peacefuljeffrey

So, being a non-criminal who distracts a guard makes you a criminal, and thus you are not a non-criminal distracting a guard from looking for criminals.... Hey, I like it! It makes just as much sense as everything else that the "authorities" do! -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Absolutely false. Anyone can see how obvious it is that a restraining order cannot "protect" anyone from anything. The purpose of a restraining order actually seems to be to provide a minor charge that can be added onto the charge of murder when an irate husband murders his wife despite being ordered not to go near her. They're worse than useless: they engender a false sense of security. They make women drop their guard, because they think that a murderous ex is going to be so worried about disobeying a restraining order that he'll decide not to MURDER her. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Crossing tracks a bit... When Plame's cover was blown, the demoncrats screamed for accountability about the leak. Now the leak comes out about the "secret prisons" that the CIA is supposed to have operated, and the demoncrats are silent about going after whoever leaked it? -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

If the girl was there at the scene insisting it was flour, she should have offered to eat a few tablespoons full of it to prove it. "Here, I'll eat a bunch of it. You watch me to see if I seem like I'm coked-up afterward. I'll even volunteer to miss my flight to show you that after an hour I'm still just as I was." But um, I don't know if you can expect the security people to have been willing to taste-test what she was claiming was flour. As far as I am concerned, there is NO EXCUSE for a false positive to have occurred to justify jailing her. Just how hard is it for a drug test to tell the difference between cocaine and ordinary flour. I would imagine that is why she's pissed off and is suing. A simple test should have exculpated her and sent her on her way. It seems true that they criminalized the non-criminal act of making, and possessing, a condom filled with flour, just because they gave it a flawed test! -Jeffrey -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Nope, never spoken with Rush, but I have held up my Zippo lighter to encourage them to do encores... -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I thought the issue was that a guy wanted to ship a firearm between him and his dad, neither of whom is an FFL. In that case, these are two ordinary people who DO have to send the gun using FFLs on either side of the transfer. This is NOT the same as when I have to send my Taurus to Taurus in Miami for warranty work. I can go to the UPS hub and send it myself from there. They can send it back directly to me; I do not have to receive it back through an FFL because it is substantially the same gun received back after a repair. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

So, you figure that having my huge, stiff schlong inside her is abhorrent to her, so much so that it makes her yell and moan in ecstasy, and because she hates being in ecstasy so much, she keeps forcing herself to endure that punishment... Wow, I didn't realize my girlfriend was so...deep! -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

No, the ban would not be a big deal to you, naturally, if you are not one of the people whose rightful property is outlawed by the government and then forcibly confiscated under penalty of imprisonment. It's easy to accept when it's not something YOU like or believe in being banned, I guess. If the gang violence problem is yours to solve, why are you going after law-abiding people's guns? What is that gonna solve? -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

TESTIFY! It's as useless as any ban is... be it on drugs, alcohol, guns, prostitution, abortion. Anyone who offers a BAN on something as a political/legal solution to its misuse or abuse SHOULD BE PUBLICLY HANGED. There is literally NO EXCUSE for not fully realizing and knowing that bans ALWAYS FAIL, NEVER SUCCEED, and ALWAYS BRING WITH THEM GREATER PROBLEMS THAN THE SO-CALLED "BANNED" ITEM. Any public figure who works to institute a ban is guilty of criminal malfeasance. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

