birdlike

No. Community is the basis of communism. Redistribution of resources is what virtually every government does, including the US government since its inception. Wrong. What the U.S. government does (BTW, not the "US" government--please ) is TAX citizens to pay for the things that government, it is agreed, is supposed to provide. It is NOT in the business of flattening out the amounts of wealth that everyone has. You are dead wrong about that. But COMMUNISM WOULD do that. (Except, human nature being what it is will never in a hundred thousand years allow for that to happen in a real-world practical sense.) You are correct, "communism" does not imply a totalitarian government, but in order to make communism actually work, one has to have a totalitarian system of government. What other system of government has the capacity (or the desire) to take from those who have worked and earned and give it to those who have not? To prevent anyone from becoming wealthy and comfortable and affluent based on his own work or talent? What person who fits that description is going to be willing to take his 100 units of wealth and settle for keeping only 5 units of wealth because 19 other people had worked for, and earned, nothing? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Democrats? Saying one thing but doing another? Nawwww! Never happens!

Did that even make sense? Let's see . . . the First Amendment guarantees (among other things) freedom of religion. Why would a liberal assume that a creationist would want that repealed? Shhhh, he's on a roll. I guess you were more comfortable not reading my detailed, reasoned explanation. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Has no one picked up on the fact that the thread opener accused Palin of being in bed with "big oil honey"?! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

OK, maybe you missed the part where I said, "I have not been in this situation, and so yes I am forced to admit that my position is based on conjecture." But it's very possible you clicked to reply to the earlier post without having seen the one where I said the preceding. When the time is right to disable him, absofuckinglutely. What guarantee does she have that a guy who is sooooo law-abiding and peacable that he's already raping and beating her is not planning to kill her? I feel that at this point, for her it must be treated as a "kill-or-be-killed" scenario. If you do not act to stop your attacker because you presume that he will leave you unharmed, you risk being dead because you were too kindly judging him and his intentions. I find this to be rather like handing over your wallet and cash and jewelry at an ATM robbery, and getting shot anyway. In the formerly civilized era of robbery, maybe they would have left you alone after you complied with their felonious demands. No longer. Those who comply are just being foolish, trusting the "better nature" of the guy who is robbing them in the first place. Yes, you won't always have an opportunity to "get the drop on him," which is why situational awareness should be your credo, and you should not ever even allow yourself to be sneaked up on. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

I have been hearing more and more people talking in this way: - "Why he did dat?" - "What you said?" - "My car run good!" - "Why it's like dat?" They are asking questions, in most cases, but not phrasing them as questions. They add the interrogative inflection, yes, but the syntax is what one would use when making a statement. At work, in an office environment, a woman left her wedding/engagement rings in the washroom and later, the hunt was on for them. I heard the woman who found them telling another woman that she had done so: "Hey, yo, I found that lady ring." NO possessives. NO plurals. What is happening to this language?! To this culture?! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Yes, just as the party we now call "liberals" are anything but liberal, since they see the People as subservient to, and dependent upon, the State. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Absolutely not, and your example is dishonest. What Kennedy probably meant was that case law has settled that a felon who is found in possession of a firearm (which is agaist the law [unless his rights have been restored]) cannot be prosecuted in a jurisdiction that requires registration of firearms for failure to register his firearm, because compelling a felon (prohibited possessor) to register a firearm was found to constitute a violation of his 5th amendment right against self-incrimination. Kennedy's example is NOT talking about prosecuting the felon for "obtaining a gun." He would still be prosecutable for that, as well as for any criminal manner in which he used the gun. Are you really trying to convince us that there is a "loophole" that means we can't go after criminals for obtaining guns? The only loophole I know of that prevented us from prosecuting felons for attempting to obtain guns was named "Bill Clinton." (400,000 attempts, something like 3 prosecutions under the Brady Law that he pushed through.) Come on, Billvon, did you really think you'd slip this one past? Besides, you said you've never met a gun control advocate who wants to take away all guns from legal gun owners. Do you at the same time allege that there are none? I do believe there are. I also do believe that there are no legal gun owners who think WANT criminals to be armed, or want to help them be so. Meanwhile, if I wanted to twist your answer around some, I could say, "Of course you've never met someone who wants to take all guns away from all legal gun owners, either, because they'd leave it be LEGAL for the COPS to have them!" (Hence, not taken away from "all legal owners.") Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

They know. They are capitalizing on the fact that many other people don't know. You can't possibly convince me that the gun-control advocates, especially those who head-up the gun-control organizations, have never been exposed to the factual definitions and functions of the different types of weapons. They don't CARE! They want Jane Q. Public to think that their "assault weapons ban" will be taking fully automatic machine guns out of the hands of gang members in her town! So, they play up the lie. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

