peacefuljeffrey

Good ol' Mike -- always seein' the bright side! -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Here is a link to a Staten Island paper article about gun control proposals in that borough of NYC. Pay careful mention to the "code of conduct" stipulations, like this one: "Manufacturers would have to stop supplying weapons to dealers who sell guns to criminals..." Um, it IS already illegal for anyone to "sell guns to criminals." Felons can't buy guns. And it's illegal to sell to anyone who gives indication that they intend to use a gun for criminal purposes. So when this is made illegal a second time, will that solve the problem? If these "corrupt dealers" have committed the crime of selling to prohibited persons, we already have the laws we need to prosecute them. Tell me WTF we need a law that will do nothing but open up predatory, money-grubbing lawsuits against innocent third-parties like manufacturers for. The day the gun-banners agree to hold beer and liquor and car companies liable for drunk driving deaths is the day I will consider supporting suing gun manufacturers for criminal shootings. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Well, the place is pretty "cliquish." -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

WHAT?! That's the "OK" sign! Read Lucky Mike's book "Dancing on Raindrops" and you'll know what happens when you try to substitute the "thumbs up" for the "OK"... Um, let's not forget that Germany is the country with the political history that they feel necessitates that they BAN certain political speech and parties... They're not comfy with the idea of people speaking what they feel and letting public discourse sort out who's right and who's wrong. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Well, see, that's something that would be hard for me to help. It's currently 03:23 eastern standard time. Not many yanks are posting at this hour. I come on after working all night and find a lot of posts to which I feel my replies are warranted. To make them all part of one reply would cause many of them to lose coherence, or lose their punch. That's why you'll see three, five in a row by me. Sorry if it bothers you. That's the way it goes. It's just me catching up. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

It's Billvon's thread, but he hasn't been seen since this question... I know he's a busy guy, but... this is odd. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Didn't Bill Clinton pardon a shitload of real scumbags, many of whom were buddies of his in some way? I can't remember what it was, but something was in the news not long ago about one of them, and how he was up to something new and scummy. Wish I could remember what I'm thinking of. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

So Mrjones was right... Blowjob it is! -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I hope they enjoy the black market they are sure to be inviting. Now, what happened in Suffolk county on Long Island, NY was different. First, they required that any food establishment that wanted to keep smoking areas had to fully enclose them and have a separate ventilation system. I was working for TGIFridays when they passed this law, and the company had to build a big partition and stuff. Then I moved away, and my dad tells me that in the time between, they gave a big Fuck You to all the companies that laid out the expense to comply with that first ban, and now, separate area and ventilation or not, there's no smoking period. Nice, huh? A chain like TGIFridays spends hundreds of thousands of dollars to comply in good faith, and they get the shaft anyway after they do so. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

What he said. Thanks, Kennedy. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Well, not a guilty conscience in the sense that I think I'm doing something wrong... Just that I'm being referred to. The fact is that yes, I do end up making similar statments repeatedly on the subject of gun ownership. But it is not always to the same audience, and there are nuances that are articulated -- and I am not the one initiating the question/answer session. I'm just getting involved in a discussion as it builds. Should I recuse myself from any gun thread because I have already commented in a few of them before? If so, then there are a bunch more people, yourself included, who should do the same -- if repeating oneself is such a fucking crime. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Yeah. Its sad when someone shares similar view points with another person, but the 1st person is ashamed of the actions of the 2nd person, since it makes the view point look extremist and marginalizes the 1st person's arguements. Unfortunately that happens a LOT on heated issues. Look at abortion, there are quite a few folks that don't believe abortion is morally right, but they're ashamed of the extremist religious groups standing outside of Planned Parenthood everyday. Aww, come on, why are you trying to protect me by not mentioning me by name? It is me, right? Right? -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

You said that you didn't trust yourself to not get into a temper flareup and use your gun on someone in what you called an "argument." I said that I definitely would not do that. I know it does happen, and that people do it. I am stating that I am not one who would do it, and neither, I believe, are my fellow dropzone.com gun owners. Now you seem to be saying, "If someone says something of himself, believe the opposite, because you just can't trust what people say here." So I guess we should believe that YOU would NOT shoot someone in an argument, and me and Dave and everybody who will claim that we wouldn't do so, WOULD. It's "OPPOSITE DAY," everyone!! I doubt that any earnest threat to your life was actually made here. I think we are arriving at the crux of this matter, and that is, non-gun-owning leftists tend to withhold trust of their fellow human beings. They assume the worst of their fellow human beings. They live in fear of their fellow human beings. And then they insist that they do not need guns for protection. The most disturbing aspect of this is that the "humanist" left at the same time cannot bring itself to trust the basic goodness in people, especially if those people are honest, law-abiding gun owners, but they have no problem letting violent criminals out of prison. For the record, I am not stupid enough nor egotistical enough to give a shit what some dumb fuck says about my girlfriend, and if she cares so bad that I won't get into a fight and possibly kill someone and go to jail over a comment about her honor, she won't be my girlfriend for long. I really think that your perspective on all this is not where it should be. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

