peacefuljeffrey

Doc, That is one gripping story. I thank you for sharing it. I wish you the best in your recovery, and I hope you find the strength, courage and passion to get back to skydiving and enjoying that freedom as I'm sure you did before the crash. (I was particularly touched where you mention the paramedic comforting you, and your friends being nearby to see how you were. Those are compelling mental images.) Peace, -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I agree. And as a "never have smoked even once in my life," I still think pot being illegal is the height of ignorant stupidity and hypocrisy, as well as corruption. But as far as David Crosby goes, I thought he was one of those born-again proselytizing "I'm so glad to be clean and sober" types! When'd he fall off the wagon? -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

*** I don't think I'll ever get over Matcho Pitcho! Macho GRANDE!!! I love that line too much to see it butchered and uncorrected! -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Uh, because he's a wad of shit masquerading as a human being? Just a thought -- maybe that's why. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I saw the first few replies talking about Led Zeppelin, and I found myself having to agree. While I absolutely love Rush, especially for lyrics-driven songs, they are more of a "progressive-rock" band to me, and Led Zeppelin is more purely "rock-and-roll" especially because of their heavy blues influence. ("The Lemon Song" can practically bring tears to my eyes.) My vote goes to Led Zeppelin. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

At this point there is nothing I can do about it. I can't afford another computer, I still have Windows 98 on a three.five year-old computer, I can't dedicate the time or effort to keeping Norton Antivirus updated, I am not going to spend money on some additional antivirus or firewall software (I think that's part of the fuckin' racket, as a matter of fact). How can anyone believe that they can write programs tha tdo what they do, but they can't write those programs to DENY any attempts to mess within themselves?! I think they're just plain happy to have virus attacks go on -- it boosts sales of products they make to "address" the problem. It's just yet another form of human greed and corruption. Some say that cops and the feds don't want to actually stop crime, some say that doctors don't want to cure cancer or AIDS or diabetes, and some say that the computer companies don't want to stop spam or viruses -- all of these groups make their living peddling products that treat the problems with bandaids. I just want the ability to go after virus makers and torture them to death, as they deserve. Could you imagine if we put some real adept, truly honest and dedicated detectives to work finding these people, and then actually did put them to death? We currently give them slaps on the wrists, and the go and deface government websites with taunts. Kill a few of them and see how long this shit goes on. The world is too fuckin' mamsy-pamsy about handing out STIFF, ULTIMATE PUNISHMENT to people who do things that really harm us and that really piss us off. If you seriously want to stop a problem, you have to be willing to seriously punish. If you can't or won't, you're sentencing yourself to live with the problem. *edited to add: Maybe you can tell I'm real fuckin' fed up with this bullshit. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Alright, alright, get back to talking about guns, will you?! I won't suffer this hijacking by talk about computer viruses, especially since I now have to reinstall my system (including re-downloading the current Explorer for an hour and a half!) because of these fuckwad shitbrained criminal hackers sending viruses around the internet! I've had about enough of viruses to think about for the rest of my life! I'd love to be faced with the piece of shit who wrote this thing -- or any hacker who wrote any virus -- and have leave to take out my frustration/revenge. These people are the lowest of the fuckin' low. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

You are in effect saying this to about eighty million people in the U.S.A. I suggest that you are the one who should get a life, if you think that "south central LA" is the only place in which a crime could happen to a person and a handgun could be used to defend against it. There are thousands upon thousands of people who have saved their own lives because they were armed. I'd probably laugh if something like that happened to you, and because you were so contemptuous of people who feel it is right to be prepared for self-defense, you couldn't help yourself if you were attacked. With your attitude, it would serve you right. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

