birdlike

Lautenberg-Reed Bill (S2577): Senators Frank Lautenberg and Jack Reed introduced legislation [S. 2577] that would strengthen the criminal background check system by closing the gun show loophole. Currently, convicted felons, domestic violence abusers, and those who are dangerously mentally ill can walk into any gun show and buy weapons from unlicensed sellers without being stopped, no questions asked. Actually, it's still illegal for them to "walk into any gun show and buy weapons. It's also still illegal for anyone to sell them weapons. It is the responsibility of anyone selling a gun to know the eligibility or ineligibility of the prospective buyer. Never finding out via a background check that your buyer is a prohibited person does not excuse a seller for selling to someone who is not eligible to purchase a firearm. There is no "loophole" here. There is still "legal" and "illegal." Saying that the prohibited buyer "can" walk into a gun show and buy a weapon (after he illegally misrepresents himself as a non-prohibited buyer) is no different from saying that it's a "loophole" that enables me to walk into a bank, hand the teller a note demanding all the cash in her drawers, and walking out with it. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

pro gun morons thinking guns in school is a good idea, really don`t realise how stupid they sound. but morons will be morons............... If you want to analyze the beliefs of morons, let's take a look at the "success" of your Virginia Tech "gun-free zone". Worked real well, didn't it. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

If you can look at what happened at Virginia Tech The place where a guy with a history of mental problems used legally purchased guns (contrary to Mike's statement that loonies can't purchase guns) to massacre 33 people --- that is fact. The rest of your post is pure speculation and BS. He massacred 32 people... Then he killed himself. Why is it that you cannot recognize and acknowledge the utter failure of the "gun-free zone"? Face the fact: Virginia Tech was a designated "gun-free zone" and the good little boys and girls had left their guns at home even if they were licensed to carry them. And all that accomplished was making them helpless. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Amen! According to Amnesty International, 137 countries have abolished the death penalty. During 2007, 24 countries, 88% in China, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United States alone, executed 1,252 people compared to 1,591 in 2006. Nearly 3,350 people were sentenced to death in 51 countries. More than 20,000 prisoners are on death row across the world. Now notice the other countries that practice the death pentalty as much as the US. NOT something for us to brag about. I think the death penalty is wrong either way. We were taught as kids that two wrongs do not make a right! The world got together to award the Olympics to China. Not something to brag about, but look at how many nations had a hand in that decision. I do not think the death penalty is wrong. I think it is a viable, legitimate way for the good elements in society to rid themselves of the dangers posed to them by the bad elements of society. Society owes that to itself. And, um, I want to remind you that just because a lot of those anti-death penalty nations don't use capital punishment, that doesn't mean that people are not dying wrongfully in those countries in droves. It doesn't take capital punishment to have wide-scale wrongful killing. For your information, Cambodia, Rwanda, Namibia and Kenya have all outlawed capital punishment. Real paradises, those. No one gettin' killed extralegally there, no sir! source:

Well by that logic add the executioner that actually does the killing, the cop doing the initial arresting, the person doing the initial accusing, etc. No. You're wrong. You'd have to show that they did something that amounts to malfeasance. A cop doing the initial arrest, and the initial accuser, do not convict the accused, nor do they pass sentence. They just do the job of getting the guy into the system by which guilt or acquittal are determined. I do agree that if someone in the system can be proved to have acted with malfeasance--that is, deliberately doing wrong under color of their authority, like falsifying evidence, destroying or concealing exculpatory evidence--then yeah, I think they themselves should face execution. But if the law was applied in good faith, no one connected to the execution that was done in error should be held to account for honest mistakes, or things they couldn't have known. And for whoever said that the jury should be held accountable--why? The jury just weighs what the court tells it are the facts. They are under strict rules and guidance by the judge. They get told what the official facts they are allowed to consider are. They are told the definitions of the law as it applies to the case they are judging. There really is a limited scope of decisions they are allowed to make. And certainly, all of their decisions derive from what the prosecution tells them, so if there were to be blame, it would fall on the prosecution team. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

You think that you'd be entitled, legally, to use a taser on someone just to "teach them a lesson"? In a scenario where using a gun would not have been permissible? I hope that when you are arrested and thrown in jail for tasering someone without just cause, you'll be allowed to post to DZ.com and alert us to the development. It is almost sure to occur; I just want to be alerted when it does. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

I hope that after his criminal trial, Gerber sues him and owns the next $50,000,000 he might ever make. He should be made a slave to Gerber because he can probably never repay, in a hundred of his lifetimes, the amount that Gerber no doubt lost due to this malicious hoax. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

