peacefuljeffrey

Well DUH, the ONLY REASON a company would do it would be to get paid for doing it, somehow. Where else would the money come from but the end user of the information, i.e. the government?! You ask what's so horrible about this since all sorts of companies buy your name on lists all the time. THAT'S what's wrong! I am a sovereign individual. My identity and likeness, as a non public official, are not the property of others from which to make a profit. When I decide to purchase something, THAT PURCHASE is the only contract I enter into with the seller. I do not agree to give them permission to do ANYTHING but SELL ME THE PRODUCT. Not sell my name. Not go inform on me to others. Why you DON'T have a problem with this being S.O.P. is beyond me. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I have an idea. Whenever you order a pizza, use a fake name. And if they tell you over the phone, "Um, your name doesn't match our listing for your phone number," say, "What are you, the fucking secret police? Who gives a shit what your database says?! I'm not signing up for a fucking pizza subscription!" Then tell them to go fuck themselves." Our success in fighting this intrusion is dependent on people not being willing to sell out their rights and privacy for the cost of a fucking pizza. - - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Just because a kid doesn't wear the colors in school doesn't mean that they're not part of a gang. It's very possible that they're flying under the radar. And if "flying under the radar" amounts to a) not wearing gang colors in school and b) not committing crimes in school, what exactly is your gripe? Oh, gee, what ever are we going to do? We might have to *gasp* -- wait until someone actually commits a fucking CRIME in order to treat them like a criminal! There is no law against being a gang member. The problem is not membership in a gang, it is doing violent acts, for which gangs are known. But if a person is a gang member in his off time, and behaves himself at school like anyone else, it should not matter to the school what affiliation he has. We DO have a right to freedom of association. Since the school is apparently accomodating the girl, allowing her to attend the prom, etc. (it did not say they were letting her graduate), that is a tacit admission that they do not fear that she is dangerous. That itself is an admission that the zero tolerance rule is singling out the girl for punishment erroneously. If such a rule actually snagged a truly bad person who was truly a threat, there would be a sigh of relief on the part of administrators, i.e. "Whew, we caught the person with a weapon before they hurt someone." In this case, they still want her to be allowed to go to prom, etc. That means they don't really want her nailed by the rule, and that means the rule is fucked up if no administrative discretion is possible or permitted. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I've long believed that police dogs "alert" on whatever the police tell the police dogs to "alert" on. Someone tell me how the hell a stun gun causes a police dog to sense a weapon! Does it detect the specific scent of particular plastic they use in stun guns? What a load of horseshit. The authorities in such a case should be fucking hanged in public as usurpers of the civil rights of the public. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I had a strange day Meant to buy cat food Picked up two young girls instead Don't even ask. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

STICKY BROWN WHA?! --oh, wait, "SPICKY." Nevermind. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

No, but hopefully soon I'll be walking around in a $450 Ouragan freefly suit that took about that long... BTW just because it may serve a person who wants so desperately to be president, doesn't mean we have to respect a decision to spend such an outrageous and wasteful amount of money on a haircut, suit, shoes, etc. I'd like to see the presidential candidate who admits he bought his shoes at Florsheim and his suit at Syms. He'd be a REAL MAN, a REAL PERSON, and HE'D GET MY VOTE. If a presidential candidate feels he needs to project this bullshit image in order for people to respect him or take him seriously, I offer that he is pandering to the wrong elements of society -- the ones who value style over substance. What we need right now is someone who couldn't give two shits about style but is all about substance. Just who the hell is so impressed by the difference between a $5,000 suit and a $250 suit?? I don't even know what could possibly make the fucking difference! And I sure as shit don't like the fact that a president or candidate thinks that the people who DO know are the ones whose opinions matter so goddamned much. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I haven't had a haircut in probably about two years. The last time was in a Super Walmart, and I just wanted to get the ends cut to where they were healthy. I ended up having the guy put it into a ponytail, and cut just below the rubber band. It left my hair still "long," but not quite long enough to ponytail again for a while. The tail that was cut off was the length of my hand, or about 8-9 inches. I still have it, still rubber-banded, in a Ziploc bag. So $1000 to get a haircut? No fuggin' way. Kerry is a schmuck, and his lies of being closer-in-touch with the Average American than GWB fall utterly flat when he does some blueblood snob shit like this. Flying a hairdresser in on a fuckin' private jet! What an absolute ASSHOLE. I suppose I understand his reasoning, though. He's got all kinds of "advisors" around him telling him how to look, what to say, what to believe... so they're probably all over the issue of what his hair looks like. If he were to go to someone he didn't know, they might botch his hair and there goes his "public image." (Remember the haircut Seinfeld got from his Italian barber? He looked like he was six years old!) - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Pussy! We used to use paper clips! LOL! My friends and I used to innovate all sorts of lunch-room weaponry. I got very good with just a peanut flicked from my fingers between my middle finger and thumb. We opened the corners of juice boxes and inflated the boxes like pillows, and then took the skinny lunch room straws, plugged them at one end with their own wrappers, and inserted them into the juice boxes, and pounded them. The straws would go end-to-end across the room like missiles. I also used the Bic Biro pen, which was a perfect plastic cylinder, as a spitball shooter. I took out the ink from one end, and the plastic plug from the back (on modern made Biros, this is now glued in ). Using my teeth, I flared the end of one pen like a trumpet so that the end of another identical pen would fit inside it. I sucked a Tic-Tac for about five to ten seconds, loaded it into the cylinder, and a strong puff made that thing like a bullet! I called it the Bic Sniper Rifle. I imagine it hurt to get hit with it. Lucky for me, I was the only one doing the shooting. We also used to make orange peel guns. The Bic Stick pens worked best for this. You removed the ink stick and the butt cap, and pressed the back of the pen against an orange peel and a little plug got stuck in the pen. With the ink stick, you forced it to the tip of the pen, then plugged the back again. When you forced the ink stick quickly into the back of the pen against the rear plug, the front plug would fire out under a charge of compressed air. The rear plug became the front plug and was now ready to fire, after you made another rear plug.

