peacefuljeffrey

We're both skirting on the edge of personal attacks, but if you really think I said what you say I did, you're listening through your's. Okay, attack mode off. I think that you are far from reality if you suggest that legalized concealed carry of handguns would make attacks like this one far more common, since experience of 34 states indicate strongly to the contrary. You would have to be arguing against demonstrable fact. Are you going to make any attempt to compile a statistical analysis that backs up your wild supposition, or just ask us to believe contrary to what has already been statistically shown to be true? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

From the article quoted: So, the standard used to define "adequate" police presence is NOT that they were there in time to PREVENT a murder -- they just have to be able to respond rapidly once there's BEEN a murder. Can anyone see why people who own guns might do so because they're not willing to wait for protection from police that doesn't arrive until after they're dead? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Except that this one wouldn't apply, because all handgun ownership is banned in Chicago, so this gun owner was already a law-breaker, rather than a legal CCW permitee. That's besides the point, John. If it were legal, it would happen "MORE OFTEN." Well, of course, sure, no doubt, everybody knows that, naturally, right on... Except, IT DOESN'T[/I]. Show us some statistics, PLEASE, that indicate anything remotely close to "this happens more often where there are CCW permits issued." Bear in mind, you'll have to show that it happened where the shooter did NOT act in LEGAL self-defense, because the justifiable shootings should in no way "count against" CCW as a policy. So, we'll wait a bit while you dig up stats on the THIRTY-FOUR states that have shall-issue CCW and show us where the big problem with permittees acting with reckless violence. Um, he was CHARGED with having the very gun that he used in lawful self-defense. That would be like putting out a fire with a fire extinguisher in a place where fire extinguishers were for some reason illegal, and then getting charged with possessing one. It's insanity. But please, go on and tell us how CCW would cause more incidents like the one in this thread, especially given that this incident didn't involve someone with a permit, and that 34 states have now seen fit to set up a permit system in spite of this supposedly obvious danger. I think you're talking out your ass in that regard. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

You really need to learn more about the factual way things work before you go spouting off about them. Criminal charges do not necessarily require that the person who was wronged file charges. If "the guy that got shot" had to be the one to "file charges," then technically NO ONE would ever be charged with murder! "HELLO?!" The STATE brings such charges. They bring the charges in the name of THE PEOPLE, not the person who got shot. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

See, that's just sick. Here in America, it is anathema to us to suggest a law that says you can't state what you believe (granted, it's not legal if it is defamatory against another). I can go out and state that George W. Bush is acting like a fascist dictator if I want, or call Ted Kennedy a lying treacherous scumbag (along with Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein, I would add). I can't be prosecuted for that. I can deny the holocaust, I could even make a claim that I believe slavery never happened. It speaks of the WEAKNESS of a society if it must suppress offensive or controversial speech, rather than allow it to be confronted in the open where it could theoretically be exposed as false and stupid. Isn't it better to LET holocaust deniers speak their minds, so that they can be exposed as foolish liars? What is the big fear of letting a bunch of revisionist liars put their idiotic claims on display to be ridiculed and discounted? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Very good point. I wonder how many people even thought about that, or went about criticizing things without that knowledge and understanding. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