It is against federal law to purchase a handgun from a state outside the one in which you reside. Therefore, if they are going somewhere else to buy handguns, they're buying them on the black market somewhere. Passing more laws will do nothing to change this. See item "B2": http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm Criminals.... breaking the law? No....... As articulate and thorough as we numerous pro-gunners would appear to be from a distance, it seems we STILL are having trouble reaching you... The point, once again, is that there is not a problem with the supposed legality of being able to go to another state to buy guns where it is "easy," because it is not legal to do so. Anyone doing that is breaking federal law just like they would be to lie about their eligibility to buy a gun in their home state. It is quite telling, however, that people supposedly go to other states to buy guns easily, then take them back to states where laws on gun owning are more stringent. Why don't they just keep the guns there and stay where they obtained them? Why do the guns get brought back to where gun ownership is restricted and more scarce? The answer is probably that criminals don't like to pick victims in places where it's likely they victims have guns themselves. That's why you read about more muggings and murders in D.C. and NYC than you do in Georgia, or Virginia, or Texas. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say. Didn't the cops go to the local gun store to get better weapons. So those would be legal weapons available to the public through legal means which are better than the cops' guns? If I am seeing that part right than the problem is with the decisions made in outfitting your police department and has nothing to do with any ban. The problem is, the proponents of the ban want those guns GONE from the gun shops. If the ban had actually fully "banned" those guns, they would not have been in the shop, the cops would have still not had anything better than they had, the criminals would have had what they had because they get them illegally, and no one would have been able to stop them short of the national guard being called in. How did you miss the point? The point is, if the advocates of the AW ban had their way at the time of the robbery, there would not have been what the cops needed in that store they went to. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I really think you swallow every line the anti gunners feed you. Your logic is flawed tho. In your humble, humble opinion... For every study, there is another that will contradict it. Yes but you give evidence of being unable to separate the ones whose stated claims and conclusions make logical sense from those that sound apocryphal and absurd (i.e. the claim that the ban has "taken guns off the streets." I've already told you why that's absurd. I'd wager you're still clinging to the belief, though.). -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

No No NO! Here you go again, posting without a proper understanding of the subject you're spouting-off about. It is illegal to purchase a gun inter-state unless you involve a Federally Licensed Firearms Dealer from each state involved in the transaction. So NO, a person CAN'T just traipse across a state line into a "lax" state, produce a driver's license, buy a gun and bring it back. That's against federal law. And what was this about "states against a waiting period"? Clinton's own baby, the Brady Law, is what nullified the waiting period in favor of instant checks. Before NICS came along, there was a 5-day Brady-mandated waiting period -- and it applied in all 50 states. Is it too much to ask, really for you to have ANY correct facts before you post about guns?? You imply that the only reason we need guns is because we already have bad guys who have them. What about the idea that a gun may be the only way a 59-year-old 109 pound woman can defend her life from two 185 pound would-be rapist/robbers? Take guns -- "the great equalizers" -- out of the equation and the world is like feudal Europe all over again, with the STRONG able to exert their will over the WEAK simply because they are strong. So the fact that guns are already around is not the only justification for the citizenry needing them, no. And regarding your other comment, no, bazookas and howitzers are not personal weapons, the typical issue of the soldier -- which is what is understood to be meant by "arms" in the second amendment. "Pretty high from what I remember." That's damn definitive, alright. Actually, from what I remember, it's pretty LOW. Who's right? Neither of us quoted any kind of credible source. Is it really so easy for you to believe that an unarmed criminal can approach an armed victim and just snatch away that pistol he or she is pointing at them? Do you think criminals have those kinds of balls? Would YOU attempt it? If it's so easy for the criminal to snatch away the gun from the defender, why would it be hard for the defender to just snatch it right back? I mean, this could just go back and forth like a Bugs Bunny cartoon, if it were truly so easy to snatch a gun from the person holding it without getting your ass shot!. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Do you have an objective reason as a foundation for this feeling? Why do you think "plastic guns are horrible"? Are you under the mistaken impression that there exists a "plastic gun" that is made wholly out of undetectable material? This was the LIE that was circulated in the '80s with the introduction of the Glock semi-auto pistols. There was no truth to it. The guns contain about a POUND of STEEL, and even the plastic (polymer) frame contains embedded steel to stiffen it. There never were plastic guns, and there won't be plastic guns, because there is a federal law (SUPPORTED BY THE NRA) that makes it illegal to develop and manufacture them, specifically because of the threat that would be presented by guns that could not be detected at security stations by metal detectors. Besides which, the metal of the ammunition rounds would set off metal detectors even if the guns themselves were 100% plastic. Or, um, were you just voicing a TASTE issue about plastic guns? I know that some gun purists have a loathing of anything that's not a 1911 variant. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Really? Seems to me there's been some heavy recruiting going on since we started pissing off more people. Do you have the latest census figures for terrorists? Really?? Did YOU get that direct-mail "Join AL QUAIDA now!" flier too?! What the hell are you talking about, "there's been some heavy recruiting going on"?? How would you know whether there's been heavy recruiting going on? Are you over in the mideast? Or are you alleging it's happening in American neighborhoods? By the way, AMERICANS PISS OFF FUNDAMENTALIST MUSLIMS SIMPLY FOR LIVING, BREATHING, AND SUCCEEDING. How would you suggest we stop pissing jealous or intolerant people off around the world? One stipulation: you can't say "stop existing." That one doesn't count. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

QuoteWASHINGTON, March 3 /U.S. Newswire/ -- "Bush is calling on the biggest disaster in our country's history, and indeed in the history of the fire service, to win sympathy for his campaign. Since the attacks, Bush has been using images of himself putting his arm around a retired FDNY fire fighter on the pile of rubble at ground zero. But for two and a half years he has basically shortchanged fire fighters and the safety of our homeland by not providing fire fighters the resources needed to do the job that America deserves." WTF does that mean?? "Not providing firefighters the resources needed to do the job that America deserves"?? Since when does it befall the PRESIDENT to provide for local firefighters? Do we have a Federal Firefighter Force or something that I'm not aware of? Sheez, here I thought it was up to the state and local governments to provide for their firefighters... Yet another meaningless attack on Bush -- has no correlation with reality. Blaming him for not doing something he's not even expected or required to do... Yay democrats. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

From what I heard on NPR today, the ad simply uses a ONE-SECOND shot of the flag over the debris of the World Trade Center. Hardly what I would consider a real milking of the subject. Besides, HE [I]WAS PRESIDENT during the attacks, and he WAS expected to (and did) LEAD after what happened. I think it's perfectly valid to depict something about the attacks. Hey, he didn't use a picture of the WTC with smoking holes in the buildings... That would be different. But christ, at the end of the year just about every newspaper, news show, news magazine, etc. had photo montages of "what happened." This ad is like that: it's a "what happened" during the president's term. I think it's fair to use an image of the WTC, and I think that attacks on Bush about this are idiotic. Don't tell me that if Gore had been president and were now seeking reelection after leading us through this "war on terror," that HE wouldn't be using the same friggin' imagery. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