Shweeeet! John, you are the ultimate go-to guy! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Probably to get college kids used to the fact that life sucks and you are going to have to do lots of boring and annoying shit in your life that you wish you didn't have to do. We try to make it feel better by skydiving. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

The question was not asked of me personally, but I wish to respond. How to answer a knock at the door is a very individual thing, and depends in large part on the circumstances. What hour of the day or night is it? What kind of residence is it (apartment, house, etc.)? Is the knock polite, or loud and insistent. Is there a way to easily see who is at the door? Is anyone expected, or is it odd for anyone to be showing up? If you could read "The Armed Citizen," (Kennedy mentioned it) which is the page each month in NRA's magazine that culls actual newspaper articles about people successfully using firearms to defend against criminal attack, you would see that people do often succeed in using a handgun against home invaders. (Most of the stories are about home invasions. Some are about carrying legally and having to use the gun in self defense.) Some of the stories involve people who answered a door unarmed, got attacked by one or more people, and had to struggle to get to their gun, which they did, and ended the attack. In many of the stories, no shots are fired, and the attacker runs off. In some of those, he is later apprehended. In other stories, he is held at gunpoint for the police to take into custody. In still others, he is shot and wounded or killed. In some, the defender is also wounded, but often not as badly as he wounds his attacker. I myself live on a relatively safe street that is just at the verge of a not-so-nice area, but my block is where the upscale part of the town begins. I also live in a cottage in the back, set from the street at the end of the driveway and back behind the pool. People would have to come out of their way to bring trouble here. It is not the kind of house that is a real target of opportunity. So I usually know if someone is coming over, and if someone unexpectedly shows up, I usually hear the gate clank first, and I can see from two windows or the peephole who is there. You can bet that if it is someone suspicious, I know enough to ask their intentions through the door, and if I'm not satisfied, he isn't coming in, I'm not going out, the police are getting called, and if the door gets pounded in, copper-jacketed lead is going to be flying at it. Sometimes that's just the way it is. I'm actually a lot of fun to visit, once you get through my screening process. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

What I read in your post is a lot of softening what these kids actually did. They did not, as you imply, kindly drop off the old man so that he would not be endangered while they went joyriding, nor were they somehow looking out for him because they knew they planned to crash the car, killing one of them. No, they dumped him, not caring one way or the other whether he lived or died. (Joke's on them, I guess) Anyway, I disagree with your blanket statement "Violence [begets] violence," and always have. How does that apply to an example where a man kills another man who was out to kill him and his family in a violent attack. He couldn't talk the man out of attacking his family, so he had to use violence to stop the violent. That does not in any perpetuate violence. The violence ends when the unprovoked attack is repelled and put down. And every man and woman has the right to respond to deadly physical force with the same. To fail or refuse to do so is to condemn oneself to whatever the violent criminal attacker wishes to do to one. That's not acceptable to most people of sound mind. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

*sigh* - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

A bike, I could find no problem. Around here, the trouble is in finding a fuckin' MOUNTAIN!! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Everyone who lies, cheats, steals or harms would be executed. And since we'd have no use for anyone who had ever held public office, all politicians (who by their very nature, LIE) would be executed, with a mind toward doing it in the least humane, most painful way possible. I think I'd have to start with the lyingest, most reprehensible scumbag politicians of all -- the ones who cynically push gun control as though it could EVER do the good they claim it does. Yeah, I have a particular hard-on against the deceitful shitwads who push gun control. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

...damn high taxes....oooh, a new ID card....at least I don't have to pay for it....why are my taxes still going up?....oh well, at least I don't have to pay for anything.... LO-MF'in-L!!!! Kennedy, you are amazing!! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