So are parachutes. Do you think it would be a good idea for people to start using parachutes without any training, just because they can read the provided manual? There's a world of difference. A skydive is a dynamic activity. You can't slow it down, or pause in the middle of it to take stock of what's going on. When someone buys a gun and sits down with the gun and manual together, even without someone experienced to train him, he can take it verrrrrry slowwwwwly, reading step by step; during the whole process, the gun is never loaded until the person has a firm grasp on how it functions. The fact is, if the person gets the new gun, reads the manual, and then follows those safety rules verbatim (which is not at all difficult to do, or to remember), he is NOT going to end up injuring or killing anyone, or damaging property. That's the whole point of how the gun safety rules are set up. There are redundancies, so that even IF you don't "treat every gun as if it were loaded," you are "pointing it in a safe direction," so that if it goes off, nothing and no one is harmed. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Did you even read that article I linked to? In Germany (Europe in general, even the U.K. island!) you have a major problem with weapons flowing all over the place on the black market thanks to the fall of the soviet union. Did you read that there are estimated 10 million legal guns in Germany, TWICE that in ILLEGAL guns, and only 80-some million people?! You say that gun laws cannot be strict enough -- but fail to realize that gun laws control only those inclined to obey law in the first place. How have your strict gun laws prevented over 20,000,000 illegal guns to abound in your country? And I point AGAIN to that mass murder in the school, because although it may be a rarity (so is a killing of more than fifteen people here, too) it happened in a country whose laws, you claim, keep gun violence at bay. How do you reconcile the occurrence of a heinous murder using guns with your claim that your gun laws are working well? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Sorry you're caught up in this, Val. I think that it's the right thing to do to make sure it gets found out. HOW is the tricky part. If you simply go to the friend and say they're being cheated on, they may just get angry at YOU. (This happens. In denial, they make up reasons "why you would say such a thing," and often the revealer gets accused of jealousy or ulterior motives.) So the sucky thing is that YOU could end up being disliked. Cheaters are assholes. They're greedy and cowardly: they want it all, and don't want to give up the "benefit" of having one mate in exchange for another; and they're afraid to face the truth that will come of telling their mate they're cheating with someone else. Your friend deserves to know because -- at the very least -- infidelity could be exposing that person to unknown disease risks. It's not just about personal pride and love gone bad and hurt feelings -- it could be life or death. Tell your friend that the cheater is cheating. (Is the cheater the man, or the woman?) - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Sorry, pajarito, but this sounds REALLLLLY ignorant given the obvious reality that penises do most certainly go up butts -- both guys' and womens'. How exactly are you going to argue about "design" here? Do you have a copy of god's original specs? To a penis, an orifice is an orifice. As far as penises not being "designed to go up a guy's butt," is that why Catholic priests prefer boys? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

So glad to see that Germans still support gun registration, so many decades after those very laws were used to make Jews defenseless against the Nazi regime. If gun registration works so well over there, why did you have that kid shoot KILL 13 teachers and 2 students back in 2002? Here's a link to the story: School shooting worse than Columbine in strict gun-control Germany -- how could this happen?! Gun registration serves no purpose except for later gun confiscation. Period. You can argue the point with history, if you like, but history shows it is unequivocally true. Here's a question for anyone who wishes to answer: What is it about a registered gun that makes that gun unable to be used to kill someone in a criminal attack? ...I'll wait. FROM THE ARTICLE IN THE LINK: Glad why? Because gun laws that he admits don't do the trick were made "tougher"? How will tougher gun laws that still target only LEGAL guns help stop gun crime in the future? The experts have said that Germany is already "AWASH with illegal weapons." The doublethink of gun control supporters is truly staggering. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I work at Applebees. It makes me appreciate my future salary as a physician more than ever. Oh, after this: "If your bring your children with you, and yes, they're cute and andorable, please keep them from running around the restaurant like it's a nursery, lower their voices (and yours!) to a dull roar, and try to minimize their destruction. I know it's fun for them to pass the time by emptying the sugar caddies, but it's not as fun for me to pick it all back up when you've left. I'm not asking you to clean the floor, after all kids are messy little things, but maybe you could remember that the crushed up saltines, crayons, napkins, and sugar packets don't get picked up by themselves. --- I would've sworn you worked at TGI Friday's, which was just like that when I worked there for two years. LOL! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

When I was a kid, if I saw them near me in the water at the beach, it freaked me out. When I was in high school, a friend of mine picked one up by the spike tail and held it upside-down and I could see the underside -- just little legs scrabbling in the air. I realized it was harmless. It turned cute in a microsecond. Now I love the things, and think they're really cool. I found out that they're one of those millions-of-years-old species, like alligators and sharks. How cool is that?! The show I saw about their blood said that it was useful in some sort of medical application, but I don't remember what. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Used to be, that wasn't so. The data used to be stored on a wafer sandwiched between two discs of plastic, if I'm not mistaken. I guess it's cheaper for them to make shittier-quality, less-durable discs and at $16.95 on average they increased their profit margins. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

