peacefuljeffrey

What a load of rubbish. If your government comes after you with the resources at its disposal, you won't stand a chance regardless of how many Glocks you own. It isn't 1776 any more, they have really serious stuff that you simply can't get. Of all the arguments in favor of gun ownership, that is the most absurd by far. 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. For one thing, not all military personnel would be willing to fire on and kill fellow American citizens. Many would desert, and bring their military skills and knowledge (and probably materiel) with them to the other side. For another, ANY guerrilla encounter with a spread-across-the-country U.S. military would probably yield materiel for the guerillas to use later. Supply lines would be impossible for the military to maintain. They would not be able to guard every base as though it were under attack (which they would be) and would certainly not be able to guard every road and highway that would enable delivery of supplies. Areas surrounding bases would have guerrillas waiting to take potentially devastating shots at arriving aircraft, AND any ground personnel. Think about it: the public has high-powered rifles (like .50 cal.) and many are very experienced at using them. How long would support for the government remain among fence-sitters and anti-gun people, if in order to get at cadres of guerrillas, it used its F-15s and B-1s against towns and cities and infrastructure within the country? These are just a few of the considerations that would make prosecuting another domestic civil war to preserve the Union far more difficult than it was in the 1860s, and probably straight-out impossible. Besides, without a force fighting under a specific flag, from whom would the government ever obtain a surrender? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I don't know if its the same in the US, but over here that PC nanny state attitude is foisted onto the teachers who are as much victims of it as everyone else. I have a friend who is a primary school teacher and she isn't even allowed to help a child remove an earing if they ask as she isn't allowed to have any physical contact with the children. Alot o them are from homes where they are neglected or abused and are so starved of respect and attention that they often call her mum and even hug her, yet according to the rules she has to just stand there like a statue. I feel sorry for the teachers. And yet, whenever I go off against nanny state bullshit, you argue tooth-and-nail with me, coming off as a champion for exactly this kind of nonsense. Now you oppose it, now you don't. Is that your game? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

That's disgusting. Saudi Arabia is saying that since they have a dictatorship, every country, even democracies, should have dictatorial government that has the power to squash any speech it wishes to? Why is it okay for Saudi Arabia to tell other governments how they should govern, but when the U.S. attempts to show other countries how good FREEDOM under a DEMOCRATIC government can be, we are "pushers" and "imperialists" trying to exert too much unwelcome influence in the world, trying to force our beliefs and values onto sovereign peoples? These fuckers are trying to argue for DICTATORSHIP, for christ's sake! Absolutely not. If you visit someone's house and they make a practice of taking off shoes at the door, you do it at their house when you visit. Should you have to adopt the same custom at your house just because they might be offended if they find out you don't? When the U.S. attempts to show the world the light of democracy, we are criticized as insensitive to the fact that other countries want to live under the systems they choose, and who are we to insist that our way is better? Now Saudi Arabia is telling the Danish government that it is not dictatorial enough, and should be able to step in and squelch freedom of expression just to protect fuckin' MOHAMED from being made fun of? Fuck them! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

So you seem to be saying that once again, the world may see a type of genocide enabled by the disarming of the would-be victims of that genocide. Nice. And still the lying gun-prohibitionists tell us that gun bans are for our safety. After all that history has shown us, they still give us that bullshit line. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I can't agree with you, there. I have NEVER heard the Dems maintain that it is the people's right and duty to maintain the ability to physically, through force, depose any domestic government if it at some point becomes tyrannical. On the other hand, even as Reps govern in whatever way they govern, they at the same time espouse that the people should maintain (via ARMS) the ability to overthrow a government that becomes tyrannical. That would lead me to believe that they have less of a plan to become more and more restrictive on the people than the supposedly "liberal" Dems do. After all, it is only logical that the one who most vehemently opposes your ability to employ force is the one most like to attempt in the future to oppress you. He doesn't want you to be able to fight back! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

