warpedskydiver

I am starting to think you are of the opinion that I am always wrong due to your own bias. I have noticed a very discernable trend in some people around here to discount what I say as rubbish or being untrue, and yet when it is repeated by another poster, it is suddenly new and enlightening. Grow up, or at least read before you opine.

Where in my previous statement am I not clear enough for you to understand? I guess one sentence is too hard to understand, so you want an entire essay on the matter? Do you just believe what you are told without actually researching the matter, or actually having knowledge of your own on a topic? I find it quite peculiar a PHYSICS professor is of the opinion that the gun "just went off" due to reduced trigger pull via a nickel plating. I do not care if it was silicon nickel, if the firearm discharged someone was touching a trigger. Do not think for yourself, you can just be told things and believe them as if they are true. Were the parts nickel plated just to be more Ghetto or Gangsta? I will give you a hint SOMEONE WAS TOUCHING THE TRIGGER I abhor people who do not observe trigger discipline, they are NEGLIGENT and a THREAT to SAFETY.

Bullshit. Please post the findings of the investigation, reduced force to fire is no accident, someone had to squeeze a trigger. Unless you are speaking of the brown bess you carried as a lad.

Right, and there are no such things as car accidents, motorbike accidents, ski accidents or airplane accidents either. Just myths perpertuated by a biased media. He *does* have a point, Professor... while a shooting may be accidental (in the sense of the shooter saying "I didn't mean for it to go off"), I've never heard of any instances where the shooter *didn't* squeeze the trigger. You see that will fall upon deaf ears because I said it. If someone else said it, then it would be considered a fact. Personal repsonibility is like a light switch in some peoples reality.

Ban the bicycles, accidental deaths are killing all the children!!! Yeah so called "accidental deaths" are oh so common. Once again the great lie is exposed.

Man Tasered, Shot With Bean Bag Rounds For Filming Warrantless Police Search Acquitted Portland man sues after cops stated camera "could be used as a weapon" A man from Portland Oregon is suing police for unlawful seizure with excessive force after officers fired a Taser and bean bag rounds at him when he refused to stop filming a warrantless search of his neighbour's property last year. According to a report in The Oregonian, Frank Waterhouse claims that on May 27, 2006 he was brutally assaulted by police when officers followed a sniffer dog onto the property in pursuit of a fleeing suspect. Waterhouse says that the dog keyed on a car, prompting officers to break out a window which upset residents who maintain that no one ran onto the property. It was at that point that an angry resident grabbed a video camera and started to film the police search. The Oregonian report states: When one woman was told to stop recording, she gave the videocamera to Waterhouse. He walked to the edge of the property, climbed up a dirt embankment and continued to record. At one point, he yelled to his friend, "Yes, I got it all on film. They had no right to come on this property." He says in the suit that police immediately came after him, and yelled at him "put it down." Officers moved towards him, and he said, "Don't come after me." Waterhouse said seconds later he was shot with a bean bag gun and a Taser and fell to the ground. Here is the video that Waterhouse shot. It ends with a female officer approaching him and firing taser darts into his body: (Article continues below) Despite the video evidence that ends with Waterhouse's painful screams, the police reports stated that Waterhouse had run away and that officers had to give chase, bean-bagging and tasering him in the process. One officer wrote, "He had refused to drop the camera which could be used as a weapon." So police knew Waterhouse was not a suspect and that he was merely holding a camera. Is a camera an adequate match for tasers and guns? Police arrested Waterhouse on charges of criminal trespass and disorderly conduct, which were later dismissed in court. Now Mr Waterhouse is suing the Portland Police Department. Filming in public is a right every American citizen has under the first and fourth amendments, there is no legal basis to seize cameras and footage. In the past we have reported on cases in which police have seized cameras and film from innocent people under bogus charges of "wiretapping". Earlier this year a man was charged in Carlisle, Pennsylvania with filming police officers during a routine traffic stop and faces up to seven years in prison. Last year a North Middleton Twp. man was charged in a street racing case that involved a wiretapping charge. Police claimed the man ordered associates to tape police breaking up an illegal race after officers told him to turn off their cameras. Furthermore, last June a 48-year-old man from Dover, New Hampshire was arrested for "wiretapping" for allegedly recording police while they were investigating him for driving while intoxicated. Such charges are invalid because they flout privacy laws. Under the fourth amendment the expectation of privacy is not reasonable at such public places as automobile thoroughfares. Furthermore, the expectation of privacy is not reasonable if there exists a vantage point from which anyone, not just a police officer, can see or hear what is going on. See this previous report for more on the all out assault by police and city authorities on the right to film in public. The Oregonian also reports that Waterhouse's case is one of four similar incidents of "dirty tactics" on behalf of the police which are being heard this week. The Portland Police Bureau have refused to comment on any of the cases.