I fully imagine that the screams of such a person would be unearthly. I have not been in this situation, and so yes I am forced to admit that my position is based on conjecture. I certainly would not want to be the guy who starts to gouge the eyes of my deadly adversary only to have him then slash me open with a knife because I took pity on his howls. I would like to think that I would be willing to cause those screams if I don't cause those screams, I'll be DEAD. I'd rather live with the memory of the screams of a guy who came to kill me than be dead. Besides, I have a question: did the gouging that he did do result in him being enabled to reach a firearm or a knife with which he then killed the adversary? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

I just don't see how a person who is facing death at the hands of a rapist would find harming him difficult. I would think that the circumstances would be a huge push past the blockage that normally would restrain us. Who said the victims facing death? How would a victim know this? I didn't say that the victim would KNOW she was facing death. My point is that the law allows such a victim to PRESUME she is facing death, which is precisely why she is entitled to use DEADLY FORCE (and why ANYONE ELSE is entitled to use deadly force) to stop the rape. I believe (and the law believes) that anyone who presents with a weapon and makes a credible threat with it gives his victim cause to feel she/he is "facing death." The law then allows for killing that person if need be to stop that threat. As I said, not enough. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Ya fucked up. Admit it. Learn from it, hope nothing further bad happens and move on. I think he stated already that he has, and will. That is still under debate. I disagree. The thief who does evil with the gun is responsible, not the victim of the theft. Or is it permissible for people to just roam into a private residence and steal the items that he finds there? For that matter, why isn't a person responsible for the harm done by a car thief if he crashes into a woman pushing a stroller across a street, if he left the car running as he dashed into a store, and that's why it was stolen? It's fair of him to presume that anyone who would take advantage of his actions is going to be of the criminal and irresponsible type. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Pretty brave talk coming from an anonymous account. How about toning that down a bit? I'm sooo anonymous here, Quade! Come on, I didn't make a personal attack, I said that I think of Germany as an evil place. It has a history of evil, and I think that its current policies are horrific. Imagine that if you had a gun stolen from you, you would lose your right to skydive. IMAGINE THAT. What would you call the place? OK, I'll "tone down," but I still think that what she described is really, really messed up! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

How's it looking to you? How many boarded up crack houses did you pass? I'm sure your "walk" had something to do wth MLK. Nope, had nothing to do with MLK. Zero boarded up crack houses. Well, it doesn't actually have to be boarded-up to be a crackhouse. I've seen and been made aware of crack houses in West Palm Beach; as well as crack apartments. You would not know they were that unless you knew they were that. I disagree. It is *the* single most apt comparision. In terms of how it looks, perhaps. But not in terms of anything else, like causes, etc. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Yes, those are all the products of CLASSICAL LIBERALISM. NOT modern, big-government, Democrat party liberalism. There is really no point to calling them liberals anymore, which is why I typically use the term "leftist," not "liberal." The difference between liberals and today's leftists is stark, the gulf between them enormous. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Don't you know, the liberals' answer is that the conservatives stood in the way of all the good the liberals would have accomplished if given a free hand! Every failure of the liberals to use big government to solve all of the citizens' problems and take care of them from cradle to grave is laid at the feet of anyone who wouldn't let the liberals with their genius ideas take the reins and get everything fixed and humming along in harmony and perfection. In fact, it's a perfect parallel for gun control! Gun control fails to control crime and criminals; but it's only because we've stood in the way of the liberals instituting strong enough gun control! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

