peacefuljeffrey

I don't remember where or when I learned this, but for the years I've known it, I've thought it was very very cool. There is no cooler logo anywhere, except maybe the Big Air Sportz airfoil (because it shows the "airlock" in profile). - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Shit, if she's that drunk, it shouldn't be difficult to smother her and then the story would be she died of alcohol poisoning which must've stopped her breathing. So sad. Don't you get an automatic 4.0 GPA if your roommate dies? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Then I look forward to him making a documentary. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Are you kidding? When I was 16 in high school, I tried to fake my age (had to be 17) to give blood at our school's blood drive! When I turned 17 I gave right away (following my dad's example -- I used to acccompany him to my elementary school for him to give when I was a kid). All through college I gave, and on after college. It got so I don't mind needles much at all. Sure, they feel weird, but the pain is sort of distant now, and easy to accept. And oooh, I've had some nasty donor experiences (infiltrated veins, NASTY hematomas). During college I found out about plateletpheresis, where they take your blood from one arm, centrifuge it and remove the clotting agents (well, not all of your clotting agents: that'd be dangerous) and give you back the balance + saline for volume, into the other arm. You don't get weak afterward because you get most of your red cells back. The process took about an hour and a half, and both arms had to stay immobile with a needle in them for that long. It got to be quite achy, but it was for a good cause. I gave like that dozens of times, in addition to occasionally giving whole blood. For a while, I actually worked for Long Island Blood Centers telemarketing for donations! I learned a lot about it. Then last year they decided to screen for people who had spent 3+ months in the U.K. between certain Mad Cow years, and since I spent a semester there in '92, I am permanently deferred. They need to find a way to screen for exposure to mad cow disease, so I can give again. Also, I was told I was "CMV negative," so having never been exposed to Cytomegalovirus (a flu-like illness) my blood was somewhat safer for weak immune systems, so it was reserved for cancer patients and premature babies. I always liked that. Viking, glad you decided to donate. The world needs more giving. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Titanium is renowned for its corrosion resistance, as is aluminum. Both, however, do rust. It's just that when they do, they become covered with a thin layer of oxidized metal which actually insulates the underlying metal from continued reaction with oxygen. The coating is so thin you essentially can't see it. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

*** True...I have one of each in .40 and for me the Glock shoots and feels better. My Glock is a 27 (.40cal) and my USP is also .40cal. They are very different guns (one subcompact and one full sized) so a comparison is not very fair -- apples and oranges. But I think that the action of the USP feels like a well-oiled file cabinet drawer sliding rapidly open and closed. I love it. It's like raspy silk. And that thing could repeatedly hit a paper plate on the berm of the outdoor range I used to go to, which was 100 yards away (and I'm only an average shooter). I can heartily recommend either make. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

True. The fact that it is poorly constructed from a modern interpretive standpoint has lent itself to much debate and controversy. When parsed grammatically/linguistically/whatever you call it, there is clearly a dependent and an an independent clause in the sentence. The part about "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" stands alone, or could stand alone, if there were nothing else in the sentence. The part "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," simply underscores a reason why the right shall not be infringed (it is a reason, but nothing therein implies it must be the only reason) -- a reason why it is important. Anti-gun people choose disingenuously to insist that the "preamble" to the main text predicates the right to keep and bear arms on service or membership in a militia, but if you honestly look at the text, there is nothing making keeping and bearing arms dependent on a militia. The need for a militia is offered as a reason why it's good and necessary to keep the right to keep and bear arms free of infringement. At the time, "well-regulated" meant "properly functioning," not "under government auspices" as in "federal regulation." - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