You are incorrect there. The Supreme Court says on a regualr basis that failure to review a case does not equal agreement or endorsement of a ruling. The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stated that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, and specifically refuted the claim that Miller endorses a collective rights interpretation. However, the 9th Circuit CoA, in Silveira v. Lockyer decision, stated that there is no individual right in the second amendment. And if we never got any more to go on than that, we could look for guidance to the fact that the 9th Circuit is the most overturned court in the country. In other words, it is not a safe bet to ever rest upon a decision they made, because I read that 70% of their decisions are overturned eventually! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Who said I wasn't talking about having it towed off? All I said was a license was not required to buy a car. For all that specifies, I could mean some guy drives his used car to your house and sells it to you right there on your property. I'm glad you agree with the other part. We both understand, of course, that most people do not buy either a car or a gun with the intention of not using it. I like the idea of people getting proper training to safely use either, but the idea of government-mandated training for something as hotly debated as guns does not sit well with me. "Passing the training" becomes a judgment made by government or police authorities, and is therefore discretionary. We have enough experience with discretionary permiting in this country. Technically, you "can" get a permit to carry in New York City, but you and I wouldn't have a prayer of getting one issued because the police can turn down requests for any reason they wish. In some places, the permit system is "in place," but "Oh, gee, sorry Mr. Permit-Applicant, we're out of the forms you'd need to fill out, and we just won't be ordering more. No form, no application, no permit. Have a nice day, peasant." The risk inherent in having the government require gun owners to pass a test for ownership is that the government, if it decided to never let anyone have guns, could simply make the passing grade impossibly difficult to achieve. Voila, no one is "good enough" to own a gun. My preference is that people who want to own a gun have the smarts on their own to want to be proficient with it, and seek training and knowledge on their own. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

First, just because the Supreme Court declines to hear a case, does not mean that they agree with the lower court ruling. It makes no statement at all about the merits of the case. But they are letting it stand, implied agreement. They may just be waiting for a different case to come along, but until it does, the decision is at least binding on that part of federal court system. No one gets to claim the SC might overturn it, therefore it's invalid. What happened with Emerson, btw? I decided to save the NRA some money in mailings and dropped my membership, so I don't get the factoid magazine anymore. NO! The U.S. Supreme Court had repeatedly SPECIFIED that its refusal to hear a case is NOT to be taken to mean they are giving their agreement to the lower court's decision. There could be myriad reasons to not hear a case during a given session (probably not all of them politically pure, either). Sounds like you're maligning what really is an excellent magazine. "Factoid" has a negative connotation, and I'm not sure you really mean it that way. At least what gets written there is verifiable fact. Go to the leaflets put out by HCI and all the other gun-grabbers and see how factual their crap is. Hint: it's not. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

There are abundant classes for people to take so that they can learn safe firearm handling skills. Also, all guns are sold with owners manuals that clearly outline the major safety rules of handling a gun safely. These really are all you need to know. As with many products, the burden is on the user to apprise himself of what he needs to know in order to use it safely. A user's manual is all you truly need to be safe with a gun, but many many people avail themselves of good training -- because they want to be proficient and safe with their guns. If you want to acquire a permit to carry a concealed handgun, in many or most jurisdictions you are required to take a class on how and when to use the gun. (Florida, where I live, requires a class that teaches legality of use, but not actual gun-handling.) There is nothing to stop someone who wants to be safe from learning how to be. And by the way, one can purchase a car and never take a lesson or even get a license. There is no requirement there. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26447 I think if you read between the lines of that article, he was violating orders from the aircrew to remain seated. You disobey a lawful command from aircrew and you deserve to go to jail. You draw no distinction between an order to remain in your seat and don't go to the lavatory, and an order to, say, open an emergency exit after a crash landing and the cabin is filling with smoke? You're pretty harsh, there. I say that a rule that you cannot relieve yourself within 30 minutes of the end of the flight is unreasonable, since people DO NOT HAVE CONTROL OVER THAT NEED. At the start of the flight, you can agree to the rule, and by the end you can find out that you were really in no position to agree to abide by it, since you couldn't have known what your gut was going to do later on. Are the airlines and the TSA really saying that they require this guy to have SHIT IN HIS PANTS just to stay within the rules? If that were me, I'd sue the shit out of the airline and the TSA. Someone out there (chuck?) is saying that yes, this guy should indeed do 20 years in prison on taxpayers' dollars because he couldn't hold it and was unwilling to shit in his pants? Fuck this system, man. Something is gonna break, soon. We just can't fucking go on with this level of INSANITY. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