You're correct about all of that. The OP is incorrect, because he's seizing on the NAME we use out of convenience. True, the people called "liberals" today are not the "CLASSIC liberals" of yesteryear who were advocates of individual liberty, not socialism. So, OP, forgive us for using a convenient moniker that has worked its way into the modern lexicon. What would you have us substitute? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Yes, Germany is doing such a great job keeping guns out of the wrong hands In fact, criminal shootings never happen in Germany! That is truly fucked up. In your fascist country, if your gun is stolen by a determined criminal, they will ruin your life and take from you a host of other rights and licenses unconnected with having the gun stolen from you. What a shithole, I am so glad I have never visited that evil country. Oh, so every skydiver who's had a DUI or DWI should permanently lose his/her skydiving license, I guess. Way to whittle down the skydiver population, I would bet. I guess if someone throws a punch in a fight and gets charged, he should have all of his guns, vehicles, kitchen knives, yard implements, and tools confiscated. I mean, if he uses his fists to hurt people, "figure it out for the rest of his tools and weapons." Well, yeah, intolerably, fascistly harsh. But it's what I would expect from Germany, and it's why I steer clear of that evil place. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Oh really? If someone gets harmed with that gun, watch how fast you get sued. Yes, even in Texas. You did nothing more than get briefly careless, without any intent to cause anyone grief - a very human thing which we all do. But that's exactly what negligence is: a simple mistake, without any malicious intent. And so that alone does not shield you from potential civil liability for negligence. (No offense intended.) You are aware, aren't you, that there is "negligence" and "criminal negligence"? You can say "watch how fast you get sued," but that doesn't mean anyone would get past summary judgment, when Doug925 demonstrates that someone criminally came into his residence and criminally deprived him of his property. A criminal act breaks the chain of liability. Don't you know that? This was not the same as recklessness, like leaving a gun on the table of the food court at the mall... That's not correct. Yes, in the absence of a statute making it criminally negligent, I, too, doubt that Texas would prosecute this as criminal negligence. But in my professional opinion, having practiced for 25 years, the anticipatable risk caused to exist by the negligence is the very thing that happened: the gun being taken w/o the owner's permission, and any harm that results thereby. Now some states do have statutes imposing presumptive civil liability for the consequences of failing to safely secure a firearm. I think you need more "practice." And I fundamentally disagree with laws that punish people for having someone break into their home and takes what doesn't belong to him. Fortunately, it doesn't look like Doug is subject to such a law. Well, then, what if some criminal broke into your home and stole your ax and your chainsaw and your 8" butcher knife from the block in the kitchen, and people were killed with them? You didn't have them locked up, and they are certainly weapons. I can't believe that you seem to agree that every home ought to be Fort Knox or else if someone deliberately breaks in, and deliberately steals from it, the homeowner is liable for what happens! I would shake my head and "tsk" loudly, but I would not find for the plaintiff if Doug were sued for this "negligence." THE THIEF is the one responsible. What if Doug had his gun in a safe, but the safe was stolen, and cracked, and the thief got the gun? Would Doug be "negligent" because he hadn't bolted it down, or installed shatterproof windows and reinforced steel doors? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

You have a sense of humor; I respect that You learn from mistakes; I respect that I hope you don't let these folks get to you as far as "omg think of the carnage that your gun could be out there doing now" bullshit. YOU are not responsible for the decision a kid makes to break in; steal a gun; use it against someone. That kid could walk to the corner gas station, fill up a jug, get a pack of matches, and burn down a house with 8 kids inside, if he wanted to kill someone, and nothing would stand in his way. You did NOT arm someone who would never have otherwise gotten hold of a gun. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't safeguard your own guns, of course, from now on. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

What's with the childish name calling? I despise Clinton but still referred to him as President Clinton out of respect for the office. And again with the hypocracy. Obama has admitted to repeated use of cocaine. Who cares, that's semantic to worry about names, I wasn't referring to anyone here. The McSame camp started the whole, "lack of experience" idiocy. I'm sure you're referred to Clinton in ugly terms, I'm over it. So, you are not aware of the damage it does to your credibility and dignity to throw around childish names like "ho-bag" and "McSame" when you attempt to discuss something like this among adults? I'll bet you go around referring to the current administration as "The Bush Crime Family" a lot, too. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

As far as ideology goes, no doubt she will help with the Republican base. On the other hand, her extreme anti-abortion views (no exceptions for rape, incest, or the mother's health) will be a serious obstacle for gaining independents, especially the Hillaryistas. I'll be frank: I am not anyone's hard-liner on abortion (I'm very wishy-washy on the subject, to tell you the truth), and I usually get mistakenly lumped with the Christian-right conservatives simply because I am a hard-liner on gun rights, immigration security, welfare reform, and capital/harsh punishment for violent criminals. Her being anti-abortion is not enough for me to stop liking her. For cryin' out loud, she's a LIFE NRA MEMBER! (where's the emoticon with the hearts popping all around it?! ) Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

What's with the childish name calling? I despise Clinton but still referred to him as President Clinton out of respect for the office. And again with the hypocracy. Obama has admitted to repeated use of cocaine. Dude, the definition of these liberals is "people who try to get their way by being shamelessly dishonest when claiming to represent facts and truth." There is no disingenuousness or convenient forgetting of the truth that is beyond them, I've been discovering. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

No problem. He's pretty funny. Liked the 'cancelled after three years' joke the best. Although the tsunami woulda been good had he not messed it up. That was funny! He's good! My favorite joke was the one about Nasry Malak, where he said that they put the voting online so they could "track the splinter cells"! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Oh, come on, Mike -- how can anyone take your view seriously when you form it into such a run-on sentence?! (you'd better know I'm kidding!) Exactly my point, that's why you're here. HOLY FUCKING SHIT, you blew right on past the and to go believing that this post was an earnest attack on Mike's grammar instead of the JOKE-attack that it actually was! This is unbelievable! It's like I'm debating with a caricature! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire