peacefuljeffrey

What is offensive is that government assholes are speaking for starving people, telling the donors that they won't accept FOOD. It may not be filet mignon, but it is LIFE-SUSTAINING. I think it's time that these starving people hacked their "representatives" in government with machetes for leaving them to starve when food is being offered! How "offensive" can it be; the woman offering it eats it and also feeds it to her children! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Have you forgotten about the shootings at schools and office buildings -- also places that forbid lawful gun carry. So no, it's not just post offices; you are omitting the number of school shootings that have taken place, as well as the workplace shootings like that office building in Atlanta, was it? And one in Boston, right? Some day-trader dude? I have forgotten the details. But it's not all post offices. The left, the anti-gunners, would do well to note (although they probably know this quite well and just don't care) that MOST, if not ALL, multiple murders involving firearms are committed in places where lawful firearm carry is completely banned. That should tell you something. Some of us get the message. Others ignore it because it doesn't fit their ideology which is, "Ban first; look for justification later." - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Forgive me, Ford was president what, NINE election cycles ago? GWBush, GWBush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Reagan, Carter, Ford, right? Forgive me, I was like 1 year old in '72. People vote with their wallets. Not me. I vote my ideology. I can't be the only one in America who does. Your generalization is quite silly. Try it on someone who does not view himself as living disproof of its validity, okay? So, you're saying, they're all set to start rackin' up wins, as soon as they find an ideology and some people who will actually, um, win. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Did you forget that Ford was a Republican, too? Actually, yes. He is at the periphery of presidents who were around when I was politically aware. I was just a tyke then. Sorry. But actually, doesn't his being a Republican stack things MORE in my favor, in terms of my thesis in this thread? Thanks for handing me my points. Um, that went into the toilet now, didn't it. Is 4 million votes a small number? I haven't taken math in a number of years, and I have forgotten. Besides, I've been talking about DOMINATING WHAT GETS DONE IN THE LEGISLATURE AND THE COURTS, not "how many percentage points did we win the presidency by." Nice to nitpick when you have nothing to really say. What's the likelihood that if in 2008 the GOP loses and the left gets to place two or more Supreme Court justices on the bench? What's the likelihood of the GOP losing the House, Senate AND Presidency all in one fell swoop? The reason for the left's failures at election time and in the legislatures is that NO ONE LIKES THEIR IDEOLOGY ANYMORE. Only a few isolated whining liberal pansies who call in to Randi Rhoads' show to have a little hate-in. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Um, no, because I am not "resentful of blacks" in the first place. I have numerous black friends, asian friends, hispanic friends, white friends... I never said that all blacks treat me with hostility. I work with educated, intelligent blacks and have zero problem relating with them. The people who exhibited hostility, the ones to which I referred earlier, were "street blacks" of low education (most likely -- I didn't poll them) in urban areas and did not seem to be very socially adept. Again, I haven't found this to be true; not in my experience anyway. Lucky you. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Correct, or at least have successfully defended themselves and escaped to safety. Since moving to Israel and building their own guns, they seem to be doing a pretty good job of defending themselves, even though they are amidst a sea of surrounding Muslims who want to exterminate them. How long do you think Israel would last if they didn't have tanks, aircraft, artillery and nukes? Depends. Could they still have their Jew Lawyers? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

A racial slur is a racial slur. I suppose that since 6 million Jews, sometimes called "kikes" or "hebes" pejoratively, were killed by the Nazis, they have the right to call blacks "niggers" until as many blacks die at the hands of oppressors as did Jews? I mean, your criteria for people being justified in this-or-that are all over the map. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

JohnMitchell, if you are ever at Sebastian, see me for a jump ticket and a beer by the bonfire.

I'd suggest actually checking your facts before posting Here's the Senate voting for the SCOTUS justices. (Name, Appointed by, Senate Vote, First day on the job): John Paul Stevens, Ford, 98-0, 12/19/75 Sandra Day O'Connor, Reagan 99-0, 9/25/81 Antonin Scalia, Reagan 98-0, 9/26/86 Anthony Kennedy, Reagan 97-0, 2/18/88 David Souter, G.H.W. Bush 90-9, 10/9/90 Clarence Thomas, G.H.W. Bush 52-48, 10/23/91 Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Clinton 97-3, 8/10/93 Stephen Breyer, Clinton 87-9, 8/3/94 John Roberts (Chief Justice) G.W. Bush 78-22, 9/29/05 Okay, so I'd forgotten the two that Clinton got and Ford's one, among the SEVEN that recent Republicans have gotten. Would you care to now address the many victories that Republicans, conservatives, right-wingers (whatever you want to call them) have had over Democrats in the last two elections? (THREE elections if you care to go back to Dems losing Congress in 1994...) I made some rather valid points, and you've shied away from doing anything close to addressing them. Why is that? Appointing Supreme Court justices is not the only subject I raised. If you have "victories" that the Dems have had (you'll probably want to pad your list with shams like "Campaign Finance Reform" even though it's a joke) then please share them and our sides will try to go head-to-head. I'm sure that JohnRich and others will have more that I have not thought of. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Kallend be circumspect before postulating a theory? Ha ha! (See your shredding in the thread about using guns to overthrow dictators.) - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