That can be a pain in the ass to get off. I prefer Ace bandages. They're so comfy! -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Uh yah, I can't blindly vote for someone who was AWOL during their service. No thanks. Too many relatives served in the armed forces to put that joker back in office. And he had no exit strategy for Iraq. And he has set up an agency to continually subvert our civil liberties in the name of national protection when what they've done will NOT protect anything. Bush has alienated allies. He didn't just disagree with them he allienated them. Big difference. No, I will not follow the blind sheep like you may see on these forums (your words) that vote for Bush. Dunno if the claim that Bush was AWOL has been proven, but I do know that Kerry disavowed what he and his fellow servicemen did in Vietnam. Someone also mentioned that he suspiciously returned home well in advance of the length of a tour of duty -- how, why? Bush alienated allies? What, like fuckin' FRANCE? Sorry, but as "allies" they're fuckin' less than worthless, so I don't see the loss. France was one of the countries owed millions of dollars by Hussein's regime. Is it any surprise that they didn't want him taken down before he paid up?! As I recall, we've been bailing France's ass out for a long time now. As they say, they'd be speaking German over there if not for us saving their surrender-weary butts. They should show some fuckin' respect and gratitude, instead of jammin' it up our asses whenever they are able. I wouldn't vote for Kerry because he's a lying, duplicitous fuck who tells politically expedient lies and reverses himself whenever it's politically expedient. Sure, Bush probably does the same, but at least Bush is not avowed to want to take away the right to keep and bear arms the way Kerry and any other democrat candidate is, at heart. (I know they SAY they are "pro-gun ownership," but that's just another politically expedient lie.) -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Okay, time to expose some lies from the Handgun Cont... er, I mean "Brady Campaign" website to which quade so thoughtfully provided a link. According to BATF statistics, those weapons were never used in more than one percent of crimes involving firearms. That makes them the "weapons of choice"?! Also, the "post-ban" weapons, which fire the exact same ammunition as the pre-ban ones, at the same rate of fire, have always continued to be available. This so-called "flood" was never staunched in the first place, so how could it open back up? Plus, "AK47" specifically refers to a full-automatic military rifle. Not affected by the ban. How is it "unscrupulous" to ABIDE by the law? The law said that they could not include the various specified features. The manufacturers removed the offending features and continued to make guns that didn't have them. THAT is "skirting the restrictions"? Maybe the anti-gun legislators should have crafted a law that actually did what they wanted it to do. If the speed limit on a highway is 65, and I abide by it and do 64, am I "skirting" the law, and does that make me "unscrupulous"? I mean, if they wanted me to do only 55 or less, they should have made the limit 55! Once the manufacturers brought their products in line with the law, that made them "law-abiding," not "unscrupulous." If the anti-gun legislators didn't want guns that fire exactly the same but don't have flash suppressors or folding stocks to still be available, that's the law they should have written. But it is reprehensible to call the gun manufacturers "unscrupulous" when after all they ARE in total obedience to the law that was crafted. It's not their fault it was incompetently crafted. Utter bullshit. I don't know of a single gun that is "designed to be spray-fired from the hip," as spray-firing from the hip is the best way to waste ammunition and not hit any of your desired targets (short of "spray-firing from the hip while blindfolded.") Whoever wrote that section is a fucking moron and a despicable liar. Why do these rifles include ironsights or mounting brackets for telescopic sights if they are designed for being fired from the hip?? (Note how the Bradys advocate being afraid!) Silencers, like fully-automatic weapons, have been tightly controlled (near the point of being banned) by the federal government since the year 1934. NO currently available "assault weapons" have SILENCERS, nor did they in 1994, unless they were sold to police or military, and even then they were not some sort of standard equipment. AR-15s available to the public did NOT -- repeat NOT -- have silencers! The Brady Campaign lies through its teeth again. (Either that or they're just totally ignorant -- take your pick.) Another bald-faced lie. The flash suppressor does NOT "allow the shooter to remain concealed when shooting at night." The implication here is that the burst of flame from the muzzle cannot be seen by observers even at night, if a flash suppressor is used. This is a total lie. The utility of a flash suppressor is to shield the USER of the rifle from an intense blast of light upon firing the rifle, by dispersing it through ports in the muzzle. It DOES NOT eliminate the flames that come out of the rifle when it is fired, and an observer could EASILY still see the shooter's blast when the rifle is fired at night. Quade, I really have to ask you what you make of this supposed source of factual data on the ban, given that I have now illustrated numerous areas in which they told blatant lies. How can this be the information upon which you depend for your opinions about guns?! Are you, like them, a liar who has an agenda and doesn't care that the truth is sacrificed for its achievement? Or are you just ill-informed? It really has to be one or the other; I'm sorry, that's just how it boils down. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Oh, slows them down HOW MUCH, quade? So much that in the SEVERAL SECONDS it takes to exchange magazines, someone's gonna swoop in and snatch the gun from the gangster's hands? You speak of this "slowing down" as though it has any true benefit on the situation of a gangster firing at innocents. OMG quade. WHEN was this happening? DO you realize you're talking about a type of weapon that even the BATF and FBI say was used in less than POINT FIVE PERCENT of crimes involving guns? Yet you character ize the situation as "the gangs on the streets were litterally mowing down people (police in particular) with these devices." REALLY? I don't remember reading in the news about some epidemic of gangsters mowing down a line of cops on the streets. When was this going on? Got any links to some news stories where gangsters were using semi-automatic rifles (NOT FULL auto, since the ban doesn't address them) in an epidemic of cop-mowings-down? Are you still stuck thinking that the guns the "ban" addressed were full-auto, spraying a continuous line of bullets? Because if you aren't, if you are actually thinking of SEMI AUTOS, then I don't see how you think they could just "mow down" people given that each shot must be fired with a separate trigger pull. BULLSHIT. The ban did not result in the confiscation or surrender of such weapons if they were already owned, or even already manufactured (they could still be sold). Extremely similar guns continue to be made and sold; they simply don't have flash suppressors, bayonet lugs, or collapsible stocks. If the guns used to be used for mowing down cops, and now they are available just as they were, but without those cosmetic features, how exactly did the ban result in fewer guns to go around for criminal purposes? "Year after year their use has steadily declined"? Their use was ALWAYS scant in crime. Others have posted relevant data and links to show that (GOVERNMENT data -- the same gov't. that banned the guns after finding out they were not common in crime.) OHMYFUCKINGGODYOUMUSTBEJOKING! A link to the BRADY bullshit-artists?! No fucking WONDER your perceptions are so far out of whack and nonsensical when it comes to what the ban did or did not do! -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Please tell us what you think that means? What is the definition of an assault weapon as described in the bill? Well I would gather from the posts here that the main points have to do with clip size. My personal definition is closer to rifles that are primarily designed for killing people instead of game. Another anti-gunner who makes his choices in ignorance of fact or reason. Pray tell, how would one make a rifle that was efficient at killing deer or moose, which run hundres of pounds, that would not also be just fine for killing people? Is there a way to make guns that will kill animals but not people? Do the bullets have to sit through classes on target identification or something? -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Can't you make an educated guess?? Prior to the ban, estimates of civilian gun ownership put the number of privately-owned guns at about a QUARTER OF A BILLION OF THEM, owned by about EIGHTY MILLION Americans. Given that the "assault weapons ban" - did not result in confiscation of a single already-owned gun - did not result in prohibition on selling guns that had minor cosmetic modifications in order to still be legal - did not result in prohibition on selling guns that had those accessories if they were manufactured pre-ban HOW could you come to believe that the ban could be responsible for any drop in gun crime whatsoever? I mean, the ban left PLENTY of guns still legal to make and sell, and PLENTY of guns (even the ones the ban prohibited further manufacture and sale of) still in private hands. If criminals wanted guns for use in crime, there were plenty of them to be had for these past 10 years. So really, how could the ban that removed ZERO guns be responsible for a decrease in gun use in crime? -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Shootings are not done "by guns." They are done "by people." "Epidemic" of school shootings? Really? Last I read, someone had studied the numbers and found that kids are more likely to die by LIGHTNING than in a school shooting. The numbers of school killings are actually quite small. NONE are good or acceptable, but don't go calling it an epidemic just for the hysteria value of the word. If you don't think manufacturers are liable for the mis-deeds of owners, why should those manufacturers be summoned into court to spend millions of dollars over and over again -- until it bankrupts them -- to defend against the same old unsuccessful claims that have been dismissed time and time again? THAT is what the lawsuit shield was about preventing. Something you should know about the ban: It did absolutely NOTHING to prevent 'assault weapons and pistols on every street corner," since it did not call for the confiscation of such weapons already owned, nor did it call for a stop to sales of such weapons already manufactured, nor did it do anything but make sure that new guns could not have various cosmetic features that have nothing to do with shooting/firepower. So if there were going to be these guns on "every street corner," as you say, this law had nothing to do with stopping it from happening. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