You're not doing so well on points of law lately prof. MOST laws, when they are passed, apply to the future. This is circumstance is referred to as ex post facto. Quite simply, when acts are outlawed, those that have already been committed are not crimes (at least, they cannot be punished). John's point is that a person who has commited no crime and takes no new action, who causes no harm an has no intent, is suddenly a criminal. I don't like the idea of instantly becoming a felon when I cross state lines (or in this case, city limits). You are confused. The Wilmette ban didn't make criminals of those who owned guns before it was passed. They had plenty of time to comply. You're parsing. The ban meant that anyone who continued to own his handgun(s) after whatever grace period was up would be a criminal. He had to do nothing at all different but keep living how he was living and owning what he was owning, and he'd be a criminal in due time. If we passed a law banning cars in your town, and gave a one month grace period to surrender your car for confiscation, kallend, would you say that the law did not make you a criminal for keeping your car just because you had time to give it up? The point is, the law changes what is legal right out from under you without you having to do a single additional action. One day what you've been doing is perfectly legal, and the next it makes you a criminal. Having time allowed to surrender what would soon make you a criminal is not an ameliorating effect. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Don't feed the troll. This is one gun thread that should die where it stands. He is not asking these questions in good faith.

No modern manufactured gun I ever heard of would do that. But .40 implies modern manufacture. What make and model of gun was it? Sure his hand wasn't what worked the safety off? I'm skeptical. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Well, if you're gonna install the qualifier "when a gun is fired at someone," then I guess we CAN say hammers are dangerous by adding, "when a hammer is smashed on someone." Of course deliberate abuse of something to cause harm will be dangerous to the victim of that abuse! I stand by what Kennedy said. I myself can use a gun 100,000 times and because I am doing it according to the safe methods that are time- and experience-proven, I will escape injury every time. Use of the term "dangerous" I take to mean "capable of causing harm that cannot be avoided through common means of control by the user." I think that really is the sense of the term that applies here. Because jammed into someone's eye, a rolled up magazine can be "dangerous." A gun sitting on a countertop is not dangerous of and by itself. Even a can of gasoline or an unsheathed knife sitting around is not dangerous of and by itself. - - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I consider this thread to be troll bait. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