One of the boys died in the accident. GOOD. Now the other piece of shit will face a felony murder charge. As far as what you said about the "lucking out" part... I have a hard time feeling that there should be much difference in punishment between the guy who does something so reckless that he risked the death of others but fortunately did not kill anyone, and the guy who risked the death of others and sure enough, others died. Some comedian used to joke about sentencing someone to less time for "attempted murder" than for "murder." He said something like, "Why less jail time? All he did was MISS!" - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I remember my 9th grade science teacher demonstrating that. It was cool! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Yes, but you'll notice that when someone like me objects to the statements of someone like the writer of the post I singled out, he doesn't say that because the poster wrote something objectionable, illegal and immoral vigilante action should be taken against him or his home for offending our sensibilities. That was just juvenile. I have an idea: if you don't like what someone said, attack what they said on its merits. But if all you can muster is some pathetic-assed wish that someone should do the speaker harm, best to shut up yourself. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Yes, exactly, because Tillman would have wanted it that way: he would have wanted someone punished for exercising his first amendment right to express his opinion, whether it's ill-informed and arrogant or rational and well-presented. Yes, Pat Tillman would smile if he knew that on his behalf, vigilante assholes torn down someone's house just because he voiced an unpopular opinion. Hey, I'm not saying a word about Tillman or his military service or his decisions or his fantasies or his realities. To be frank, I haven't thought much about it. We look at our actions as Americans through a tinted glass, and if we in fact were doing wrong over there, being "imperialistic" or whatever, it would be hard to see. Some of the Gonzales' comments about the "necessity" of Tillman's service, and of our military's actions, are being debated by our top leaders and philosophers and analysts as we speak. So it is by no means a given that we are right to be doing what we're doing. (Although I like the fact that we removed Hussein from power -- that evil fuck!) But come on, knee-jerk reactions to someone commenting negatively about a popular "hero" are ridiculous -- especially when it descends to something like "someone should do this or that (violent) to him or his property." Grow up. Either grow up, or admit that you don't really want people to have freedom of speech unless what they say meets with your personal approval. Well, that ain't the way it works. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

BWAHAHAHAHAA!! Okay, yeah, right, "you could hold your own against FIVE guys for at least 15 seconds...enough time to run away, blah blah..." That is so laughable it's pathetic. What makes you so special, are you Jackie Chan, Bruce Lee, and Sho Kosugi all wrapped into one? I guess you haven't even begun to think realistically about what it would be like to face even three guys who were intent on bashing you up. And do you always think of things in such black/white terms? You might wish to consider that in the vast majority of incidents where an American presents a gun in self defense, the attacker abandons the attack and leaves and no shots are fired. You are most certainly not as certain to get sent to jail or be killed as you say. And what on earth do you mean that the option of self defense is not always there? I thought we were presuming that you would be drawing the gun because you were in a situation where you needed it for self defense! You're now saying that it would get you killed, whereas you'd be just fine duking it out with fists instead. And why would you be sent to jail if you used a gun in legitimate self-defense, anyway? Is self defense illegal over there (guffaw). - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Heroin is banned. I guess that's why 99.9% of our heroin addicts don't have any of it. Are you for real?! You really believe that gun bans mean that 99.9% of criminals can't get them? Did you miss where I said that the U.K. gov't. estimates 4-5 million guns ILLEGALLY in criminals' possession? Can you provide ANY evidence to back up this RIDICULOUS claim of "99.9% of [American] criminals will have one"? Do you just like throwing around the cliche figure "99.9%" or something, even when it is hardly accurate in the least? Dude, that is just stupid. First of all, not everyone has the time, inclination, or even physical ability to "keep oneself physically fit and train in self defense." Does that mean that under your rules, those who can't or don't are not to be allowed to use the less physical means of self defense, i.e. a defensive handgun? The only way you're allowed to defend yourself is if you use brute force and martial arts? How about a karate master/mistress, who is now 78 years old with arthritis? I tell you what, show me someone you consider to be really well trained in self defense, and I'll round up three well-built miscreants with knives and baseball bats, we'll have them stage a home-invasion robbery (becoming more and more common these days in your country) and we'll see how well your karate master does against them when they shove in his door and come at him. On the other hand, a defender with a gun could do very well for himself in that situation. And let's even say that they come barging in and they have guns too (since in countries where guns are legal, "99.9%" of criminals have them). If the homeowner starts shooting, there's a huge chance they'll turn tails and run away. Criminals don't want anything you have so bad that they want to get shot obtaining it. There are loads of actual examples of this. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

This makes twice now I've seen this "assurance" that it has nothing to do with DNA. But didn't I just recently read that some dude high up in the British government (I forgot his post) has been saying he DOES want the government to compile all British subjects' DNA? This was something I read about a month or two ago. Even if this biometric card shit comes to pass (I voted "NO"), do you really believe it will be very long before people in government say, "Oh, you know what, we've rethought it, and yes, we DO want your DNA on this thingie, too"? Puhlease. It's coming. And as usual, they'll tell you that it's to keep you safe, and as usual, the only efffects you'll ever see of it will be when it SCREWS you somehow -- but never actually makes you any safer. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

What was up with the reference to the killers at Columbine as, "white supremacist NRA wackos"?? Dylan and Klebold were NRA members? That's news to me. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"