By god's/universal law, we are in agreement; and so the question is moot because the world is, in fact, now ending! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Go here -- Skydive Sebastian's website. Click on "More About Us" and then "Area Lodging." I hope that helps. There is an extensive listing on there; I know nothing about any of those places. Bear in mind that Sebastian is a kind of resorty-town and these may be bed-and-breakfast kinds of places (waterfront, views, etc.) and may be pricey. You may do well to call the DZ and ask Wendy for tips, I guess. I think that if any one would know, it'd be her. Does she still post on here, as BendyWendy? Edit: Oh, and duh, I forgot that the DZ itself has a camping area and nice, hot showers. If you like tent camping, even if it's gross out (like in the summer when it's too frickin' hot and buggy) at least there is a good steamy shower to look forward to -- and not long ago, they got rid of the smelly-egg-sulphur water and now have perfectly good city water! Way to go, Skydive Sebastian!! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

That reminds me of the Seinfeld episode in which George (balding) was fixed up with a woman with thinning hair, and he objected and didn't want to go out with her. And of course, Elaine yelled at him, "YOU'RE bald!!" - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I am still laughing at this post. Yeah, I thought the misspelling of "peeks" was funny, too! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Careful -- I think that may be the bliss of ignorance... - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Don't worry. That would have to involve the anti-gun leftist radicals working with Bush as he monitors the internet. Not gonna happen. When I was a kid, in fifth grade, my dad took me out with a bolt-action .22 rifle and we shot up paper targets at an outdoor range. I brought the targets into class (suburban Long Island) to show them off. This was in 1981/82. There was no fuss. If I were you, I would have told that snooty idiot girl that I was disappointed in her -- for being an ignorant, irrational, facts-deprived bigot. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

My preference has always been that charity be done by individuals, and companies stay OUT of politically or socially sensitive areas. I don't want to have to consider whether my bluejeans are made by a company (Levi's) that funds anti-gun efforts. I don't want to have to consider that the company that makes my soft drinks has an official position on abortion for example. Why should they bother? Just make the fuckin' product, okay? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

What does this question have to do with the problems I identified in the post to which you refer? And are my comments to be held as valid ONLY if have in mind a viable solution to the world's racial ills?! You do realize how ridiculous that sounds, don't you? After all, NO ONE has that solution. Yet you are acting as though my comments hold no water unless I have the answer to it all... - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

How come? What harm is coming from race-based media? You mean besides continuing to divide people along racial lines, preventing them from thinking of each other simply as other people? There is no good to come out of perpetuating racial divisions, which is what all this attention to racial identity accomplishes. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

They also think that the Second Amendment applies only to celebrities. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Although we know they are lying, they claim that they have no interest in taking away our gun rights. They instead try to characterize their actions and their legislative attempts as "gun safety," and they pretend that as long as we are left with single-shot .22s (which they'd ban later on) we have not been denied our rights. These are zealots, friend. They are not able to see their own lies and hypocrisy. Nor would they want to. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

No, compulsory charity is anathema to freedom. (We are seeing schoolkids required to do "mandatory 'volunteer' work" in order to graduate from high school, now!) But at the same time, unbridled greed is wrong, nonetheless. So even if a company has the world by the short hairs and could charge exorbitant prices, it should not, because that is simply morally wrong. Obscene profits are obscene profits. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Michele, I think you're right on that one. Those things are great. My dad gets big boxes of them at those discount bulk clubs and gives them as Christmas gifts! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

See, it's this weirdo shit you keep saying that made me suspect (makes me suspect) that you're on something intoxicating. I myself don't indulge, no matter how much you "transfer" onto me. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Is that why you have a $2 billion gun registry ... but it doesn't work? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Okay, then, my first guess was wrong (allegedly). Then it is far too early for you to be this wired-up on crack... - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Not sure I understand to what you are referring... - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

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

Yup. It means, "No further text to enter." As in, "I'm finished with this thread." (This post notwithstanding.) - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I always have to remind myself that whatever the Palestinians have done, terrorism-wise, over the years, it remains true (based on what info I have learned of the situation) that their land was taken by a group of nations to give to displaced Jews who came from numerous countries around the world. That would piss ANYONE off. It amounts to, essentially, "Hey, you, SCRAM, we have people we like MORE, and we need to house them here, where they claim that thousands of years ago, they used to live." If the U.N. went to France and told them to get the hell out and make way for some long-ago European tribe's descendants who USED to live there (and gradually lost the territory in battles with other tribes), would France just up and... okay, well, bad example. But you get my meaning. I am not a partisan in this. It's not my fight. But I think it is necessary to try to understand the mindset of the people involved. Would YOU ever give up, if your home was taken from you and given to other people? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"