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

If no one made it, then no one would experiment with it, then no one would become addicted and no one would die from it either. Youve never experimented with anything? Drinking or other substences? I've indulged in alcohol now and then -- hardly what anyone could call habitually -- in part because the experience of others showed that most people can use it to enjoy it a bit and not get hooked on it or have it kill them. BULLSHIT Then get angry at the gun makers because people shoot other people with guns. Get angry at the knife makers because people get stabbed to death with ordinary kitchen knives. Get angry at the people who make what someone misuses or abuses rather than the people who actually misuse and abuse those things, and you'll never get anywhere. The makers are not the problem. They could make all they want and if no one abused it, there would be no problem. You can't escape that logic. uh no brainaic.... its not that way.... its more like someone who is addicted to drugs, has a medical problem and or mental issues.... which is completley different then a sane, stable person putting their fucking hand on a stove. Are you actually saying that a drug addict is addicted a drug like heroin even before he has ever put the stuff into his body? That's kind of absurd. What I am saying is that the guy can AVOID EVER being hooked on heroin by being wise enough to observe and internalize the experience of others who have been fucked up by it. This person should say to himself, "Not only is this stuff really bad for you, the 'thrill' of using it cannot possibly be worth wasting away and dying penniless over it, and I have seen countless examples of smart people getting fucked up by it so there is no reason to think that I'd be immune if I tried it. I just won't bother. I'll save myself the trouble." It's worked for me, anyway. It starts as a thrill , but soon becomes an addiction, which most people can not fix themselves... and its idiots like you who have their fucked up theories on addictions that can sometimes create issues with those who know they have a problem but are to scared to confide to seek help. I did not attack you or call you names. You obviously have a lot of pent-up emotion invested in this issue. That does not diminish, however, the validity of what I'm saying. I'm talking about NEVER STARTING, because a person can use his intelligence to steer clear of what has fucked up many others before him. If you liked riding on a particular stretch of road on your Harley, and then someone you know ate it on that stretch because the road has deteriorated and is not ridable anymore, would you say screw it and then go ride it anyway? No, you'd say, "I guess the pleasure of it is not worth going down on that highway." Why can't drugs be the same? Are there not other non-drug things a person can do for "thrills" and enjoyment in life? Skydiving itself is not good enough? A skydiver also has to do drugs? Sorry about your brother. Maybe one day you can tell me the story of how "tough love" is responsible for his murder. The tough love I'm talking about is just telling someone he's a schmuck when he's a schmuck, and letting him figure out that it's not hard to not be a schmuck. I have plenty of knowledge of drug addiction. It's been in my family. It's affecting my very best friend even as we speak. Years of treating drugs recreationally have led to him also treating prescriptions lightly as well, as I figure it. He is now paying the price. Fortunately for me, I have not known anyone who died over an addiction. Not anyone close to me, anyway. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I sympathize with those who have lost friends or other loved ones this way, but I cannot agree that the sellers are creating the problem. Demand by the users is what gets the users killed. If sellers made heroin and no one had an interest in buying, it would kill no one. Being angry at the makers/sellers is misplaced. I think of drug abuse this way: A person stands in a kitchen and watches while another person lights a stove burner and then puts his hand on the hot burner and gets it nice and cooked. He now has the experience of having seen what the hot burner can do. He is no stranger to burns and the unpleasant, painful sensation of them. He is capable of understanding the lesson. He understands that he has no reason to think that HE will be the one who can withstand the harm of which the burner is capable. Wisely, he opts not to do the same thing. A person wants a thrill, and he turns and looks at drugs to get it. He does not have to look far at all to find a plethora of examples of people who thought just as he does: "Those others were weak and/or stupid. I'M gonna be fine, I'M the one who can handle this and not let it ruin me. I can control it. I alone. I'm the exception." Why is it impossible for this person to do like he did with the stove -- accept the superior experience of others; learn the lesson without having to go through the lesson? This person instead has to figure out for himself something that was already figured out, painfully, by someone else before him, huh? Has to see for himself whether it can be done, even despite the huge number of examples that it pretty much can't. It's hubris, ego, whatever you want to call it. And unless we teach people better to accept a "learn by example" instead of "learn the hard way" we will continue to see people fall to drugs like heroin, meth, coke, etc. I am a pretty harsh judge of people who go out and do drugs. There is not a one of them who can claim ignorance regarding the harm they are capable of doing. If someone in the same room as me put his hand on a hot stove and got burned, you'd be right to call me a fucking moron for doing the exact same thing all the while claiming that somehow I would be the one who could evade harm by it. It's just stupid. I think that "tough love" is the best way to deal with this: Tell your friends, or family members who do drugs, "Hey, you're a fuckin' moron. You think you're able to do this without fucking yourself up, but you just watch, you'll be proven wrong. And because you should have been able to see what happened to others before you and take it as a warning, you'll deserve what you get when you get it." If a loved one won't respond properly to that admonition, there is nothing you can do and that person is a lost cause. Can't save everyone. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Mine can. Maybe she's faking. Faking and then coming back for more... Hmmm... I'll have to ask her why she'd keep punishing herself like that. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