NICE!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7WJeqxuOfQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQLFfTd2l44 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cY6t2ckpb5g Now there is a theory that a few of the fires were started by illegals in order to burn out the rich norte americanos, in order to return the land to the rightful owners.

United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171 §171. Conduct during playing During rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed, all present except those in uniform should stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. Men not in uniform should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should render the military salute at the first note of the anthem and retain this position until the last note. When the flag is not displayed, those present should face toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed there.

Steve, the woman in the photo looks like she is still wanted by the original owner!

You see nothing wrong with this video?

Just wait!

LEBANON, N.H. — Republican presidential front-runner Rudy Giuliani is leaving the door open to allowing the blind and physically disabled to carry guns. During a town hall meeting in northwestern New Hampshire Tuesday night, Giuliani told a former police officer blinded in the line of duty and concerned about the former New York City mayor's stance on guns, "You don't have to worry." "You have a constitutional right, that is protected, to bear and carry arms. It is the Second Amendment," Giuliani told about 200 attendees in a high school gymnasium in Lebanon. "If someone disagrees with that, you have to get the Constitution changed." He added that he believes in only three restrictions for those wishing to exercise their Second Amendment right — a previous criminal record, a history of mental instability and an age requirement. Kenyon Tuthill, 61, who served as a Suffolk County, N.H., police officer until his injury, told FOX News that he was satisfied with Giuliani's answer. During his two terms as mayor, Giuliani supported strict gun laws at both the local and national level and advocated the federal assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. But as a presidential candidate, he vows to protect Second Amendment rights at the federal level allowing state and local authorities to determine their own "reasonable" restrictions. New Hampshire, the Live Free Or Die State, is known for its limited gun-control laws, including no waiting period for purchases, no background checks for buyers of rifles and shotguns and no restrictions on children under 18 possessing firearms, according to the Brady Campaign, a gun-control advocacy group. But the rural state with lots of sportsmen and a high rate of gun ownership annually has fewer than 100 total murders, including non-gun crimes, and Second Amendment rights are hugely important to constituents of both parties. New Hampshire allows the blind to possess firearms, Tuthill said.

He lost his credibility a while back, please try and keep up ok?

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/ver/247.1/popup/index.php?cl=4635297 Ok, just waiting for the usual suspects to explain this as no big deal. And that piece of shit wants to be POTUS

Yeap and some of those idiots sit there in their cars listening to crap as loud as they can make it. With their young children in the car with them Of well, social security disability checks will buy a nice set of spinners.

I was thinking of the Professor who stood in the doorway and faced that murdering piece of shit in order to allow his students to have the opportunity to escape. He was a holocaust survivor, and I am certain he knew what he was facing. If he had a gun, he most likely would have killed that murdering piece of shit on the spot.

I would like to know as well. If a US Congressmen calls to report a crime in advance, will the proper authorities actually show up and do something about it?