At what point has it been established that the guy the Marine shot was "innocent people"? I thought the Marines were going through a building from which this guy and his buddies were engaged in sniper attacks! "Innocent"?! -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Lots of people rank on British food, but I have to say that I LOVED British pub food when I was there. I know I rip on the politics in England, but I enjoyed the "take-away" joints with chips in a paper cone with malt vinegar pooled at the bottom, and pastry-wrapped sausages, and shepherd's pie... (The one thing I couldn't stomach was a steak-and-kidney pie I had at the school's refectory one day. It actually smelled and tasted of urine.) I think I feel that a ban on public smoking in enclosed places is a good thing. I generally am libertarian about such things, but don't think smoking should really be a protected activity, because unlike most, it cannot be kept to oneself. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Dude, I seriously was not waiting to hear this before I went believing that PETA is full of idiots. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

JEEEEZ! If that is a potential issue for you, by all means, NEVER PURCHASE A GUN FOR YOURSELF. PLEASE don't. I think you could poll all of the gun owners here taking part in this thread and ask them if they feel they have even a 1% possibility of using their gun violently in a non-life-threatening "argument" and find NONE responds in the affirmative. I think it is telling that you express this specific kind of self-doubt, and you are one of the posters who has expressed anti-gun sentiment in the past. The reason I say that is because you are not the first person I have met who eschews guns because of such self-doubt about what he/she would do with one; and these people generally also oppose MY right to have guns -- I think they call that "projection." -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

There is something called "summary judgment," by which the judge can say that there is no justifiable reason for a case to proceed. If the cops say that yours was a clear-cut case of self defense in one's home, they won't have standing to sue because the guy was committing a criminal act. You really don't want to show up in court ... You will become familiar with terms like intent and excessive force. You will be accused of 'laying in wait' because you were prepared. Your background will be closely examined, criminal activities, bank and phone and travel records... Attempts will be made to twist everything ... I think this is an unfounded claim. Don't forget that courts use RULES to govern what is relevant as evidence in a trial. If it can't be shown to be directly relevant, they're not going to let the plaintiff's counsel introduce how many times you went to the range last year, or how many gun magazines you subscribe to. Those things do not prejudice your right to defend yourself. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I would be the same, but I guess most burglars run when they are confronted... if they are staying to argue the toss - fair game. As for PJ's statement on shooting someone going to burn the house... with no one in it... a step too far in my book. I am not saying I definitely would. But I could fill the scenario with "what ifs" like, "What if shooting the guy to prevent the torching was destined to save the lives of three firefighters who would have perished while fighting the blaze?" You could never know... I'm sorry, there is too much meaningful "stuff" in my house to forgive -- and allow --- someone to burn it up all in one night. There's a big difference between having a bicycle stolen and having other very personal belongings taken or destroyed. And when they are ALL of your belongings... I know that people are able to move on after a plain old house fire takes that stuff away -- but don't pretend they are not excruciatingly traumatized, either! My understanding is that that is a very hard thing to get over. And to have it be due to a violation like arson would make it worse. Let's not pretend it would be so easy to replace your entire life's "stuff." -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

The issue, if he had been forced to justifiably shoot, would not have been your bicycle but YOUR NEIGHBOR'S LIFE. Would you have felt terrible if, during the course of trying to take your bicycle with your neighbor watching, he tried to attack your neighbor who was trying to protect your property for you? That's the real measure, here. The "stuff" would be irrelevant; the issue would be the attack on your neighbor just for trying to do what's right and prevent or stop a theft. You seem awfully forgiving of people who would steal from you parts of that which give your life meaning. Of course photos of your son, his first baby shoes, the lock of his hair from infancy... those things are just "stuff" and you have your son himself and the memories of him too, to make up your life. But if those things did not mean a lot to you, you wouldn't be keeping them. Therefore, to claim you wouldn't be bothered to have them stolen by some scumbag rings false. I think it sounds like you're trying too hard to forgive the crime. I could almost believe you think a thief does his victim some sort of favor! -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