About 5 minutes. Perhaps others think one should whip criticisms out quickly but I think it's a virtue to spend time and think carefully. Some of us can do good ones quickly. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

What I have found (articulated to me by anti-gun people) is that they think they would be able to use FREE SPEECH to take down a tyrannical regime! As though any government that could remove from you your right to own weapons would have trouble imprisoning anyone it wished to for speaking out against the government. Some people actually believe that the right to free speech can pull a citizenry out from under an oppressive government, but the right to put bullets into dictators and their minions would be of no use whatsoever. Some of these people also inexplicably believe that there would still be some ability of the people to vote out dictatorial government -- as though a dictatorship would put itself up for fuggin' reelection! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

The whole point is, IF WE LET THEM TAKE THEM WITHOUT MAKING A FUSS, that's where we'd be if the government turned tyrannical. As in, what if we let the government incrementally ban guns until we had none, or next to none, and THEN it got really oppressive? Where would we be? And I think he was talking about other countries because in many places that is exactly where they are; IF their governments turn oppressive, the people have already given up, in time of peace and tranquility, the means to fight tyranny when it manifests. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Liberals crack me up. On the one hand, they think that America's armed forces, the most lethal in the history of the world, can't possibly win against a third-world insurgency in Iraq. And at the same time, they think that a civilian uprising in America by trained former soldiers, can't possibly win against American active-duty forces. Go figure... Apples and oranges, dear boy. We are not a tyrannical force in Iraq, just uninvited guests whose leader said "Bring 'em on" to the insurgents. Civil wars always get very much nastier. JohnRich has you dead-to-rights there, kallend. You want to play both sides of the fence. It doesn't matter that our forces there are not a tyrannical regime or uninvited "guests." Either our military is able to win against them or not, and either it would be able to win againt an American civilian uprising or not. John is right; if its applied multi-trillion-dollar might cannot defeat third-world insurgents numbering in the hundreds, perhaps thousands, how the FUCK would it triumph over a few MILLION well-armed, competent, intelligent Americans taking up arms against them -- especially when at least some of them are former military with training and possibly contraband materiel? You said, "Civil wars always get very much nastier." Wouldn't that mean it would be HARDER for the government to put down a civil U.S. insurrection? You're belittling the campaign in Iraq as not as nasty as one would be in the U.S., and still the U.S. military has not put down the Iraqi insurrection... Face it, your side in this is intellectually bankrupt and grasping at straws. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

100% YES, emphatically. There are cases in which guns brought to schools were used to stop carnage by those who brought guns to those schools illegally for the purpose of murder. The law school in West Virginia was one. The media reported it as though bystanders just tackled the shooter, but what they did was point their own guns at him and order him to stand down and surrender. Why did they not report that it was armed civilian responders who did the hard part? We each probably have our guesses. Then there was a public school shooting in which the school's principal went back to his car to retrieve a gun to stop a shooting by a student. I can't understand why some of you people are skeptical about the utility of guns when they are possessed by good people with the will and courage to face down evil. Some of you would rather vehemently deny that potential rather than open your eyes to real-world examples you could easily look up and read about. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Seriously what are the chances of a regular citizen stopping such an incident. You know what? You changed my mind. You're right. Far better to rely on having NO defense whatsoever -- not even one that has only a sliver of a chance of helping. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I mean, I look at recent history and see how much has failed to work out for them... - Gun control is their pet losing issue, and not only is it a complete failure, they stick by it as though it has hope for winning in the future. (Can you say "STUPID"?) We sunsetted the so-called "Assault Weapons Ban." We banned predatory lawsuits current and future, that were merely a ploy to bankrupt the firearms industry. Concealed carry legislation has become a reality in more than 3/4 of U.S. states! (in under two decades!) - They lost the presidential election TWICE - ...after losing control of Congress - Now there have been not one but TWO U.S. Supreme Court justices selected by BUSH -- and there were ZERO for Clinton, right? Wow. They just don't seem to be winning at ANYTHING. I don't like them or their policies and beliefs, but I still can vicariously feel that punch-in-the-gut feeling when they lose more and more and more... It's kinda sad... Now, do all these Democrats honestly think that the losses they've suffered, and the gains made by Republican ideologies, happened despite some overwhelming American public support for Democrats and their ideologies? I think that's a bit too counterintuitive... They are always talking about how popular they and their ideas are with the American people. But the overwhelming tide of progress has been made by Republican ideas... Explain how it's proof that Americans agree with Democrats. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