True. I agree. In the sense of just having a gun, what harm can come of that? I guess billvon is talking about actually putting on a rig and using it, and putting ammunition in a gun and firing it. However, a huge difference exists. Barring unforeseen weakness or damage in a firearm, the chances of being injured while properly and safely using the gun (i.e. discharging it at a safe target) are nearly nil. Under the control of a user who has training and knowledge in the proper use of a gun, that gun is almost 100% safe for the user. Not so with a parachute rig, since even though the user may know and understand how to safely skydive, factors like wind, materials failure, air traffic, etc. enter the equation and can bring about injury or death even when the skydiver is doing everything he can do correctly. To say that gun ownership per se is dangerous to the owner is no more accurate than saying that diamond necklace ownership is dangerous to a woman because someone may endanger her life in order to acquire it from her. Yet this is the illusion anti-gunners try to cast on gun ownership when they talk about how many more times at risk a gun owner is to be killed with a firearm (the infamous "Kellerman study" which cannot be completely debunked because as I understand it he has never revealed all of his source data for peer review). - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Well... some months ago I purchased a brand new Taurus .22 "Tracker" at a gun show. I fired it at the range twice, maybe three times, each time firing about one box of 550 rounds. Each firing session, I had occasionally noticed a stinging sensation in my left hand, which I mostly dismissed. I knew that gases escape the gap between cylinder and barrel on a revolver. When I mentioned this to the man behind the counter at the Delray Shooting Center (I think his name was Joe), he examined the gun and said, "This gun has problems." It seems that the cylinder lockup was not nearly as tight as he said it should be; in addition, with the trigger pulled fully rearward, on certain chambers the cylinder could be made to rotate without much force applied (this should not be able to happen at all). The stinging I had felt was excess gas and some lead being blown out the side when the chamber/barrel alignment was not adequately accurate. Fortunately, Taurus includes a lifetime warranty. I have delayed sending the gun back to them for service because I intend to find out about simply driving down to their U.S. headquarters in Miami (only about an hour or so away) to drop it off, rather than ship it there. Might as well see about having a tour of the place if I can. The gun feels great, and actually is very accurate. (Easy to be accurate with the light recoil of a .22 in a gun whose mass is about that of a .357, with a six inch barrel!) I'm very fond of the gun; I just want it to work right. I don't know if Taurus' other products are prone to similar problems. Until I see how well they remedy this one, I can't in good conscience yet recommend them with whole heart. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I suck at keeping the discipline to keep a room that I've cleaned clean. I find myself being too lazy to put something back where it belongs, so I plop it on the table, or the couch, or the floor next to the couch. Pretty soon the room is all cluttered. I also suck at forcing myself to do dishes right after I use them. I'm a procrastinator. I suck at playing guitar, but that's only because I don't go near to practicing as much as I should. Did I say "playing"? I can't even call myself a guitar player. I bought a guitar and some books, took a few lessons at an adult ed class at the high school, took a few lessons from my dad, who used to teach music (still really knows his stuff!) and then I pick the guitar up a few times a month, run through some drills and practice some chords. I can play a little of "Happy Birthday to You" and the melody from Beethoven's 9th Symphony, but that's it. I can't strum worth shit. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Yes, just like inner-city Washington D.C., where handgun ownership is banned. Wealthy, white, conser-- WHAAA?! Try again, Kallend. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Didn't you just say they weren't a political party? Campaign finance laws DON'T apply to them. They don't endorse any candidates. They aren't dodging anything, they're following the law. Guess you don't deduct anything on your taxes since the law permits you to. You need to bone up on your knowledge of just what this bullshit "campaign finance reform act" did. It's not a limiter on parties, it's a limiter on the contributions -- and free speech (advertisments within a certain number of days of an election) -- of political action groups. Some say that it was specifically aimed to squelch the voice and influence of the National Rifle Association in particular, but it casts a wide net and snares other groups as well, notably AARP and ACLU, as well as NAACP. These groups are not allowed to directly identify a candidate or particular legislation by name in their ads within X days of an election. Groups like Moveon.org claim cynically and dishonestly that they are exempt from the law. It's amusing that the law was so heavily pushed by democrats, and now groups that heavily push democrats don't want to be bound by it. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Good job. Alternatively, you could have just refused the info, and then stated that you would like them to sell you the battery, with the warranty, but without providing personal info like a phone number. Then leave it up to them whether or not they want your money. I have refused Radio Shack's attempts for years, to get my name and address. It's annoying to me that they want me to give them all that, when all I'm doing is buying a $2.00 watch battery. "Just say 'No'"! When I went to Circuit City and bought a computer, I was standing by the salesman's terminal when he entered my phone number. Apparently they have some sort of software or connection that traces the name and address of the person who has that number. Ironically, when he typed in my phone number, I saw the name and address of the last guy who had that number appear on the screen! And I've had my telephone line for more than four years! I recognized the name as the name left on my answering machine when people call my number thinking this dood still has it. When Radio Shack asks for your phone number, chances are they also will be able to link to your home address, and then you'd see you would start to get all kinds of direct mail shit, and probably even satellite dish sales robots calling you as well. I don't mind when a company like Sports Authority asks for a zip code. They're tracking local demographics, I imagine, to know which areas need or don't need another store. But phone numbers? I know what they're doing with that. There's nothing to sell about a zip code -- at least, nothing that leads back to me. I simply tell them that my phone number is unlisted (even though it's not true.) Some people know that people have to pay to have an unlisted number, so that would be why I'd insist on it staying unknown. "Hey, I paid to keep my number unlisted -- why would I give it to you? Either sell me the shit without my phone number, or I walk." That's how it has to go. Most times they either say okay and key past the phone number screen, or if the computer won't let them, they get confusticated and say, "bbbut I have to put in something" and I just give a random series of numbers, or maybe 555-5555. Since when did the contract to purchase an item begin to include a contract to let them know all kinds of information about the purchaser? At this point, we as consumers have to fight just to be able to buy something and not invite a lot of pestering and marketing to follow. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

