peacefuljeffrey

LMFAO!! I just saw this thread right below the "I'm a Christian... and proud of it!" thread in the list... BWAHAHAHAHAHA!! In my crapper, I have various books on knot tying; Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged (which I have not really yet trudged deep into); ParaGear catalog (for drooling practice); C.Crane catalog; NRA magazines... -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

LOL! I get that response all the time on boards like this! So you're saying, those people are at the end of their rope and have no valid argument against me? COOOooooOOoOoOooOOOOOL! -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Supporting the people you care for doesn't mean supporting the wrong that they do. Abandoning one's friends when they go wrong is reprehensible. rl I'd like it if you would explain just what that means in a real-world application. How do you "support the people you care about" when they do something criminally and morally wrong, without supporting what they did? For example, you have a brother who goes out and participates in a gang-rape of a woman. The news, of course, starts hounding you for comment. Your brother goes to court. Your family is there to watch the proceedings and "support" your brother. Do you protest his innocence, even when/if you know he's guilty? Do you admit his guilt even as his lawyers attempt to prove he is innocent? Do you tell the press that your brother is a wonderful person, who has had his troubles and has made his mistakes? (As if the raped woman should just forgive him because, hey, apart from being a gang-rapist he's "always got a smile for everyone, and is always willing to help someone out"? Do you insist that "he didn't do what they're saying he did," even if you know that's a lie? Do you finance the effort to get him found not guilty, even though you know that for him to be found not guilty would be wrong, because he IS guilty? How do you live with yourself if you help exonerate a guilty brother? I mean, JUST WHAT does it REALLY MEAN to "support" someone you know has done something really wrong? Because I figure that it would be traumatic, but if my brother raped a woman savagely, and stood trial, I would not leap to his defense simply because he's my brother. It would all depend on whether I knew or believed he had really done it, first of all. And if I did believe he was guilty, I would not be throwing money to his lawyers saying, "Spring him; do all that you can." I'd be telling him, "Dude, go do your time, now. You did the crime." Because to do otherwise would be hypocritical. If you've ever said that a rapist should be hanged, or castrated, or beaten, or even just imprisoned, it would be hypocritical of you to "stand by him" and "support him" if the rapist were your own brother. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

When/why did you get caught up in the belief that I cared about impressing you? -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

"Leave [you] alone and let [you] deal with [your] problems"? It seems to me that your leaders are telling US that WE are the ones who should "deal with your problems." They apparently think we should live using their morals, and ban gun ownership so that we can all live in a la-la-la utopia. My last post showed that I am intolerant toward criminals. And mealy-mouthed people who softpedal their response to criminals, at the greater expense to society, who then have to live with criminals among them who know they can act with relative impunity, or at least very light punishment. Any time a murderer is released from prison before he is DEAD is an insult to the whole of humanity. I read constantly of murderers leaving prison after 8 years. That makes me angry. Ooops, I got this far and then found out from you that it's so very wrong for me to REPLY TO THIS! I'm so sorry! What ever can I do to make it up to you? -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Would you please explain what you're saying is wrong? I'm saying that: 1- If two people are sending a gun between them interstate or intrastate, the gun has to be sent from one guy's FFL contact to the other guy's FFL contact. This is well-known, and I don't know why you dispute it. 2 - An exception is if you are sending a firearm to yourself interstate for the purposes of hunting. Say, you mail your Remington 700 to an address in Montana where you plan to receive it to use hunting. 3 - Another exception is if you are a person sending a firearm in for repair to an FFL or to a manufacturer, like I plan to do with my Taurus. Just what is in dispute, here? -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

If it was this easy, then why is there still gang/criminal problems in the US? Hey don't get me wrong, I'm not totally against some of your points. Why? Because all a criminal has to do is open his ears and eyes for a moment, maybe crack a newspaper or watch 5 minutes of t.v. news to find out that LOTS OF PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO BE VICTIMS, HAVEN'T THE WILL TO FIGHT BACK, AND DEPLORE GUN OWNERSHIP. Doesn't take long for a criminal to lose his fear of those upon whom he preys when he learns that many of them won't stand up for themselves and expect others to do it for them. And you sure talk like you're totally against some of my points. Jesus Christ, do you really believe that the majority of American families are raising their kids in a way that tries to teach them that criminality is okay?! I don't have kids to be teaching, but you bet your ass that if I did, I'd be instilling good values in them, and a strong sense of right and wrong. WHAT is your solution for us to use HERE AND NOW?! This mealy-mouthed bullshit about "teach... your children well... and know they loooove you" is sooo nice-sounding, but really doesn't mean jack. And it helps nothing in a practical way. I guess that next week's violent crimes, next year's violent crimes, and next decade's violent crimes don't have to be dealt with: all we have to do is hold our breath for the next generation, to which we're currently trying to teach values? OH, thank heaven, 'cause I thought for a minute there that we were in deep shit. Well, we have too many liberal social engineers who would rather believe in the innate goodness of the most loathesome gang-banger, standing in the way of real, meaningful, enduring punishment for wrongdoers. They oppose long sentences. They oppose capital punishment for murderers. It really begins to seem that they value the lives of evildoers EVERY BIT as much as they value the lives of honest people who fall victim to them. And that's fucking SICK. But it seems that people like that are running the show these days. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

