peacefuljeffrey

Billvon, how can you not see the problem with what you're saying, here? You, in one sentence, equate transporting a gun through a mall with operating a gun in a mall! Are you really unable to see the difference? The point of the car/gun thing here is to talk about analogous transport of a car/gun in public places. We have to limit the discussion to where it is reasonable to safely bring each item, not to compare the EXACT places where you could bring each. Therefore, if I can bring a CAR to the CAR-APPROPRIATE parts of a school (the parking lot, access roads, etc.) then I should be able to bring a GUN to the GUN-APPROPRIATE parts of a school -- which would be anywhere I could feasibly bring my BODY without encountering situations where the gun could and would do inadvertent and unpreventable harm. The point of having the gun in the mall is not to use it indiscriminately as you walk through it, but to have it in the case of such an emergency that using it would save lives! No one is saying "go using the gun wildly in the mall" the way you'd be acting if you were driving a car down the promenades of the mall! You're allowing your misapplication of the analogy to get awful silly. Are you saying that it is a GOOD thing when a government decides what it wants people to be free to have, and on the one hand it lets them legally have those things but on the other it prevents them in a practical sense from being ABLE to have them by making them exorbitantly expensive? You support the idea of a government acting in this way? What if there was a 50,000% tax levied against any alcoholic beverage, just because the government didn't want you drinking? DON'T YOU REMEMBER, it has been ANTI-GUNNERS who have bemoaned that we should "treat guns like cars." All we've been doing here is discussing why that's a fallacy, from the standpoint of what anti-gunners wish to accomplish, because if we truly had the privileges with guns that we have with cars -- even with registration -- we'd be able to take our guns to MORE places than we currently can do legally, and our purchase and ownership would be LESS restricted. It was an ANTI-GUN idea -- a pathetically underthought one -- that initially suggested guns should be regulated "just like cars." So don't fault US for the fallacies. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Well, Benny, "you're wrong, really." In a post that I presume was intended to point out how dangerously unstable and given to violent tendencies I am, you sure did say things like, "Now this doesn't exactly advocate violence" a good few times. In fact, I dare say you failed to make your case. And in fact, also, I agree that I DO have "hostility" toward those who pledge themselves to take away my freedom, treat me as a criminal through prior restraint, seek to leave me defenseless against an armed criminal populace as well as some future tyrannical government, and lie in order to achieve an agenda of wholesale civilian disarmament with no demonstrable social benefit. To such people I say, "Fuck you, come and get them!" If that's hostility, then I'm hostile. Hostility is not of and by itself a bad thing. Depends on what you're hostile toward, now doesn't it? If you were hostile toward two punks who were advancing to beat and rob you, and rape your wife, that'd be some damn righteous hostility, now wouldn't it? Well I feel my hostility toward the premise of anti-gunnism is justified as well. The policy is bereft of any rationality, and the anti-gun position is factually and intellectually bankrupt. This has been demonstrated ad nauseum, and still the anti-gunners think that simply denying the truth of what we say is enough to prove they're right. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Could you please tell me how a gun that is in a holster, concealed, and is not going off is "dangerous" on a school playground in the same way that a moving car would be? You are comparing two obviously different dangers. A car cannot, in general, be safely maneuvered between all the kids milling about on a playground. A gun, carried by someone who has passed the background checks for a license to carry, and is carried concealed on the person in a holster, is not unsafe and can easily be harmlessly carried on a playground. Look, I'm simply trying to get you to see that the cars/guns analogy that anti-gunners offer as a way to regard gun regulation is silly and inapplicable. The fact that you say "NO" to many of the things I ask you whether we could do if guns were treated like cars proves the fact that anti-gunners would NOT truly wish to let us have all the accompanying privileges with our guns that would come our way if they were treated like cars. I think you argue the point disingenuously. I also think it is pretty damned silly that you AGREED that we could modify the ammo capacity and rate of fire, but then said that a BAYONET ATTACHMENT was "too dangerous"! That's laughable!! The bullets don't matter, huh, but the 10 inch bayonet -- whoooo, look out! Danger!! -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Yes, and John McCain is an archtypal Republican.