That is a good way to get some "special" sauce on your pizza. I thought that implicit in telling them to go fuck themselves was the idea that I was telling them to keep their pizza and maybe shove it up their asses... - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Not following you here. What specifically are you talking about referring to the homosexual agenda? Neither I nor any Christian I’ve ever heard of supports beating people up people because of their sexual preference. It is certainly not biblical. IT'S NOT??! Aren't you the one who quoted from the bible that homosexuals would "surely be put to death"?! Okay, maybe "beating people up because of their sexual preference" is "certainly not biblical." I guess you draw a distinction between "beating people up" and putting them to death. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I don't know the whole answer to that. All I know is what is described in the first 1st chapter of the book of Romans. It is clear that all children of God will be given the chance to follow or reject. However, I also believe that there are some who were created for other purposes. I think that the reason you "don't know the whole answer to that" is that there is no adequate response to that citation of flaw in the Christian mythos. "All children of god will be given the chance to follow or reject" except those that god forgot, somewhere in a different corner of the world. I have never seen an explanation of what happens to people who simply had the "misfortune" of living in a place where word of Jesus Christ never reached, or was prohibited from reaching. Through no fault of their own, those unreached people are doomed to not reach heaven? How fair is that?! That is where the difference between you and me lies. You still go on believing in all of what I call "this mythology" in spite of where it falters logically, and I say that if an infallible god were really responsible for it, there would be no flaws and it would all hold up perfectly, leaving no gaps for questioning or doubt. But then you just come back with the catch-all of "you have to have faith." How convenient. Faith is what is required of me wherever your story doesn't hold up. Nice. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

In that case, he's catering to the racism he suspects of his black female fans, who I guess he presumes would fume over the loss of a handsome rich talented black man to some "white bitch." edited to add: By the way, I saw the movie on Saturday and really enjoyed it. A love scene between Denzel and the women in question would have been superfluous, gratuitous, and stupid. The movie didn't need it, and it would have been ridiculous pandering. I'm glad Denzel had it cut. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Fine, maybe her mother should have been more responsible with her "weapon." But "resolved to everyone's satisfaction"?? I hardly think that the girl herself feels that there is some necessity for punishing her, or that she did something wrong in the first place. SHE knows that SHE did not actually "bring" a weapon to school. (Semantically yes, she "brought" it, but realistically, it "came with her.") SHE knows that SHE had no intent to use a weapon against anyone. So SHE knows that SHE is being punished merely to satisfy a wrongheaded policy. Why would you leave her out of "resolved to everyone's satisfaction"? Seems her and her family's satisfaction are the only ones NOT being considered. The people who are satisfied are the ones who weren't gonna rest until she got punished in SOME way to show how toothy their "zero intelligence tolerance" policy is. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

The implication was in the article "As an alternative to expulsion, Amanda will enter the district's Phoenix Alternative Program for the final three weeks of her senior year." Oh, that's great. So she gets branded as someone who had to go to "alternative school," i.e. drug dealers, drug smokers, violent kids, and pregnant teens. Way to go. Even though we know she was NOT a problem kid of any kind. "Sorry, hon, we hate to do this, but our unyielding, nondiscretionary rule says we have to. You understand." To hell with people who refuse to think. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Thank god you didn't say, "We need guns with foolproof safety devices that will take over and keep people safe even when the user breaks significant safe-use rules." Believe it or not, there are people who claim to believe that. Yeah, I suppose I agree with this. The only problem (and it's a big one) is how do we empower, say, a government, to determine who is safe enough or responsible enough to have these things or do these things? The danger is that if you put your rights into their hands and tell them to dole them back out to you (i.e. the people), there is always the risk that they'll come back saying, "Uh, we changed our minds about letting you have your rights back." That's why many gun owners balk at having "mandatory training" to establish that a gun owner can demonstrate safe use. The risk exists that the government will simply set the passing bar impossibly high. Sure, they may start it low, but they'll raise it. And besides that, they'll start saying, "Oh, woe is us, we have to raise the fee 350% this year to cover costs of administering the "are-you-fit-to-own-a-gun" program!..." This shit happens just like I'm telling it. Go look at NY, and Gov. Pataki's onerous proposal to build revenue on the backs of gun owners. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"