You speak condescendingly about this soldier so casually. Did you read the part of the article where they said he had been shot in the cheek (um, that's INCHES FROM DEATH, in case you don't know) by Iraqi insurgents, and a soldier in his unit had been killed by explosives that had been placed in the body of a dead insurgent. These animals are booby-trapping their own dead. This soldier had a brush with death at their hands, and lost what was possibly a buddy of his. And you presume to judge him as though his mindset should be firmly fixated on some noble "rules of engagement" against an enemy that refuses to follow them, even when he discovers an enemy soldier feigning death. That enemy could have been perhaps sitting on grenades or a rifle or handgun, waiting for a suicide ambush of the U.S. marines in the room (and the news correspondent). Maybe he thought he was preventing the detonation of explosives, or the firing of a concealed weapon. At any rate, how do you presume to judge him? -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Unlike you, I won't presume to judge the actions of a person who has just been conducting himself through the life-and-death action of clearing buildings in a freakin' WAR ZONE with snipers shooting at him and his buddies, and killing them daily. How the fuck do you know what his mental state was. Guys like the one he shot had just in the immediate past been trying to kill him. I'm prepared to cut him some slack. His head is at war right now. His head is afraid for his own life, and thinking about his family losing him, and he them. People here are asking me to forgive a fucking DRUNK who might break into my house, and won't do the same for a young kid who's thousands of miles away from home in the desert being shot at?! I don't have all the details of the story, nor of how egregious this was. It has not been investigated yet, so why are you jumping to judgement on this soldier? -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

You calling me a troll? I gave you everything I had, right at the outset: the publication date, the publication, the headline... I think I forgot the name of the reporter, but I'd have to look back. That doesn't satisfy your requirements? What more could I put up? How is retyping the exact article in full less satisfactory than if I had pointed you to the exact same thing posted on a web site? Here: I've done some of the work for you. Here is an online article -- on the BBC site -- in which the same quote appears that appeared in the article I transcribed. Satisfied? What difference would a scan make? I told you I typed the article verbatim as it appears in my clipping from the Sun-Sentinel. What this request tells me is that you simply think I am LYING, or FABRICATING either the article, the quote, or both. If you really think so lowly of me, why would you enjoin me in a discussion of this in the first place? You obviously don't give me credit for being honest and truthful. You have to resort to the use of insulting terms, huh? I'll disregard the personal attack on the alleged commonness of my arguments being "pointless" and point out that his comments, no matter where they appeared, go toward proving what brits here have been denying: that they feel that british gun control should be implemented in the U.S. I never said that the criteria was that they would have to have donated money or work to an organization seeking to make that a reality, only that they believed that way. They clearly do. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

The problem with letting the burglar in without shooting him is that you have no way of knowing what his intentions are. The law lets you assume the worst, since if you assume less, and the intruder intends more, you could end up killed because you understimated the threat. Let's say you let the burglar come in through that window. He gets in. Now what? You calmly instruct him to get out? What if he doesn't comply? I'm assuming you have a gun in your hand at this time, and that he can see it. If you beat around the bush with the guy, all you are doing is prolonging the period during which he can decided to rush you and fight you for the gun you had in case he came bursting in shooting or swinging an axe or a bat or whatever. Waiting to see whether the intentions of a home-breaker are lethal or not is stupid, since by virtue of breaking into your home, he is committing a crime against the sanctity of your home and your life. He is a threat to you, proved by virtue of that alone. You could keep erasing the line that you won't let him cross, and redrawing it closer and closer to you until you end up dead. First it's, "I won't let someone break into my house." Then it's, "If he has a weapon on him." Then it's, "If he raises the weapon." Then it's, "If he fires/swings the weapon..." As far as "do they deserve to die or be shot," I say yes. They have crossed the boundary into an attack on a person. The social contract between us all requires that we do not commit acts of aggression against others, and that if we do, we forfeit the protections of that contract and are fair game for retaliatory attack. I am just not as charitable as some people are, for example those who cut people slack because they "had a bad upbringing," or stuff like that. Bad life or not, everyone understands that stealing from or hurting people is BAD and is not supposed to be done. Ya make the decision to do it anyway, I think it's best for society that someone remove you from it. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

You happen to be taking the trash out to the curb for pickup when a man comes walking up your driveway holding a flaming torch, yelling something about burning your house to the ground. He pays no mind to you, walks right by you, in fact. You know there are no occupants in the house -- only all your worldly possessions, pictures of your deceased mother, your comic book collection, your passport, all your sentimental and/or expensive belongings. You also have no insurance to cover the financial loss (to say nothing of the emotional loss). Do you really feel it is proper to be denied the right to use force to stop this guy from torching your house? I feel I should have that right. Who knows, I don't recall whether the laws on use of deadly physical force extend to imminent acts of arson... I do know that if the fire kills a firefighter, the arsonist will face felony murder or manslaughter charges. Theoretically, you could argue that you were preventing the danger to and possible death of a firefighter. But again, I'm talking about defending things with deadly force. Sure, they're just "things," but they may represent all that I have built for myself in my life up to this point, and I have a right to defend that. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"