Durbin blasts Tancredo on immigration Klaus Marre October 24, 2007 http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/durbin-blasts-tancredo-on-immigration-2007-10-24.html Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) lashed out at Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) on the Senate floor Wednesday, a day after the GOP lawmaker had asked federal authorities to arrest some participants in a staff briefing on immigration. Tancredo, who is running for the Republican presidential nomination on a platform of a tough immigration policy, suspected that some people present at the briefing were in the country illegally. Durbin is sponsoring the DREAM Act, legislation that would allow “certain long-term undocumented immigrant children to go to college or join the military if they meet stringent requirements.” The staff meeting featured individuals who would benefit from the bill, Durbin’s office had said. On Wednesday, the senator indicated that the legal status of the participants had been resolved, and accused Tancredo of not taking the time to find out about that. Tancredo issued a response, saying that he did not “expect Dick Durbin to be able to tell the difference between legal residents and illegal aliens.” According to Durbin, Tancredo’s decision to call immigration authorities “is an indication of how badly this debate is going in America.” “To turn on these children and treat them as criminals is an indication of the level of emotion and, in some cases, bigotry and hatred, that is involved in this debate.” Durbin added, in a speech ahead of a procedural motion on the DREAM Act, that “America is better than what we hear from the likes of [Tancredo].” The Colorado Republican retorted that “Dick can split all the hairs he wants, but we all know the DREAM Act is designed to do one thing: benefit illegal aliens.”

Tancredo turns In Senator Durban event to immigration authorities USA Daily Oct 23, 2007 Hugo Mann http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm? articleID=134966 Colorado Congressman and Republican presidential candidate Tom Tancredo did not pull any punches today when he alerted immigration authorities about a 3:00 PM event held by Democratic Senator Dick Durban today that was to have illegal aliens in attendance. Tancredo issued a statement saying that the event Senator Democratic Dick Durbin was holding in conjunction with discussion of the DREAM ACT – was reported to have illegal aliens in attendance. Tancredo said, “I call on the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency to detain any illegal aliens at this press conference. Just because these illegal aliens are being used for political gain doesn’t mean they get immunity from the law.” “If we can’t enforce our laws inside the building where American laws are made, where can we enforce them?” Tancredo alerted the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency earlier today regarding Durbin’s 3:00 PM meeting. Tancredo has made border security and stopping illegal immigration a top priority in his campaign and has forced other candidates running to adopt the issue.

I grew up in a household with numerous guns...I was taught from an early age on how to handle them . They were never locked up and we did not touch the guns. My Kid grew up in a house with numerous guns...Most were locked away except for the one I carry.....he also started shooting when he was 5 and went hunting for the first time for big game at age 12( Its a family thing) Responsible gun owners teach responsibility from an early age. He never misused the guns I hear you on that; the only thing is we can’t look at this issue from an individual perspective. Yes, your family was responsible, but that doesn’t mean that ALL families are responsible...even if they play by the law book, and do everything legally. We do not make laws for individuals, but for the masses. And when you look at the mass you see accidental death over and over and over….much of which is with legal guns. Guns are made to kill. Bad guys will kill regardless of whether they have guns or not, and if the guns are legal or not…but accidents can be prevented. No, guns are made to fire bullets, people decide to kill.

Outside of BYU, how many schools see a lot of students with 4 year olds? Again, your accidental shooting thing is a red herring, irrelevent to the conversation. BTW, instead of pretending they didn't exist, adults in my childhood showed me how to shoot guns. And to respect them. That ole parenting thing. You are right...I am wrong...deadly accidents with legal guns would never happen on campus. Accidents with firearms does not occur, negligence and unfamiliarity do cause unintentional shootings.

Outside of BYU, how many schools see a lot of students with 4 year olds? Again, your accidental shooting thing is a red herring, irrelevent to the conversation. BTW, instead of pretending they didn't exist, adults in my childhood showed me how to shoot guns. And to respect them. That ole parenting thing. Do you see what you are being told? That your parents and mine were BAD parents for teaching us to respect firearms and handle them in a safe manner. Oh I bet they wish they had the chance to turn our parents in.

Geez I always thought proper training and supervision of children along with securing firearms was the answer. So you have to get them out of your house? That is news to me, my parents raised seven children with firearms in the house and when the youngest was ten years of age there were loaded firearms in the house. Nobody every touched them without permission, or neccessity.

Of course not..you live in a perfect world. I dont. Accidental gun shootings happen quite often. Mix in college drunken parties, cheating girfriends/boyfriends, fraternity show off jocks, football games gone wrong, pissed off asian nerds who get a B on their exam, and legal guns make all the perfect sense. Accidental shootings? I have heard of ND, but accidental shootings are a myth perpetuated by a biased media. How can a firearm accidently discharge just sitting there all alone minding it's own business. If it fired there was a human being handling it. That is a ND resulting in a shooting.