This is why I call supporters of the ban FILTHY SCUMBAG SHITWAD LIARS. The ban is supposedly responsible for this reduction in crimes involving assault weapons (which were not involved in more than POINT FIVE PERCENT of crimes involving guns in the first place)?! What, criminals could not commit the same crimes with the still-available AR-15s etc. because the new ones didn't have collapsible stocks, bayonet lugs or flash-suppressors?! Are we supposed to believe that? What about the fact that people could still legally buy the PRE-ban weapons WITH those features -- albeit at a much-inflated price? How can a ban that did not actually get any guns back out of circulation (prior manufactured guns as well as prior owned guns were grandfathered) or make sales of existing supply illegal, possibly have reduced crime by means of those weapons? -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

please explain: 1) why would you need that kind of firepower? 2)your logon name is 'peaceful' jeffrey ??? Peace through firepower??? mp Forgive me, I'm not seeing why I should have to explainor justify my use of my rights. Do you feel equally inclined to inquire about my use of my right of free speech, or religion? "Jeff, why do you feel you need to stand on the corner and talk about your political views to any who will listen? What NEED do you have to tell people how you feel?" "Geez, Jeff, what NEED do you have to go to CHURCH when you could just pray to your god in your bedroom?" I'm "peaceful" in that I live my life not harming other people. That does not mean I would not harm someone who came to do unprovoked and unjustified harm to me. Peaceful does not mean I have to be willing to surrender as a victim to the first person who tries to deprive me of my life or safety. Peace and preparedness are not mutually exclusive. Do you honestly feel that a law-abiding person who has a gun that carries 10 rounds maximum is so much less dangerous than a law-abiding person who has the same gun, same caliber, with 15 rounds? You can thank the anti-gun mindless zealots like Feinstein, Schumer, Lautenberg, et al for driving up a frenzy of desire for what once was perfectly legal to own. They addressed a non-problem using a meaninglessly restrictive law, which is soon to expire. Soon we'll be able to buy items that were legal before 1994, and I plan to get my share because I'm PISSED OFF at having been denied in the first place, and in part I want those items, and in part I want to SPITE the stupid motherfuckers who made them illegal ten years ago. Libdem antigunners are just so incredibly DENSE. They are so ignorant and short-sighted that they can't see beyond their noses at the unintended consequences of their misguided anti-gun crusade. It's really quite laughable. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"