If that were so, they could also criminalize saying "Hi" to a security officer, or for that matter, having a sweet ASS! -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Here is what the NRA website digest of Federal Firearms law has to say about shipping guns: Do with that what you will. This is an organization that is invested in getting this right. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

You are not the only one to say this but I find it incorrect. Unless their has been a very recent change that I should/would have heard about. The shipping service may require an FFL to ship (as does the Postal Service? for handguns. Someone does anyway) but it is not Federal law. He just needs to find an FFL that will do tranfers relatively inexpensive and have the sender get a copy(fax is now allowed) and ship them. My FFL charges me $20 to do a transfer per "firearm". If I sell a firearm I ship it myself without the use of an FFL on my end. As I understand it, interstate shipping of a firearm DOES have to be conducted between two FFLs. I don't have the law before me to reprint for you; it is simply what I have seen written by people who should know, over and over again for a number of years. I think it might date back to the GCA of '68, actually. I think that ended mail-order of guns, if I'm not mistaken. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Um, you're saying that you support people who have DONE WRONG just because they wear "your colors"? That itself is wrong. I don't know what issues you are talking about. I don't know "what happened with Shayna." I have been a little out-of-the-loop. But I have to strongly disagree with your insistence that people should stick together with each other regardless of whether they have done wrong or not. If my brother beat his wife or kid, I would not stand next to him in court as he pleaded not guilty and tried to weasel out of punishment. Is that what you think "family" is supposed to do?! -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Yep. I've long been pissed off about the idea that I'm not free to be on a public beach at night. It's prior restraint: they keep me off IN CASE I might be one of the types of people who would do "bad things" on the beach at night -- and they don't want to actually patrol the beach at night to make sure that laws are obeyed. Their unwillingness to patrol in case of unlawful acts on the beach at night means they just shut it down and say NOBODY -- law breaking or law abiding -- is allowed there then. It's bogus. But I disagree with your placing the blame on "creeping secular humanism." This doesn't have to do with belief in god or jesus. This is about attitudes toward individual liberty. So-called Liberals are every bit as bad about supporting individual liberty as they claim Conservatives are, and more so. It has more to do with their FEAR OF LIFE and what can happen to people in the course of it, and their elitist belief that they know what is best for ALL of us. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Almost, except for one thing. When did it become the law that one may not carry condoms and flour in one's suitcase? rl That may be a good point. But I think that there is something in the law about proffering something as though it is drugs -- it's how they can convict drug dealers who are "dealing" fake stuff. I'm not really sure. You'd have to ask a lawyer or prosecutor. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

My god I hope you're kidding. A ban on something that they have right now in spite of not being allowed to have... Uh, yeah, that'll work. We have an outright ban on heroin in this country. We have an outright ban on cocaine in this country. We have an outright ban on crystal methamphetamine in this country. ALL of those things can be obtained pretty damned easily if you go to the right place and meet the right person. And you really believe that a ban on guns will succeed in ridding the world of guns?? -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

She was stupid, sure, but to prosecute her on the basis that some test found drugs when there WERE NO DRUGS is bogus and an abuse by the authorities. The fact that she is vindicated by tests on the flour show that she should never have been charged in the first place. She did set in motion the problems she had, but she was not the cause of the actual problem that arose. Does that make any sense? -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

HOLY CRAP! THANK you!! I never heard of that before! (And I wonder what would be the solution if I didn't have a mouse, let alone one with a wheel!) YaY! Thanks again! By the way, where on earth would such information be found, like in a manual or help guide in Windows or something? Seems pretty arcane... -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Suddenly lately when I go into the forums, the main titles are much bigger looking than they usually are, and I haven't been able to find a setting that changes that. The screen just doesn't seem to look like it always used to, even though I know of no changes that I made myself. Is there a place where I can fix the setting for how big the text looks? Thanks. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Night of the Living Dead 3D Holy shit! And Sid Haig, who was in the Rob Zombie "Corpse" movies as Captain Spaulding, is in it! -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

One guy asks his god to call out the god of another guy. The second guy's god never shows up to the fight, ergo he doesn't exist, ergo the second guy's a charlatan. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"