This would be okay except that some people have skirted right along the edge of saying "rape is justified" and "she deserved to be raped." I'm pretty sure I tried to separate the issues, but you're trying to merge them again. The original post had nothing to do with walking around in a bad neighborhood. rl Yes, keep saying that, even though "some people" overtly stated that they believe that NOT to be true. By the way, I didn't say anything about being raped because you walk through a bad neighborhood. Please pay attention. That was just an A-N-A-L-O-G-Y. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Pretend all you want that ethnicity has nothing to do with stuff like this. You fool no one but those who wish to be fooled. Funny how some people don't want race to be allowed to be a visible factor when racially-separatist people misbehave, and then bash you in the face with racial identity every other chance they get. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

QuoteWhat does everyone think about what/was happening here in Australia. We heard on the news that one guy was bashed whilst he put out his garbage bin! The whole thing apparently started when a couple of surf life savers (people who pull you out of the ocean if you get into trouble - community service types not paid like american ones) were bashed by a group of people of lebanese decent. Groups of people (of lebanese decent) were apparently getting around in gangs in the area and threatening and intimidating people. A rally was then organised as the people of cronulla felt that their beach was getting taking over by people who didn't respect the ozzie way of life. Well, that's just it. In country after country -- even in parts of the U.S. -- people who want to mollycoddle and appease the misfits who will not live peacefully side-by-side with the rest are getting their way. The courts side with them and go easy on evildoers. The courts, prosecutors, and police authorities go hard on those who defend against such evildoers using force. Everything, it seems, is set up to FAVOR the evildoers, and people on the left -- what we now call "liberals", the humanists who think there is good in everyone no matter how evil their acts -- jump up to defend the BAD people at the expense of the GOOD people. It is baffling to me why they think that gang members are more worthy of their ardent favor than good honest people. But anyway, our societies are reaping the harvest that permissiveness and bleeding-heartism have sown. Back when people expected swift, sure justice to rain down upon them for misdeeds, there was a lot less of the shit we see nowadays. I do not blame myself. I am old-school. I hold with the "hang 'em high" bunch. FUCK this "But we can still make him be a productive member of society" BULLSHIT. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

The only person responsible for a rape is the rapist. If I cash my paycheck and I walk down some of the nasty streets in my town flashing cash all over the place, I don't deserve to have someone mug me, crack my skull and take my money. But if it does happen, people will say, "I can see how it may be said he invited that to happen." Can't you see the parallel? Can't you see that no one is saying "rape is justified" or "she deserved to be raped"? We're saying that it is sometimes foreseeable, and therefore avoidable, based on the choices a woman makes and how she presents herself. Not that certain modes of dress and action call for rape; just that there can be some culpability on the part of the woman for putting herself into a situation where she is vulnerable to some of the most deplorable things men do. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

If the Mayans were so smart that they could figure out we had until 2012... where the fuck are they NOW? My personal belief is that the world will end not a moment later than it is enveloped by the explosion of the sun. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

It's not fear of the government and its punishments that will ever make thugs give up gang life... it's fear of what their victims will do to them. Make a gangster fear the guy he wants to rob, make him fear the woman he wants to rape, make him fear the homeowner he wants to invade, and he will give it up. And the way to do that is to let them be armed, and give them the latitude to use those arms in legitimate defense of self and property. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