"We take these things very seriously and this was a serious security issue. The sentence reflects that and we would reiterate the dangers of leaving luggage unattended." There is no "danger" in "leaving luggage unattended." All the danger comes from the reaction to the leaving of the luggage. This guy should have said, "The sentence reflects that and we would reiterate the REPERCUSSIONS of leaving luggage unattended." That's entirely different, and more in line with what actually happened. Because really, no one was in ANY DANGER simply because harmless items were left in luggage that was unattended. It is entirely inaccurate to say "dangers of leaving luggage." - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Yes, it has gone too far. It's what you get when people worship the accumulation of money over the purity or sanctity of anything -- ANYTHING -- else. I was saying the same thing to my brother when they started putting Mercedes logos on the sides of the tennis nets. He actually defended the practice by saying that such sponsorship ensures they're able to bring the sport to us on television. I was incredulous. I asked him if he really thought that they couldn't get enough sponsorship revenue by having ads everywhere else around the sport. There was talk a few years ago that they could inflate large billboard-type ads in ORBIT around the earth, that would face down to the ground with advertisements. (I think Coca Cola was talking about it at the time.) My reaction was one of horror, and I said that I could easily see people engaging in a guerrilla campaign to assassinate those responsible if such an atrocity was ever committed against the sky, for it would be utterly intolerable. Bill Hicks, the comedian, did a routine in which he asked if there were any advertising or marketing people in his audience. He said, "Kill yourselves. That's it: no joke. Just, kill yourselves. You are responsible for all the disgusting evil greed in the world and you have no role but to suck the good out of everything you touch, and we'd be better off without you, so kill yourselves. No, really -- I know you're waiting for a joke, but there's no joke, I want you dead. Kill yourselves!" etc. It was realllly funny, and expressed my sentiments exactly. Advertisers are whores, and they pollute the world and deaden people's minds. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Another example of people making an honest human mistake and paying for it severely not because of the severity of the mistake but ONLY because of the intensely irrational reaction that others had to that mistake. Rather like the situation where that kid brought the rubber-band gun to school. I said the same thing in that thread. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Of couse they can learn, but they haven't because they haven't needed to and didn't have access to a pool to learn. Why make them learn to do a job that doesn't require the skill. They sure as hell have had a need to learn to swim... I can't tell you how many times I've read about a car theft suspect (around here, very often black) who jumps out of the car and into a canal or the Intracoastal Waterway, and ends up drowned. I guess they end up thinking they'll escape from the cops by learning to swim on the fly, and then it fails to happen. So now the cops won't have that skill. Would something be wrong with not requiring them to know how to swim when they are hired, but requiring them to LEARN to swim within X weeks of hire?! I mean jesus christ, it's not like expecting them to do cube roots in their head, it's fucking SWIMMING. You could learn basic survival swimming in an HOUR!!! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Well, we're lowering the bar for just about everything else in the country, so that incompetents and inadequates can feel just as good as those who work hard to be able to learn and do things well... Why shouldn't we lower the requirements to become a police officer who will then "protect and serve"? I can't fucking wait until the first time someone drives into a canal (happens all the time with the illegal immigrants and old people here who can't fuckin' drive) and one of these inadequate haitian cops has to stand there and can't even attempt a rescue, and the family of the drowned sues the shit out of the police department. I suppose the fucking police brass are so blinded by their asinine political correctness that they can't see that one coming. Good. Fuck 'em. This is just getting stupider and fucking stupider. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

You know, every time I read something about this in the newspaper, it's usually about some skinhead neonazis hurting or killing someone and the story usually states that neonaziism is on the increase in both Germany and France. I find it sort of laughable that Germans are to be so ill-trusted to not go off the deep end again that they must outlaw thought and philosophy in order to protect against it. By that I mean laws that will actually put you in prison if you "deny the holocaust," or hold meetings that purport to be a nazi party gathering. We don't have outlawed political parties in the United States. We deal with unpopular ideas out in the open, as opposed to trying to keep them swept under the rug. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"