peacefuljeffrey

Hey, it sounds like your mom did what she had to do and made it work. That's worth some major respect. For some people, it's tough to wear/use secondhand stuff because they're hung up on impressing everyone (as though what you wear should impress people, and not who/how you are!). And Gawain, no, I'm not expecting a baby. Dunno how that impression got given... Last baby I could possibly have made woulda been born already. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Actually, it has to do with the percentage of the establishment's revenue that comes from food. If it's over a set percentage, they may not allow smoking. But in the case of a bar -- even after the recent laws -- if most of the money comes from alcohol sales (which is easy for them to accomplish) they may allow smoking inside. I know this is so because I was at such a bar the other day. We checked it out for lunch, but thought it would be more like a restaurant. Walked in, saw a juke box, pool tables and a bar, and smelled the smoke and we walked right back out. *bleargh* -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Parachute pants were not a fashion tragedy! They were cool, to me, because they had a bunch more pockets than typical jeans. And hey, it was either that or "designer" jeans like Jordache and Sassoon! *bleargh!* Shit, I remember wearing pinstripe jeans! -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Bill, if they don't do it like dogs, how do they do it?! -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Quibble quibble quibble. No wonder you gun people are always feeling like you have to be armed -- you're always antagonizing each other! Hmmm... I love Glock -- it's my carry gun -- but I am not sure yet about the direction of Glock if they are going to do stuff like having a spokesman. Often that signifies a decrease in product quality in favor of funnelling more money to advertising b.s. I hope that doesn't come to be the case here. I wouldn't mind Glock increasing the diversity of its product line, though. Just think of what those engineers could come up with in the way of pocket folding knives! I don't mean like how HK contracted someone to make knives with their logo. I'm talking about Glock competing with, say, Benchmade and Spyderco! And I've always wanted to see Glock make stuff like the Delta Dart, the CIA Letter Opener, and the Kubotan! I would love a Glock polymer kubotan! But then, you'd have to be some sort of weirdo not to! -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

"Simply"? You don't find it outrageous if someone demands publicly that a minorities civil rights be taken away? I don't find the opining that rights should not be extended to some people outrageous. The withholding of rights that actually do belong to someone is not tolerable. But there is no actual harm caused by expressing the opinion that some should be denied rights. It's just an opinion. If EFFORTS are made to actively deny someone rights that do belong to them, that's punishable, sure. But I think you are going overboard in attempting to engage in prior restraint to preclude such actions. It's akin to cutting out their tongues so that they can't speak against a minority, or cutting off their hands so they can't punch a minority. The entire world is all about majorities and minorities struggling to get what they want. And some majorities keep a lookout for the rights of minorities, and some just want further self-enrichment even at the expense of minorities. The trouble is, if the majority oppresses the minority, who is around to chastise the majority for it, but they themselves?? Paradox. You have stretched the definition of "aiding" past the breaking point. If I said, "Yeah, the Unabomber had the right idea," (even if I had said it while he was alive and actively bombing), that is not "aiding" him! Besides, there is a difference between spurring others to criminal acts, "aiding" criminal acts, and simply agreeing with those acts. If I say, "Man, I really feel someone should assassinate XXXX!" that is not a crime. It is a crime if I say to someone, "I think you should assassinate XXXX. Here's how you should do it..." That's not the degree to which we were talking about. What a ridiculous statement. Hey in case you haven't noticed: We are a free people, enjoying the same human and civil rights as you. And the laws that are active in this country have been passed "by the people for the people". Free unless you want to associate with others of a given mindset and wish to throw your hat into the political ring and see if you can get the general population to support you. No, you are restrained by certain guidelines that say, "Only persons of certain types of political pursuasions are allowed to take part in the political process. If you advocate German nationalism, you can't run on that kind of ideology." I despise a totalitarian system, but freedom would dictate that each person is free to ADVOCATE it, wrong as he might be. The rest of the country would shout it down, obviously: and if it didn't, then maybe it's what the people want, and who is anyone to deny them that if it is the popular mandate? The fact that you are a criminal simply for "denying the Holocaust" is repugnant to me. I understand the admonition, "Those who don't learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it," and the dangers of Germans forgetting just exactly what they perpetrated on the world not once, but twice... But you are legislating beliefs here, and that will always be wrong, in my book. The "no signs and symbols" thing is also, to me, overboard. People here collect those things, sometimes -- and not necessarily people who are fans of Hitler or the third reich. I think that implicit in a prohibition of such items is a statement that the better nature of German people is not to be trusted, for fear of what they might do once again if they aren't watched, restricted, and kept on their best behavior. Your not feeling it is not evidence that it is not there. You are just as forbidden from saying those things we mentioned above whether you feel the desire to say them or not. You said signs and symbols of the third reich are forbidden! Now you say you can paint your walls with them? Are they forbidden or not? Back in 1949 you might have been right, there was a fear that germany would at some point in the future return to a fascist system. But that fear has long been overcome. Welcome to the present. The same present in which anti-semitic crimes in France and Germany are on the rise (although stifled in the news, because no one wants much word of it to get out)? -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Dude, I never knew you were a pilot! Hey, some day, maybe we should get together and do that Bahamas flight. I've never done it either, but it was never a goal of mine like it was yours. Have you ever flown to Key West? I did that in October 2002 a month after I got licensed. It happened to be the end weekend of Fantasy Fest, and I didn't even know it until I arrived and had to taxi to overflow parking! Key West is an awesome flight. I did the whole thing at or below 1000', so I got to see everything in/on the water, and all the hotels and residences. It was neat. On the way down, I heard someone being advised about a flight of six F-15s on a heading of east at 3,500. I spotted them and took a picture with my little disposa-cam, but they're specks in the print. Then on the flight back, which was from dusk through night, as I passed east of Ft. Lauderdale, flight following gave me a traffic advisory about the GOODYEAR BLIMP at 12 o'clock, same altitude. So I passed 2000' east of the Goodyear Blimp and saw it right off my left wing at 1000' or so. Crazy thing! (Oh, I had spotted him before I got the advisory, though.) Anyway, we should fly together sometime. You still jumping at Clewiston? I've been at Sebastian mostly now. See you around. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Those were people who actually wanted to take part in the leadership process, not just flap their gums in bitter, insulting, hypercritical discontent. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