The reason we oppose the registration and heavy regulation of gun ownership is NOT because those things would not accomplish some good. The reason is that we have seen, historically, the FACT that such regulation and registration DO INEVITABLY ENABLE CONFISCATION OF GUNS WHEN AN ADMINISTRATION COMES TO POWER THAT WANTS THE POPULATION DISARMED. If you think I'm full of shit, I cite England, Australia, Nazi Germany, New York City, Washington D.C., California, and there are others. In all of these places, the supposedly benign policy of forced gun registration later enabled the government to know exactly who had exactly which guns, and when the law came down that said you couldn't have guns anymore, they knew exactly who to take them from. From our perspective, a gun that is never registered is a gun the government can't come and take from us when it seeks to have us defenseless. And I would like you to quote SOMETHING as proof of your claim that "To many people are killed intentionally or accidently by people they know with handguns," and that "so many of them are used for illegal and dangerous purposes." Are you aware that the portion of the population that has licenses to carry concealed handguns is significantly more law-abiding than the rest of the population as a whole? That means gun-carrying people actually commit fewer crimes than the non-gun-carrying people! You should check out some statistics before talking out your butt about how many guns are used dangerously or illegally. There are 250,000,000 guns in the U.S. privately owned, by 80,000,000 gun owners. Even if every single one of the 30,000 gun-related deaths each year were committed with a separate gun AND deemed to be an illegal murder, that would be TWELVE THOUSANDTHS OF ONE PERCENT OF THE GUNS that are privately owned being involved in a crime. Yeah, real epidemic we're talking about. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Just like I am sure you don't like being called a "gun-nut" I don't like being called "anti-gun." I am the closest thing to a friend ya'll have on the liberal side of the fence. I don't think guns in general should be outlawed. I do think they should be registered and heavily regulated. Owners should be required to go threw extensive training before a purchase of any kind and not just for a concealed carry license. Why? Because so many of them are used for illegal and dangerous purposes. My opinion of the assault weapon ban has changed based on what I have learned here. I don't think it went far enough. Quite possibly removeable magazines in rifles should be banned all together and there should be minimum size and weight requirements that make them to big and clumsy to be easily used in crime. And while I have pointed out more than once that this thread is about rifles and not handguns don't even get me started there. To many people are killed intentionally or accidently by people they know with handguns. You are right guns are used all over the place in safe, legal and fun ways but their intent is to be used to kill. Kill might be game for dinner or to defend my home and country but the purpose of a gun is to kill. You have a hell of a lot of nerve saying, in the same post, that you're "the closest thing to a friend" of gun owners, and then this asinine stuff about the assault weapons ban not going far enough. Removable magazines should be banned? Guns should be "to (sic) big and clumsy to be easily used in crime? Noooo, YOU'RE not "anti-gun"! Give me a fuckin' break! This is not something you know, this is some bullshit you are parroting from a "study" by Dr. Arthur Kellerman that you probably have not even read a synopsis of, which through lies and cherry-picked data and mischaracterizations and deceptions he "proved" that having a gun in the home meant that you were more likely to be killed with that gun, or have a loved one killed with it, than you were to kill an intruder. It is a bullshit study, thoroughly debunked by many. So guns should be made so clumsy and big that they are useless in crime? Just how big would that be, exactly? Are you not aware that criminals do sometimes bring big rifles to commit crimes? Should they be nine feet long and weigh 85 pounds? Just whatever you do, don't try to convince us that you're NOT anti-gun, or that you take umbrage at being called anti-gun, when EVERY FUCKING THING YOU'VE SAID IS CLEARLY ANTI-GUN. I'm calling you on your bullshit. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I don't know what MIS is, and I haven't checked out the back-story yet, but I have to say, YOUR FATHER IS [I]ONE COOL SONOFABITCH[/I]!!! In many ways (in fact, the whole email) he reminds me of my own father. Supportive, loving, articulate, intelligent, generous with everything, especially his wisdom and experience. I like his candor, too. If I could shave 10 years off my own life expectancy just to add 10 to his so he can stick around for more of my life, I would do it. You are very lucky, as I am myself. I'm glad for you. Good luck with your future.

