law would hold me to account for what my dog did because I am expected to be in control of it. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

If someone or group wants to kill a head of state they will do it. Just beacuase you 'think' there is never enough security or that security is never tight enough means little. Look at the guy who shot Regean, he just slipped right through the SS and shot the Pres. The Pope was almost killed too. Two of the best security teams in the world and they still got to them. Look at Yitzak Rabin. Now you have three of the best protected leaders in the world and they got to them. How about Pres Ford. Lady got one shot which missed Ford by a few feet, this is after Bill Sipple was wrestling with her. If he hadnt been there most likely Ford wouldve been shot. She didnt get a second shot cuz he jammed the trigger. Back in the 1990s the head of the German Bundsabank was killed. He had the best protection, best guards, best cars, etc. The car he was ridding in was top of the line mercedez armoured. I mean this sucker could stand an direct RPG and still drive and keep you safe. The front windshield weighs over 800lbs. Long story short a terrorist group made a bomb that would shoot a 100lb stainless steel projectile at an ungodly speed. They put this package on a messenger bicycle on the side of the road. Looked like your typical bike. When the car drove right by it someone detonated it and well the projectile went right through the passenger side, lifted the car over 25 feet in the air and flipped it over. Mind you this car is freaking heavy. The guy lived through all this but died due to blood loss from his injury. The drive btw was ok with a some minor wounds and burns. Experts later said that no armouring in any car wouldve withstood this type of attack. Okay, fine. I knew going in that determined people will kill whoever they want and all they need is the will to do it, some money, and an opportunity. My larger point is the ridiculousness of our government or authorities or police telling us that we the average members of the public are safe enough with the "protection" we get from the police; the idea is laughable. And in spite of how transparently bullshit it is, our public figures keep repeating this obvious lie to us, and members of the public (the ones who eschew gun ownership and say "that's what the police are for) go on believing what should not be believed, and thus leaving themselves more vulnerable than they have to be. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

They must be referring to those guns that have barrels and triggers and fire bullets. When will this madness stop? When? Jim The anti-gunners wrote the idiotic ban, and the ban simply does not cover guns that do not possess various accessories (bayonet attachment, pistol grip, flash suppressor, threaded barrel, etc.). If they don't like the fact that a gun made without those things is perfectly legal to make and sell and possess, who the hell can they blame but themselves?! Lately they seem to be arguing that companies that make legal items should not be making them, even though they're not illegal, because that's what the legislators would have wanted. Well, if the legislators really wanted guns of the POST-ban type (no nasty "assault weapon" accessories, like my Colt Match Target H-BAR), they should have written their moronic law that way. Their arguments are akin to a legislator who wrote a speed limit law for a certain highway to be 55 mph, and then bitching about people "skirting" that law with a "loophole" that makes it legal to do 54. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Silly me, I thought that new laws had to be proposed and passed by CONGRESS, not the president. The so-called "assault weapons ban" is a useless, idiotic, wrong-headed piece of trash and MUST be allowed to sunset. There is absolutely no point to its continuation since it never went near to reducing crime or limiting the number of guns possessed by criminals. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Don't you just love it when they say things like this in the wake of something that obviously disproves it??: I mean, isn't the fact that a bomb was set and detonated proof positive that security was not tight -- or at least not adequately tigtht to do shit? And elsewhere in the article they said that troops are "omnipresent" in Moscow, but then said that there are all these constant attacks and troops killed, etc. This strikes a chord with that article about the guy with the souvenir bat who was shot to death in Chicago (land of handgun bans), because in that situation some schmuck with the city or the police said that there was adequate police presence based on the fact of how quickly they got there after someone was killed. This bullshit is doublethink, people. Don't fall for it! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Two words: barbed wire. That should keep the horses out. Actually, I don't understand why fox hunters are allowed to trespass on others private property in pursuit of their game. That wouldn't be allowed in America. What's with that? Haven't you read the recent story about Madonna and her man in England? The government is saying that people who feel like traipsing across the countryside are free to go galavanting across anyone's "open land," so places like Madonna's estate do not have the right to keep people off. Madonna is fighting it, but um, she's fighting the government -- who do you think will win? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Yes, of course, just like when the news does a story on the "assault weapons ban," and shows a video clip of someone firing a full auto M-16. Why would you so credulously believe that all that is shown equates to all that is actually involved? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Folks, Idunno, maybe Christelsabine is a really good person and a great skydiver, whatever, but for some reason I think we are just not gonna get through to her about this. If someone can say that "the gun control laws are great and work fine except for all the people who get guns illegally on the black market and actually believe that the two are not mutually exclusive, that person is either intellectually dishonest or simply intellectually incapable of looking at the issue logically. This discussion is a great object lesson, though, for it can help us understand just what we're up against with people like Chuck Schumer, Frank Lautenberg, Ted Kennedy, Diane Feinstein, et al. Some people, like those listed, either are liars about what they believe, or they're ignorant enough to believe lies. In either case, they can't be reasoned-with and must simply be opposed. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I don't know if things have changed, but I never had to provide proof of actual firing of a weapon in 1997 when I applied and got my CCW license. The training was not practical gun-handling, it was legalese about when you could or could not legally use your gun, and where you could or could not legally carry it. Anyone know about changes that occurred to now require "proof of actual firing"? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Nothing needs to be explained away. How is it inconsistent? You just don’t like the rules of the game so you criticize. You’re presumption that “those who lived before the New Testament got fucked out of going to heaven” isn’t true either. Before Jesus, people were justified by the grace of God through their righteousness. I’m not saying everybody. I’m saying those who God deemed righteous. I’m not an Old Testament scholar so someone correct me if I’m wrong. When Jesus came and did what he did, a new covenant was ushered in with God’s people. People are now justified only through the blood of Jesus Christ. One must accept Jesus as savior and repent of sin. Bottom line. There is no other way for anyone. Oh, okay, so god changes the most basic rules of how to get into heaven down through the ages. Greaaaaat. Now, why on earth an infallible god could not set out rules at the beginning that he would feel like sticking with thousands of years later I'll never know. But I think it's real shitty that in one era of humanity, the rules of getting into heaven could be vastly different from the rules of another era of humanity. This "new covenant" stuff is bullshit, a real raw deal. How do we know that in a thousand years god won't change the rules and maybe at that point it'll be okay to be homosexual? Another new covenant that changes the most basic ways in which humans are coerced by god to behave in order to earn a heavenly reward. Dude, I don't mean a personal slam, but I really don't see how anybody could hold this chaotic, unreasonable, inconsistent, and patently unfair system to be worth believing and dedicating their life to. The human believer has to make SUCH EXCUSES for the flaws in what is obviously a man-made, flawed construct, which has changed over time with the abuses and indulgences perpetrated by leaders of the religion. This is NOTHING upon which I would ever base my view of life and the universe. It's scary to me that people are willing to. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

The quote, listed above, by 3ringheathen was actually a book review by Stephen M. St. Clair of Orlando, FL. 3ringheathen misleads by using the words, “A Sample.” It is YOU who are attempting to mislead, by falsely claiming that 3ringheathen did anything but clearly state that he was giving a SAMPLING OF THE [B]REVIEWS[/B]. Damn, man, it's right there in the text you provided as a quote!!! If this is the kind of game you play to get people believing you while you discredit others, why would anyone play it with you? Do it in good faith if you're going to do it at all. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"