And marijuana is "killer dope" making people either psychotically violent or thinking they can fly... (Hey waitaminute... we can fly, right?) -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

What do you mean "as soon as you are allowed to keep a gun you are under control"?? There is no direct control over a gun owner's actions just by virtue of registering or "qualifying" to own guns. There may be "accountability" -- but that is not physical prevention from shooting people. I've gone from Peacefuljeffrey to PJ to "PeaJay"... neato. Strange, but neato. You've made a longhand form of an abbreviation... -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I think she is trying to convince us that because Germany registers every gun, every gun owner, and ever gun sale, that Germany is a gun crime-free utopia. But there's a problem with that view of things... News Report 1 News Report 2 News Report 3 You can turn up numerous examples with Google. Bottom line: all the laws in the world, don't stop criminals from being criminals. No doubt. I think the problem lies in the fact that the fact that someone is known to have something is not in any way able to prevent them from misusing it. If we required a license to buy a hammer, and kept a list of who bought them, would people be prevented from using their registered hammers from bashing someone else's skull? I thought that christelsabine was saying something about how it's difficult to even be allowed to register to get a gun, as if that stops people from getting them. (I guess Germany has laws against black markets...) -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

It's really rewarding to learn that stuff, though. I was daunted by the "enormity" of it when I first looked at it. It's important to take it in small steps and learn each bit as a separate thing. With any large learning endeavor, if you try to grasp the entire thing all at once, it'll freak you out. I used to think about the F.A.R.s you had to learn, and thought I'd never be able to (even though I am good at memorizing stuff). I started flying lessons in the late '80s, and my dad was paying for it then, and because of my laziness and fear of the studying, I gave that up with 32 hours done. I didn't get going at it again until 2002, when I got my license. I realize that when you start learning it, the romance melts away and you see the nitty-gritty of flying, but it's still a liberating feeling to pilot a plane. Maybe once your husband has his ticket, you'll want to get yours all over again.

I agree. In my view, there's probably never been a human being hit by a train who wasn't asking for it -- who wasn't tied down by some guy with a pencil-thin mustache. I just don't see how it happens: if you're conscious, and not whacked out of your mind, how can you not avoid being on the tracks when the train's anywhere nearby?? Here in Florida (and I'm sure it happens everywhere), I constantly see people who stop their cars on the tracks when a traffic light has cars backed up. They don't stop before the tracks and wait until there is clearance for their entire vehicle before proceeding across. Now come on, it's not pitiless of me to say that anyone who gets creamed by a train that way kinda deserves it. Not only is there a law against stopping on the tracks, it's simply against all common sense. When I read in the paper of pedestrians hit by trains around here, it seems they were either suicides or drunks who fell asleep on the tracks (and I can't figure out how, even in a drunken stupor, the tracks seems like "the place" to pass out!). -Jeffrey -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Nice job, man!

If you know what is special about the amount $847.63... tell us what the significance is.