Ahhh, I answered "I'm cool because I skydive," but I don't take the question or the answer that seriously. I skydive because when I was a kid and first saw it done, I thought it looked like the most fun a person could have, and I always wanted to do it. Now that I do skydive, I love it and don't want to stop. I do think that skydiving contributes to one's cool, in the sense that people look at skydivers in a sort of awe at what they do (whuffos, I mean). The funny thing is, I think the truth behind skydivers is that not every skydiver is some fearless ultra-cool daredevil. We make a decision to take a calculated risk, and we strive to minimize the danger in every way we can. We're not flirting with death, we're trying to dodge death. But if people want to look at it and see fearlessness and cool, I'm cool with that. My friends and coworkers know I skydive, and I try to not be heavy-handed about it. They know I love it, and they tolerate my stories, in part because (I think) they live vicariously through them. I certainly try not to go around like, "I skydive, I'm so cool, adore me." That's just stupid. I like to think I would be skydiving even if it were a reviled activity. I do it for my own enjoyment. Mystique is just a pleasant by-product. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Just make sure you don't skip your English class. Ask the teacher for extra help with capitalization, sentence structure and the difference between contractions and possessives. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Please take a look at the attached picture. The body under the blanket is that of Terence Ford. He bought his farm from a black farmer using a loan from a black bank yet the 'land settlers' decided he had no right to it and killed him. Anyone who thinks Saddam is a bad man obviously isn't familiar with the work of Robert Mugabe. I was chatting to a chap from Zim this past weekend, his folks' farm was 'resettled' 10 years ago. He told me of a new problem they now have, all the subsistence farmers on those resettled farms have now become dependant on foreign aid (why work all day when the food is handed out free?). Now if/when the foreign aid does stop they will be well and truly fucked. No more big farms feeding the country and producing a surplus for export, only lots of little goat farms which aren't even being 'farmed'. Mugabe needed to go a long time ago and Mbeki needs to stop supporting that scum. Will Contrary to what some here would believe, I've been reading about the mess about the farms and that piece of shit Mugabe for several years now here in Florida, and it's turned my stomach what he has done. The theft of the white-owned farms is truly despicable. (and would be no matter whom they were stolen from, of course) But this is a good question -- what the hell should the U.S. do? Should we come in and liberate you all from Mugabe, or leave you to clean your own house? We're accused of indifference if we do not, and we're accused of "colonialism" or "selfish motives" if we do. And be fair -- the average American does not have an iota of control over what our government or military do overseas, for good or bad. So cut us American civilians some motherfuckin' SLACK, okay?! -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Because you were there using them as a tool in the cold war. America rarely enters another country if it does not have a political advantage. That is clear. Before the 2nd Gulf War, we went to "liberate the Iraqis". Looks like they are very happy to be liberated! No, of course not, we went to get oil, Bush just didnt think it would be that much of a long term risk. Anyone heard of Neo-colonialism? And dont tell me America isn't guilty on a massive scale. Check this out. America wouldnt recognize Zimbabwe as a nation after they wrote a Decleration of Independence BASED ON THE U.S. Decleration. How screwed is this country? Wouldnt support another country trying to follow in its footsteps! Ohhh, okay, so now the measure of a country is that it has to go into other countries, spend its wealth making them better -- but that country better not benefit in the slightest from the whole effort because then it will be accused of opportunism and plundering! Could you please cite for me any other countries that do this selfless sort of altruism around the world, expecting nothing in return? I thought it was LIBERIA that was formed to supposedly follow in the footsteps of the U.S.A., not Zimbabwe. Which one of us is misremembering the facts? I'm not truly sure. But anyway, using a similar or identical Declaration of Independence is a far cry from setting up a government with the same sort of Constitution. Is that what you mean? -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