You just have not considered, or probably even read treatments of, the reasons why the government would have a hard-as-hell time actually waging a guerrilla war against its 80,000,000+ armed citizens. - Ah, but how many of those 80M are actually trained in the use of weapons, have any clue about tactics, and have appropriate guns? The folks at Ruby Ridge and Waco didn't fare so well. If you want to have an armed insurrection I think you are better off using IEDs, like the Iraqis are doing very effectively. And you think we would have more trouble, or less trouble, obtaining the materials needed to do this, if the shit really did hit the fan here? In the meantime, you raise nonsensical counters to what I say... Just because, like, four people at Ruby Ridge could not hold off a phalanx of FBI people including sharpshooters (the murderous Lon Horiuchi, for example) is your proof that an armed citizenry numbering in the millions (I'll even HALVE the number for you and say "ONLY 40,000,000 people) couldn't hold off a military of under 1 million? Not even considering the many military desertions that would occur when servicement realized they'd be ordered to fire on their neighbors and families? Your take on this is really really narrow, to the point where you are not seeing a very large chunk of reality. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

There are five or so families who would be soooo glad to hear from you that it would not have been good to stop her killing rampage at 2 rather than 7. Really. WTF are you thinking? If a shooting is going to be initiated, isn't it better to cap the damage by capping the shooter, before she/he runs out of ammo? BTW, this is the first time I recall hearing about a woman doing this kind of thing... Weird. So please, explain why mitigating the harm is not a worthwhile pursuit. I can't understand WTF you are getting at. No one said that it would PREVENT someone from doing this. It certainly can STOP it sooner, though. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Now THAT'S a damn good question. When I saw the title, I just assumed it was a workplace shooting - not a full & proper "Postal"! Perhaps it has something to do with guns being banned in postal facilities. Nothing like feeling like killing people, and making sure to do it in a place where your victims aren't likely to have what they need to shoot back. You'll notice, NO ONE HAS EVER SHOT UP A [B]GUN SHOW[/B] IN THE SAME MANNER. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

It's a perception you have based on skewed coverage. Do you really think that countries apart from the U.S. do not have violent people committing heinous acts? How about that "doctor" in England who murdered OVER 100 PEOPLE?! Sure, he didn't use a gun... SO FUCKING [I]WHAT?![/I] Are his victims less dead because he drugged them to death? You also forgot about that kid in Germany about two years or so ago who shot up a school -- I think the dead numbered in the teens if I'm not mistaken. (Yep, here it is. 18 dead. 2002.) Also, search "Russian serial killer" and see what you get there. (Here, I've done it for you ) The world loves to play up the U.S. as super-violent. Go to Jamaica. Go to Mexico. Go to Puerto Rico. Go to Brazil. Go to Colombia. Go to Rwanda. Go to Sudan. Are these places filled with peace and light, with no murder? At least you are not saying it's because we're allowed to own guns. Some people try that ridiculous illogic and expect it will fool us into believing it. The U.S. does not have a lock on psychotic behavior by any means. You just see it reported on more. Far more. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I make a great omelet. As for weird food at weird times, I do it a lot. I've made steamed broccoli, baked hot-sauce chicken wings, and steamed rice at 3 a.m. after working til 2. Sometimes I make things like fettucini alfredo late at night. I put grilled chicken and veggies into it (broccoli, carrots, mushrooms, squash/zucchini, peas)... If I am in the mood for a given kind of food, it doesn't really matter to me at all what time of day or night it is. If I want it, I want it, and I'll have it. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Once again I seem the exception to the (alleged) rule: I wore a big band-aid over my nipple ring when I first jumped with it. Then I noticed that the band-aid had already been stripped from its position, and I had been none-the-wiser about it. I jump without covering it all the time with absolutely no problem. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

True, but shouldn't that have been one sentence? No A in "obese." - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Laugh if you want; you're admitting that they have the sport shooting events, even as you deny there is a gun culture, or people who like guns, in Switzerland. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"