Actually, it's over a decade since I punched out anyone. My comments were pretty much hyperbole intended to convey that I'd be extremely angry if a smoker's carelessness harmed me or my gear. I'm not one of these folks with two containers and three mains -- if someone burns my canopy, I'm not jumping for a while, and that'd piss me right the fuck off. I suppose I'd start off with a polite demand for monetary compensation for the damage. If that failed, things would probably escalate. If you fuck up someone's stuff with your cigarette, ya better man-up and make good. That's all there is to it. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

This maybe should be a new poll altogether, but If you had gear ruined by a smoker's cigarette, and you knew who was responsible for the damage, WERE YOU COMPENSATED FOR YOUR LOSS? -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Dude, I really think that if the latter happened to me, I'd treat it as an assault; and if the former happened to my canopy -- particularly if all I got was, "Oh. Sorry." -- there'd be one smoker with a swollen face at the DZ, and I'd have something of his/hers of equivalent value before I left for home that day, or a fistful of cash as compensation. No fuckin' way would I not take cigarette damage to me or my gear extremely seriously. Cigarettes have no business being anywhere near parachutes. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Excuse me, but there is an AMERICAN COMMUNIST PARTY and apart from being despised by most Americans, and risking their livelihood, perhaps, by alienating those who might otherwise associate with them, they are free to exist; solicit membership; produce and distribute literature; publish advertisements; write letters to newspapers and magazines... So what is your point? You can't compare our laws on freedom of thought, expression, association, and the press, to other countries like Germany. Sorry, in that sense, we're a lot more free -- and trusted. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Are you admitting that someone making an insulting gesture that does you no physical harm makes you want to physically attack him; and you refrain only because it would cost you a fine? -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

No. Only in the loosest, most flippant sense is this any kind of infringement on your "rights." You are describing the criminalization of a person's WANTS, even when he has stopped short of ACTUALLY taking away anyone's civil rights. The notion of this is SICK. You have a "right" to not ever be insulted by anyone?! Um, are you saying that if you call your boss an asshole, he's entitled to sue you for insulting him? Sure, he'll fire you, but he doesn't have the ability to sue for that. I could call every person I meet on the street an asshole, and they have nothing to sue me for. I might eventually get picked up for disturbing the peace or something, but I can't be sued civilly by those people. You seem to be quite confused about things like this, and I wonder where you are getting this information. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

German law does not outlaw any kind of political speech, as long as it complies with the german constitution. Hell they even protect right wing party demonstrations with police force, paid by my taxes. That's democracy! There are a few restrictions though: You may not say in public that you'd like the democratic parliamentary system replaced by a dictatorial leadership or the like. And you also may not say that you'd like any ethnical/cultural minority deported or worse. Okay, SAYING something is illegal under German law. Not an incitement to riot, nor "yelling fire in a crowded theater"... Simply voicing that your opinion is that you would like, say, Muslims deported, or that you want a monarch or autocrat to run the country... this is a crime. The notion of it is abhorrent to me. If these positions are so weak, so wrong, why can't German society open up discourse and expose them as being so? Is it so dangerous to trust Germans with freedom? Nope -- 'cause that would be thoughtcrime, and we can't have that! Major BS! "They're" is an over-simplification addressing the german people as a whole. It's as if I was saying "All americans are [fill in cliché here]". You wouldn't like that would you? No BS there. "They're" refers to German society, through Germany's laws and constitution. "Germany" is not comfortable with letting Germans speak and discuss all manner of socio-political realities. This indicates a weakness: a failure to put faith in the ability of the good people of society to overcome, through rational discourse, the irrational and evil and fascist fringes of that society. If there was faith in the good elements of German society, there would be no fear that neo-nazis could begin to flourish there again if you didn't clamp down on anything they might have to say. Face it, Germany has criminalized certain thought. No, I have not made a study of Germany or its laws. Even if all I knew was what you wrote above, it would be enough to make me abhor the system you have set up there. Suppression of thought and of political speech is wrong. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

And you think it's very likely for a Blood or a Crip to be in the gang for more than a short time without accumulating a criminal record? Do you even think it's very likely that a given applicant to these gangs will not have amassed convictions prior to trying to join? Prison is a badge of honor to such people, I thought. Frankly, I don't believe that Bloods and Crips are bothering to get concealed weapons permits as you claim. I have never heard a WORD of this story until you claimed it here, so it is far from proven. And then the issue is, if these "Bloods" and "Crips" on the CCW line have clean records, maybe -- here's a revolutionary thought -- they should be treated as non-criminals by the government! I see no justifiable reason that Bushmaster should have had to pay one red cent. They did nothing illegal, and they are not the ones who lost track of the guns. Then the fucking ATF is who should have been sued. They fucked up and didn't do their jobs. Malfeasance or incompetence: it was one or the other, so take your pick. Why was Bushmaster sued for not enforcing the law, when enforcing the law is the BATF's job?! -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I just had to skip that one. I couldn't make heads or tails of what christelsabine was saying. And I couldn't see the relevance of it to what we are talking about. Anyone else? -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I didn't say I didn't think others would attack me. I have a problem with leftists assuming the worst of others, and using that as an excuse to claim they shouldn't have guns -- and then insisting that those of us who want to protect against this pernicious humanity may not have guns. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"