What harm can come from a little government regulation? If it's good for guns, it's good for speech too, right? I say REGISTER COMPUTERS! Well, hell, when they wrote the Bill of Rights, they had never seen a semi-automatic handgun! So those aren't protected by the 2nd Amendment. And when they wrote the Bill of Rights, they had never heard of electronic devices whatsoever, let alone personal computers small enough to be carried around all day that can read untold millions of people with propaganda and lies. Surely they are not protected by the 1st Amendment, written by people who could never have known what the future would bring. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

If you can look at what happened at Virginia Tech and still believe that a "no guns" policy has the ability to save lives; that evil people will drop their guns at the boundary of a "no guns zone"; that good people are safest when they have no means of fighting back; I think you should consider the lobotomy for yourself. Besides, it sounds like you want our frontal lobes removed so we'd be dumb enough to believe the anti-gun lunacy that you believe. Sorry, not willing to join you in that deep a delusion. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

You need to read the news more (not heard about the VA Tech shooting massacre?). Madmen and criminals are not SUPPOSED to be able to buy guns, but thanks to the diligent efforts of folks like you the laws are totally ineffective. As ineffective as the rule that was supposed to keep the madman from bringing a gun onto campus? As ineffective as the law against murder? How on earth do you gloss over the OBVIOUS FACT that the campus no-guns rule failed to keep anyone safe from the murderer, but succeeded in making sure any potential defender was unarmed? How much do you want to bet that right now, people on the campus of Virginia Tech who have licenses to carry handguns are doing so and saying "FUCK the rule. If I ever have to use this, it'll be to save lives, and I won't give a SHIT about being expelled for breaking the rule!"? I'm sure a bunch of people who were not in the killer's path have been awakened since then, and realized the idiocy of willful disarmament by the good guys. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

I don't think that's actually true. I think quite a few mental patients and criminals have purchased weapons via the loopholes that exist in current law and attempts at closing those loopholes have been sometimes stymied by various pro-gun factions in the US. To be fair, the NRA has sometimes supported such legislation, but it seems to have a mixed bag of support in doing so as does the ACLU against it. Hold the phone. What exactly are you calling a "loophole"? Just because a private sale does not legally require a background check, that does not make it legal for anyone to sell a gun to a felon or to someone with a prohibitive mental health history. Just because someone can choose to ignore the law, and sell to someone whose background he hasn't checked out (anyone can pay law enforcement agencies to get such a check done) does not make it LEGAL to sell the gun to such a person if he is a prohibited buyer. The term "loophole" should not be applied the way you are using it. It's meant to be a LEGAL way of maneuvering around the intent of a law. When someone drives 95 mph in a 55 zone, is he using a "loophole" in the law? No, he's simply breaking the law. When someone sells a gun to a person who would have been found to be a prohibited buyer if a not-legally-required background check had been run, is he exploiting a "loophole" in the law? No, he is breaking the law by selling a gun to a prohibited buyer; it's his responsibility to make sure the buyer is eligible. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Fascinating how in order to make the U.S. look as bad as you want it to look, you have to limit the scope of comparison to "western industrialized nations." What is it about non-industrialized nations like Mexico, South Africa, Jamaica that automatically implies that gun bans in place in those nations should not be expected to have worked to make them safer than the U.S.? I mean, why do you have to single out "western industrialized nations" at all? Surely you should be able to hold up the U.S., with liberal access to guns, even to an island nation with very limited manufacturing, like Jamaica with its ban on guns, and Jamaica should come out with a lower homicide rate than the U.S. I mean, a country WITH a total ban on civilian gun ownership ought to have little difficulty -- even if they can't totally eradicate homicide -- achieve a homicide rate even just a bit lower than a country like ours where anyone can get a weapon! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Were that true, all Americans would be dead by now. It's pretty clear here that those variables are not correlated. It may be clear to you, but not to professional epidemiologists. Well, I dare say that 250,000,000 guns and untold tens of billions of rounds of ammunition should be enough to kill 300,000,000 people, even if we need a little extra to handle a few million illegal aliens that haven't been factored into the count. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Who says that's a "fact"? Where is that established? It's a strange thing that you make that claim. Every year, approximately 1,000,000 more firearms go into private ownership in the U.S. Can you tell us why we've had years in recent memory when the murder rate and crime rate have dropped in this country? Surely, since there is never a break in the steady climb in privately owned guns, there should never be anything but a steady increase in the number killed with guns, by your claim. Obviously, your claim is flat FALSE. No, in this case, it becomes clear that you actually place a value on the life of a murderer this depraved, this ...evil. What the hell do you think is bad about having a guy like this die from the risk he incurs by killing innocents? You believe that the Canada Greyhound murderer is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY? You actually believe that there is some reason to doubt that the guy who was found with the victim's blood all over his hands, face, mouth, and down his throat, has to be "proven guilty"? ...Wow. I mean, just... wow. Holy shit that is one fucked up way to look at things. A guy is caught in the act, the only living person aboard the bus, EATING the HUMAN REMAINS of his victim, and you want to stand there and pout about "innocent until proven guilty." That is just fuckin' amazing. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Oh God. That's the last thing that needs to come out his mouth. (But who knows?) I had to post this article. The guys demeanor really disturbed me, and the fact that someone's life could end so randomly and horribly bothered me as well. I was similarly disturbed by this news. I found myself recalling the disturbing events of ordinary people just going psycho-killer in the movie "In the Mouth of Madness." And hey, did you read about the boyfriend in Greece who decapitated his girlfriend and her dog, and stabbed a police officer and ran down two women on a motorcycle? Tell me it does not seem that dire madness is spreading in the world. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Come on man...all we got is eachother. Correction: we "don't got" the folks who are telling us, "Help a guy who's being murdered? I don't fucking think so." Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