You're stupid enough to be two people. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Got no shortage of gay guys who think I'm hot, here. Too bad I want none of it. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I hope you give your kids and grandkids better firearms training than that. I certainly have had enough to know its not that simple. I'm pretty sure you have too. Handling a gun day-in and day-out may not be "that simple," of course, because it involves loading, unloading, firing, cleaning, etc. But a gun in a nightstand drawer, ready to be used for defense in the home, certainly is, in my view, as simple as point and click. Why bring training of children into this unless your goal is obfuscation. We were talking about whether a person who has a basic understanding of the functioning of his or her own handgun could effectively use it against an attacker. All signs point to yes. All of that would have been handled by the gun owner in advance of the actual stress-filled altercation. I know that I personally don't have any cause to wonder if my personal defense gun is loaded (it always is); safety on (it's a GLOCK -- no manual safety); round chambered (always); need to be cocked (once again, GLOCK) You are needlessly complicating this. You are acting like you want to tell people who went out and bought their gun that they must surely not be adept at actually using it, despite knowing nothing about each individual's level of expertise, instruction, and practice. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I'm not buying that argument without better evidence. Simply having a handgun is unlikely to save your life without proper training. I don't see a short waiting period to have much of an impact on reducing murder due to an ineffective restraining order. I suppose then that you would feel bold enough to advance on a woman who was holding a .38 revolver aimed at you, because you just don't think she can be effective with it at 10 feet... It is verifiable fact (I have read the names in various articles) that some women obtained restraining orders on abusive spouses, and sought to obtain a firearm; while waiting for the end of the waiting period, they were murdered by spouses angered by, among other things, the imposition of the restraining order itself. You can challenge the notion all you want, but if you're going to say that if gun control is worth doing "if it saves even just one life," then we can argue that it is worth not doing if doing it is going to COST even just one life. Police officers are obvious targets, their guns are worn openly... There are probably lots more reasons why they sometimes have their guns taken from them. Maybe you could provide, since it's your assertion that it's so easy to take a gun from an armed person, some statistics on how many arrests are conducted in the U.S. each year, and how many times an officer's gun is successfully taken from him by a suspect. I'd bet the second number is vanishingly small as a percentage. But then, it's your assertion: YOU prove that it's not. If it's so easy to take a gun from a determined armed person, I suppose that if a criminal took my gun away from me, well, by golly, I'd just take it right BACK! Since the benefits of waiting periods are dubious from the start, ONE is too many. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Didn't the Centers for Disease Control do a study of something like 52 different gun control studies and find that NO CORRELATION CAN BE VALIDLY DRAWN between the institution of gun control laws and any decrease in crime that may follow? In other words, even though they've looked, and looked hard, it is not possible for them to even hint that gun control stops gun crime. Not even BANS do it. Not even outright BANS. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Maybe not 100%, but severe enough punishments can reduce smuggling to a trickle. For example, not many people bother smuggling heroin into Singapore these days because they kill people they catch doing so. And the tradeoff is only that you have to live in a POLICE STATE like SINGAPORE. Forgive me, but I don't think that I want to live in a country where a teenager is THRASHED BLOODY WITH A CANE for a simple act of vandalism/property damage. Do you? Because before such a regime became effective in its ban on smuggling, it would have to achieve a level of FEAR of the government that we will simply not tolerate. You mean like the DEATH PENALTY applied to murderers? How is it that you can keep a straight face and tell us that illegal gun possession would cease if the penalty was harsh enough, when the penalty of DEATH for MURDER is not enough to stop people from committing murder in places that have capital punishment?! Are you even listening to your own theories?? -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

You can *ahem* prove that a single gun has been used to kill, say, ten thousand people? If not, then your considering guns to be WMD is utterly asinine, peurile, and histrionic. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Such an assinine statement..... First one would have to wonder if total elimination is the only measure of success... Second, no law is 100% effective, hence do you propose there should be no laws? The measure of success would be to show that it was working AT ALL. And bans pretty much don't do that. The people who really want to break the law will break it. You've got to understand that a ban against guns (or drugs, alcohol, whatever) is an attempt to BLOCK people from getting those things. A law against driving drunk is NOT an attempt to BLOCK people from driving drunk! You'd have to either keep people under detention, or somehow get rid of their access to cars and/or alcohol to effect that kind of block. (And then you would see that block, that BAN, being skirted and you would still see people driving drunk.) You cannot possibly equate an attempt to ban an item with a law that makes a certain behavior illegal. It's an invalid comparison for the reason I just demonstrated. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

You could do the mature thing and just start a thread on those other issues. So sorry that this one said GUNS specifically, right there in the subject. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Yeah, it's a plot by the American gun makers to send their guns up to Canada so they can be sold on the street for a fraction of their real market value. Also, the gun companies LOVE to court people suing them for the criminal actions others commit with their products. They love arming criminals. The people who run these companies don't have loved ones who can fall victim to violent crime. Where on earth do you get these theories? And where is the evidence or proof -- or convictions -- for the companies that are doing this smuggling? Is this just some concoction of Michael Moore or something? Amazing how you know it as fact but we've never heard of it. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Um, is marijuana legal to grow and possess in Canada? Guns are legal to make, sell, possess and use in the United States of America. Hardly an apt analogy, there, ReBirth. While we are justified in saying, "Hey, Canada, why don't you come down on those marijuana growers there and enforce your laws?!" they are not justified in saying... well... anything regarding our guns. What are they going to do, implore us to stop people from making a legal product? I love it! Triple whammy! Nailed them on ignoring the other 50%... on the gun registry... and I would add that the "50% figure," according to something I read, was admitted to have been just pulled out of a hat in the first place. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I am not a bigot or a homophobe -- I have no problem with gay people and am friends with some. But I am repulsed by the idea of watching a movie made about gay cowboys. It seems too... faggy... Like watching a drag queen show or something. Too flamboyant. Too egregiously anti-masculine and macho, which is what the whole cowboy thing is supposed to be about. Cowboys in a depiction like a feature film should, in my own opinon, be true to the "tradition" of cowboy films: heroic, honorable, manly, and straight. But that's just me. Hell, I haven't seen this film, so I don't know if it's done well or something. For all I know, it might be. It might be real poignant. But then, "cowboy" and "poignant" shouldn't really mix. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"