That's exactly what the fuck I'm talking about. These people tell me that I don't understand or I'm not compassionate about what their countries are going through, and they SPIT on American and show CONTEMPT for America, but they are the first ones on the doorstep later on asking for fucking handouts. The same people who insult America and call it "imperialistic" for having the most minor hand in world events then come begging for that helping hand at some other point in time. How can you criticize my "American attitude" (tm) when I daily see my country assailed NO MATTER WHAT IT DOES. NOTHING IS RIGHT, AND NOTHING SATISFIES THE REST OF THE WORLD where America's actions are concerned. So in frustration, I say in this forum that I think those other countries that belittle us for any help we do offer, or any conflict we do try to resolve, should sweat it on their own. And I get attacked for saying that. Go figure. If I say America should not get involved, I get told that I'm spoiled and isolationist and uncompassionate. But what happens when America does get involved? We get insulted and people say that we're trying to control the world and enforce our way of thinking on everyone else. Somebody PLEASE tell me what they think America could use as a non-schizophrenic guideline to "do right by" the rest of the world. Because just like that old quote, "You can't please all of the people all of the time." No matter what we do to please some, doing just that will displease others. So I give up. I guess it's a good thing that I'm not the one responsible for our foreign policy. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

No Oil. I'm not surprised. If they had oil, you wouldn't be able to keep the fuckers out. t That's just idiotic. There are load of countries WITH oil. Are you suggesting that we secretly own those countries? Saudi Arabia is a U.S. territory? Maybe it's just that some countries have their shit together more than others. It's already been disclosed that the operations in Iraq have cost far more than the oil proceeds we will get out of it for many years. Somehow that still sits as "we did it for oil" with you, huh? There are loads of other places we've sent our help that have nothing to do with oil. Was there oil to be had in Bosnia? Somalia? Much easier to criticize without a valid reason, I guess. Less of a burdern of actually havi ng a rational basis, right? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I think it's fair to ask you why "western nations" are to be expected to come in and take care of the problems that plague "non-western nations" like Zimbabwe. "Feel so happy" about ignoring it? How about, "We have OUR problems to deal with, and why is it fair that we should have to solve YOUR problems TOO?" Who is coming over here to solve our unemployment, our racism, our inflation, our homelessness, our cancer, our AIDS, our ANYTHING? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Hear, hear. Jeffrey, its a shame you don't live up to your name. Really? Against whom have I done harm? I'd say I live a very peaceful life. And having a name like "Peacefuljeffrey" does not obligate me to BE my name any more than some others here, with names that imply they are dangerous skydivers or just incompetent ones. Some names imply that the bearers are some sort of animal. Why do you feel it's reasonable to say, "Oh, Jeffrey calls himself 'Peacefuljeffrey' so he'd better be like Gandhi or else he's a liar"? My mom gave me a bookmark that had the origin of the name "Jeffrey." It meant, in Old French, "Heavenly peace: blessed one." I really liked knowing that, knowing that my name means "peace." Does that mean I'm always peaceful? Hell no. Why? Because I'm always human. Now, I have to disagree with people whose implication is that the U.S. is NOT expected to be the policeman of the world. We spend BILLIONS of dollars all around the world, sending aid that is financial, medical, educational, military -- you name it. THERE IS NO OTHER COUNTRY THAT GIVES AWAY SO MUCH. NOT A SINGLE ONE CAN AND NOT A SINGLE ONE DOES. If you believe otherwise, name the country. It's very easy to point a finger at the U.S. and say cynically that all we do is go to countries where we can get oil, and then pretend it's about national security or human rights. Why then do we still have "peacekeepers" in Bosnia? Why then did we have marines die in Somalia? All I'm saying is that there appear to be parts of the world where people are not acting like they're very far above animals. They favor some odd-ass thinking over reason and education, they seem far more eager to adhere to ritualistic and dogmatic and superstitious thinking than to accept what we might teach them, and they use violence as a FIRST resort rather than a LAST one. When was the last time we in the U.S. had a bloody violent riot as a result of a contested election? On the other hand, we read about these in foreign countries daily. I can tell you that from my perspective, it is very easy to say, "Why the hell don't these people just GET it?!" It's frustrating and disconcerting. I even read that in some parts of Africa, men infected with AIDS believe that they can be cured if they have sex with a virgin! (That was reported in a newspaper I read here.) I dunno. Yes, I can sound like a hothead but that's not how people who know me know me to be. I'm just viewing the world in a frustrated way lately, because it's pretty easy to see nothing but corruption, lies, hate and violence. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Once again, Quade cites as his "source" a virulently anti-gun organization, in this case "Americans for Gun Safety." The problem is, AGS has never met a gun it didn't consider "unsafe." What's more, the so-called "Americans for Gun Safety" have how many programs for teaching people "gun safety"? Exactly ZERO. Do they have programs for training police officers, or women, or target shooters, or anyone interested in self-defense with a firearm, or safe gun handling? Nope. How they hell can they be "Americans for Gun SAFETY" if they don't teach a goddamned thing? Their only version of gun safety is NOT HAVING a gun. It's funny, but in the quoted material above, nothing is said about the fact that it is illegal for a felon to attempt to buy a gun, to actuall buy a gun, to possess a gun, to possess gun ammunition... The paragraphs above characterize it as though felons are ALLOWED to buy guns without a background check -- as though it's LEGAL as long as they're not buying from a licensed dealer. Of course, that is patently false. As far as "background checks have stopped over 800,000 convicted felons, domestic abusers and other illegal buyers from getting guns": Each of these supposed 800,000 people have committed a federal crime, a felony, punishable by TEN YEARS IN FEDERAL PRISON. Where are they all? Were they prosecuted? NOPE. I remember reading that the Clinton administration -- so hot to keep felons from getting guns -- had prosecuted something like SIX of them. Besides, the claim above is a gross overstatement. Even if 800,000 actual felons had been prevented from buying a gun at that juncture, that means nothing at all since they were left free to see about obtaining a gun elsewise. It would have been more accurate if the article said, "background checks have stopped over 800,000 convicted felons, domestic abusers and other illegal buyers from getting guns legally." Does anyone really think that a felon who wants a gun but can't get it legally is just gonna give up trying to obtain one? Puhlease. Oh, by the way, I also read that some staggeringly high percentage of those gun purchasers who were declined were declined IN ERROR, or for various non-disqualifying reasons. Some were as simple as having a name similar to a felon's, or for charges that were dropped, or for b.s. like parking tickets. Uh, yeah, the "loophole" to committing a felony remains wide open. Let's all pretend that it's not a felony for a felon to buy a gun, just because a background check is not required on the felony transaction. Yes, and let's not mention that the same sponsors of these background checks also have been pushing to allow SEVENTY TWO HOURS for the checks, which would essentially mean that if you started your check in the first minute of the gun show on Saturday, you may not even be able to finalize your purchase until late Monday night -- effectively nullifying the idea of the gun show. See, these anti-gun sneak scumbags don't tell you what they hope to accomplish down the road -- they tell you they want only "reasonable" restrictions. When you accost them with their true intentions, they deny deny deny, even when they're on the record about it. They're liars, and their ultimate goal is the abolition of gun ownership in this country. If they had any balls, they'd at least admit that and we could just duke it out like adults and see who prevails. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Uh, felons can't "legally lie about their records when buying weapons." Again I find myself asking people to NOT support anti-gun laws that supposedly address "problems" when those people know so little about the realities of the situation that they're usually completely wrong about how things truly are. I asked a friend's father one day why he supported the "assault weapons ban." (This was back in like '95 or so.) I asked him what he thought an "assault weapon" did. He made his fingers like a rifle, and gesticulated wildly as though firing a machine gun, making a rat-a-tat-a-tat sound, and he said, "When you hold the trigger, they go like this:" So I thanked him for making it evident that he was supporting a law in utter ignorance, having no knowledge of what was already under strict legal restraints, or what would be restricted by the legislation he was so blindly supporting. I'm sure he continued to support it even after I made clear to him that machine guns were not addressed by the "assault weapons ban." Back on subject... It was found in court that a felon, who could not legally own a gun, could not be prosecuted for not REGISTERING a gun, because registering a gun would be a de-facto admission (for a felon) that he was engaged in a criminal act. That was considered to be compulsory testimony against oneself, running contrary to our rights under the 5th amendment. That does NOT mean that it is legal for a felon to attempt to buy a gun, nor to lie on an application (form 4473, I believe) to purchase a gun. But the one thing you can't prosecute a felon for is his failure to register a gun. Possession of an unregistered gun, sure. Different thing. So don't go pretending that there are not already enough laws to put away bad violent people for. I love it when you anti-gunners suggest that it is soooo crucial that we be able to prosecute MURDERERS for the crime of possessing a gun that holds a certain amount of rounds or whatever, when we're already talking about someone who faces LIFE in prison or maybe even EXECUTION. Make me LAUGH! Mostly the "treat guns like cars" line comes from anti-gunners who try to argue that guns should be at least as restricted as cars. They ignore a whole slew of restrictions that already apply to guns. What's more, it is THEY who suggest the cars-apply-to-guns analogy, and then they back the hell away from it when we point out just how much more free we would be to take guns all over the place, how we would have lifetime licenses good in every state, how we would not need licenses if we planned to keep the gun on private property, how we could take guns onto school or airport