How do you know nobody tried? Because you read one news report? typical. Wait wait wait. So far, NO news reports have said a thing about anyone trying to intervene. So rather than go with that and assume it's likely they got it right, you go off in the opposite direction and want to believe that someone did try to intervene, and it's just that all the reports we've read so far have been incomplete or wrong? I just don't get it. Why are you arguing in favor of a conclusion that has nothing to support it yet, when the opposite conclusion has at least got the bulk of the news coverage to back it? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Having been attacked by a nutcase in a public situation, where lots of witnesses stood by and did nothing, this is no surprise to me. It's the conditioning of a society full of people who are indoctrinated to never prepare themselves for this kind of eventuality; to eschew the carry or use of weapons, even for personal defense; to depend wholly on a police force that even a cursory glance reveals cannot possibly be present to prevent or stop the vast majority of crimes. Then they're shocked when a horrific crime happens and no one of them can do anything about it. Do they finally wake up from their delusion that all we need is the police, and don't need to arm ourselves? Of course not. We call this "doublethink." They can see the truth, and can at the same time convince themselves they have seen no such thing. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Well, the guy was armed with a knife he was willing to use. The only way to intervene with relative safety would be to use a... a gu... *ulp!* a GUN! Who would want to have to use one of those vile, wretched things to save a life?! No, better to let someone innocent die than to act as judge, jury and executioner and stoop to using the favored tool of criminals! (well, except for this particular criminal) ...Thus go the arguments of those who oppose gun ownership and concealed carry. For example, the government of Canada. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Last question first: No. There is nothing more pointless than trying to argue to the religious that religion is mindlessness and willful self-deception. But I really have to thank you for that animation link. THAT IS THE FUNNIEST FUCKIN' THING I'VE EVER SEEN ON THE INTERNET!! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

I shoot rifles in prone position matches. You can always tell the new guys because they're wearing shorts. It's fun to watch them lay down next to an AR shooter on their left, and then see what happens when the hot cases spit out of the AR right onto his bare legs. At subsequent matches, they're seen wearing long pants. And whatever you do, don't wear loose-fitting shorts in the sitting position. A hot case can pop into the leg opening and slide downhill all the way to your balls. Do you realize that you have thrown off the natural order of things? Now, if I ever go to such a match, forewarned by you, I won't make the mistake of wearing shorts. I won't look like a newbie even though I am a newbie. Isn't that some sort of abomination? Aren't newbies supposed to be identifiable as such, instead of stealthily looking like ...oldbies? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Haha, Quade, sick burn! Seriously, that was a WAY-COOL video! Respect to that pilot and the guys who helped him. By the way, what's the "ECU" the mentioned, that would require fire response? I didn't see fire trucks (but they'd be coming from the rear, wouldn't they). Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

I voted none. I drink alcohol so rarely that it really doesn't register. Once in a while I'll crack a beer at home at night, and I usually don't even finish the whole first one (and there's no subsequent one). I have no need for it. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

I did my AFP training in a Caravan that had no door where the door should be. I wasn't forced to sit next to it, but it sure was weird anyway. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

This thread spurred me to check... I looked at my log book and discovered... it's been just over a YEAR since I last skydived. It was 25 July 2007. So... what did I do? I JUST RENEWED MY USPA MEMBERSHIP ONLINE!! As soon as I can, I'll get my gear back the way it needs to be, and I'll be up in the *!&#^ AIR, baby!!