property... The whole thing here is that the PRO-gun people are pointing out the fallacies of what the ANTI-gun people suggest when they raise the car analogy. Right from the get-go we tell the anti-gunners that this is NOT what they would want. Now as far as " cars have state-mandated inspections periodically to ensure compliance with basic safety laws concerning brakes, taillights etc." -- Another statement of "fact" made in utter ignorance. Here in Florida, there IS NO state requirement for inspections -- at least not in Palm Beach County and others. This is by no means a requirement in every jurisdiction. You say that we'd have many more laws concerning guns if we treated them like cars. Like what? The only laws necessary would be those we have already, specifically those about not taking it out and threatening others with it. But if you were going to restrict guns from places like schools, hospitals, churches, airports, you would have to demonstrate some practical reason why they were somehow unsafe to have in those places, but not unsafe in equally crowded places like shopping malls and supermarkets and parks and roller rinks... I mean, you should have some sort of rhyme and reason to your restrictions or else you'll be accused of making arbitrary restrictions just to harass gun owners... - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

What do you care? You can see the thread title and avoid it if you want to. Does the number of posts to this thread somehow limit your ability to enjoy the rest of dropzone.com? If not, why not just leave the thread alone and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out? You sound like b1jercat now, deliberately coming in here only to tell us that you don't care about the subject and wish we wouldn't bother to discuss it. Give it a rest. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Okay, now you're just using idiotic sophistry, because if you were arguing in good faith you wouldn't be saying this. CLEARLY, we are talking about where it is FEASIBLE to bring the gun or car. Cars are not prohibited from being brought into a movie theater for any reason other than they have absolutely no place there (since you can't drive safely in a theater even if the car would fit). Guns, on the other hand, can be safely brought (concealed) anywhere your physical self can go. The safety of their being there is totally dependent on the use habits of the possessor -- gee, a lot like cars, actually. The problem is, the gun-elimination politicians piggy-back on the supposed reasonability of the more moderate anti-gun politicians. How would we ever be able to tell the difference? To the latter, a given anti-gun law might be all they want. To the former, it is a foot-in-the-door for even more restrictive laws and yes, even the elimination of civilian gun ownership. (Funny, because they often say only cops and military should have guns, and there are an awful lot of examples of even cops and military people who have murdered spouses, been drug-dealers, rapists, murderers...) Those curbs and signs delineate those places where it would not be safe or reasonable to bring your car. If the analogy is followed, the places where you couldn't bring your GUN would be dictated by where your gun presented an unreasonable threat to safety and order. Simply being a gun in a school would not be such a case, because the gun in a school is no more dangerous than a gun on a public street, or in a supermarket or shopping mall. Um, when anti-gun people tell us that guns are less regulated than cars (bullshit, by the way) and we say, "Okay, let's regulate guns like cars" and we show them how much more we'd be able to do with guns than we even currently can do, they hem and haw just like you are doing now. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

His application of cars to guns was not about "licensing cars like guns," it was about whether the capacity of the tool (car or gun) is well beyond what anyone anywhere is legally allowed to do with it, and if so, why not just pare-back the capacity of the tool (like the top speed of a car governed electronically). But since you raised the "cars-to-guns" comparison, I would ask you: - If we license and register the guns, can we then take them with us anywhere we're legally allowed to be? We do take our cars to school, and banks, and airports. Presumably it's safe because they're licensed, but would be unsafe if they were not, right? - If we license and register the guns like we do cars, does that mean we don't need a license or registration if we purchase the guns to never be taken in public --- since you don't have to license and register a car that you will never drive on public roadways? - If we get licenses to own guns, does that mean they will be good in all 50 states and U.S. territories, and all we have to do is go to NRA to get "international gun licenses" for a modest fee so we can take them to, say, England when we go on vacation? This same is true of licensed car drivers. - If we license and register guns, can we buy as many as we wish to (and can afford) in whatever period of time? No "one-car-a-month" scheme has ever been enacted, to my knowledge. - If we license guns like cars, and no law says cars can't be capable of XXX speed, does that mean our guns can have more than 10 round magazines? - Since cars can be modified to accelerate faster, have higher top speeds, handle better, can we do the same to our guns? Increase the ammunition capacity, rate of fire, augment them with things like flash suppressors, bayonet attachments... Gee, it seems that the gun-controllers will get a little more than they bargained for if we treat guns like cars, doesn't it. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

How does your plan deal with the FACT that even if you took away the GUNS from such people, if you let them back out to live free among the public, there are loads of other ways in which they can kill people? I mean, talk about pathetically simplistic! Do you really discount the damage that someone could do with fire, poison, automobiles, blunt instruments, ordinary kitchen knives...? You make it seem like gun murders are the only kind that make sense to attempt to prevent! It seems to me that if you wish so strongly for deranged kinds of people to be without guns, you should also wish for them to be without anything else at all that could be used as a weapon, and since there IS no way to do that, maybe you should just be for keeping them incarcerated for the rest of their lives... -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Yes, only people who don't get upset should be allowed to have guns. Emotionless drones. Good idea! That's up there on my list of "Stupidest things ever said". - Jim Holy shit, I feel so horrible, Jim thinks I've said one of the stupidest thing ever, hold on while I cry a river for you to canoe down. What I said is stupid Jim? There are more than a few people who would consider it more than just a little, unbalanced, improper maybe to be lining up the firing squad for nuisance computer crimes. But I forgot, I am posting with the "bad" people should all be shot crew. Settle a bet, Benny. I say that anyone who would take someone completely seriously when he suggested a firing squad for computer hackers is a fucking moron, and my buddy says, "Nah, there's a 2% chance he's of normal intelligence." So, Benny, ARE you the kind of, well, you know, who actually believes what I said was my absolute true feelings about what should be done, or are you smart enough to realize that it was hyperbole written in frustration. I mean jeez, man, you are one of the most intransigent people I have ever seen! You make yourself look pretty stupid for attempting to use something that someone said in obvious exaggeration as an earnest statement of that person's beliefs and philosophy. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I think tirades like this are the reason some of us like gun control. I mean really, get a handle on yourself. If you didn't want to kill everyone who pisses you off maybe we wouldn't have a problem with you playing with guns... You obviously don't know how to differentiate between venting and tendency toward violence. Besides, we've seen how good "gun control" is at preventing bad people from getting guns and doing bad things with them. I've had guns for over ten years and no one has so much as even been in the sights of an unloaded gun of mine. Which "we" were you speaking for, by the way? I was venting my frustration/anger about the human shitwads who plague what could be a wonderful thing (the internet) and suggested that crimes against something so pervasive in modern life (the internet) will need to be dealt with severely if we expect it to ever be usable to its full potential. Currently, I think one must admit that we haven't been able to NEARLY ensure security and prevent identity theft, fraud and deception over the internet. So Benny you can take your insinuations and shove 'em. I don't give a damn if you're comfortable with my exercise of my freedom. In the course of a day you probably are passed by many many worse people that you should worry about in the world than me, but you single out a guy (me) who has never done shit to harm anyone else and imply that gun control should maybe prevent me from owning one? Puhlease. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I think, "Li'l Pill" is a good match for it. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

What about the theft, rape and murder of the hundreds of farmers? The families driven from their homes? What about the high crime rates and corrupt establishment? Nothing to be interested in commercially does not mean nothing to be interested in. Jesus, man, there are literally HUNDREDS of places like that around the world. I'm not sure, but it seems that your implied comment here is that the U.S. should be spending the time, money and lives of its citizens to go around the world to every place where people are acting like fucking animals against each other and make them all behave and love each other. Why the hell should that be OUR responsibility? What, just because they're in Africa means that they themselves can't sort out their own shit -- it has to be some country like ours that has to friggin' babysit them? I say let people in countries like that tear each other's throats out. There's no secret to living honest and peaceful lives that is being kept from their reach. They live like that because they're either ignorant or greedy or both, and living in shit is their reward. But don't tell me that America is doing something wrong because we're not sending people and aid over there to straighten out these miserable countries. That ain't our fuckin' responsibility, and you can't help those who aren't willing to even accept it. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"