birdlike

I agree about carrying a handy cellular phone. However, I don't think it's quite accurate to say that "you have to prove fear for your life" -- you may have to demonstrate that a reasonable person would have feared for her life in the situation you faced. It's not about proof of anything, it's about getting others (usually either the cops, the DA, or a grand jury well before it's a jury of 12) to say, "Yeah, I'd'a done the same thing -- look at what she was facing!" Get the NRA book, "NRA Guide to Personal Defense Outside the Home." It covers these issues well (as well as tactical decisions, what to do when the police arrive, etc.). I don't agree. I think that semi-auto handguns of the type like the Glocks, SAs, Kimbers, S&Ws, are common enough that they are eminently defensible for self defense use. One avenue of defending them is the fact that they are in widespread use by police departments. I wouldn't recommend going around with a 33 round mag in your Glock 22, but the standard 15+1 should not cause you legal trouble in this day and age. I even read a Massad Ayoob article some months ago in which he gave ideas for defense against an anti-gun DA when you are chastised for carrying spare magazines! It would be well for everyone to look that article up and print it. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

While I agree, I have always been completely baffled by those who say they could not. I mean, isn't it clear that it comes down to, "If you can't/won't kill, you die?!" And what does that say about how much someone values her life? If she won't kill the man trying to kill her, isn't a woman saying that despite what he is doing, his life is of equal value and sacredness to hers? Otherwise, why act as though it should be protected? "I can't bring myself to kill the person who is viciously trying to kill me; trying to take me away from my kids/husband/parents/brothers/sisters/friends. I just so abhorr the taking of life that I will defer and allow mine to be taken because I won't take my attacker's." I just don't get it. I really do believe it boils down that way. If you think your attacker does not forfeit his right to safely keep his life even though he is trying to take yours, then yes, you will die without fighting. But if you value your life over that of your attacker, as I (personally) feel a normal person should, why would you have any qualms about killing him (so long as you recognize that your life is in actual danger)? Please don't hand me the "violence begets violence" malarky: if a woman is attacked, and kills her attacker, that does not "perpetuate" violence because she is not going to go out and in turn start preying on others the way her attacker did to her. It ends with her, as it should. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Dog doo. If a rapist comes to rape you, smear it all over your face and genitals, and he won't want to bother*. * Unless he's the really sick kind, who likes that, and then you're really in trouble, I guess. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

That's a really excellent, well-considered post. I am all for the "give yourself as many options as possible; you don't have to use them necessarily" mindset. I don't have plans to get a motorcycle in the immediate future, but I plan to get the license this fall. Same deal. Good to have because at the moment you decide you really want/need it, you don't want to have to then go about submitting the applications... Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

That's a good point. One would hope that he realizes that she is getting serious about being able to defend herself, is too prickly of a specimen of prey, and will move on and forget her. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

I recently caught up with a friend who has 15 years in the Coast Guard, and was a ship's captain until they actually fired him from that position! (a lot of bullshit politics, and from this guy, I believe every word he says). He says the Coast Guard is in disarray. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Sounds like it could be from that movie about CSNY's anti-war tour... Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Only partially true. baked goods are BETTER. Donuts in particular, though Berkeley's King Pin donuts claim they've figured out how to do without transfats after a couple YEARS of experimentation. I am reminded of the Seinfeld episode in which Jerry's friend sells "fat-free" yogurt that turns out not to be fat-free: and that's why it tasted so good! When they get it tested, the shop goes out of business! Who knows if this donut place you mentioned might not have the same kind of thing going on? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Why would you think that just because I learn about fatty foods, I'd change my mind about wanting the government to save me from myself? I know that one of the best things that you can do is never eat stuff that says "partially hydrogenated" anything. It's up to me to know what's good, what's bad, and choose predominantly the good. I neither need nor want a government bureaucracy doing it for me. Why do we have to have these things removed from availability? I am no more likely to go and make a steady diet of crap food just because it's around than I am to try to drink bleach just because it's around. And if others are stupid enough to, why is it my right or anyone else's to say they can't? By the way, you remind me of a quote from Principal Skinner: "The potty talk adds nothing." You sure are fond of your profanity, aren't you. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

You're gonna remain secretive about how you do it? Or is it that you just don't? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Professional training and advice from an NRA-affiliated firearms instructor. No ifs, ands or buts. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

I got "The Omen" from the library and am watching it now. (It's the remake, not the original. More's the pity; I hate the growing use of CGI effects more and more these days.) Anyway, in chapter 15, at 03:01, Liev Schreiber walks into Julia Stiles' hospital room (I wouldn't mind being in a room with a bed with her! Rrrowrrr!) and there, very prominent on the wall behind him in the dimly lit room, is a small yellow placard with a black skull-and-crossbones on it. I know that in movies, there is nothing in the mise-en-scene that is not deliberate. So, what is that thing there for? It's eerie looking, and it's not placed next to anything I can see that would justify its being there (like a tank of poisonous chemicals or something). Is this a placard common in British hospitals? Or is it just some fanciful pseudo-hospital thing that the movie folks decided to put there for creepiness without actual meaning? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Sorry, not interested. Find another taker to enlighten you. It's not my job. And if you're religious and happy being that way, why on earth would you want me to prove why you're being foolish? "Go with God." (...away from me.) Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Some guy on there posted what I would say: "Is this really what they think is a story? 'Knife capable of killing people.' It already was, even without the added technology." Already, knife wounds are more lethal than bullet wounds, without "enhancement." Is anyone really going to bother with this thing, spending the money on it? And if it does end up becoming a popular contraband item in Britain (where knife carry is illegal anyway) because they can't have guns (hyuck hyuck! ), wouldn't that just count as yet another unintended (but not unforeseeable) consequence of their gun ban? We don't need leftists to save us from ourselves; we need someone to save us from the wrongheaded do-goodery of the leftists. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

I didn't come in here to prove you anything. I stated my position, which is pretty much what the thread was asking for. You can "reckon" all you want about what I am talking. I know what I know, I feel what I feel, I believe what I believe; and while religious people believe I'm doomed to hell for not accepting Jesus Christ as my savior, I believe they're foolish for believing that bunk that comes from the bible (particularly given that the bible is just a story that's been handed down and changed at whim by this or that human being and cannot possibly be relied on to be the actual "word of God). Will there be anything else I can help you with, this evening? Did I make you my enemy just because I simply stated my beliefs? Besides, aren't you asking me to prove a negative when you ask me to give you details about why we shouldn't bother believing in God? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

^TRUTH^ Environmentalism is the new secular religion that the left is pushing. And if you don't believe (or at least avow that you believe), you get excommunicated and ostracized. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Darn those handguns and the evil NRA! Darn them to heck! Killing was not possible before the advent of the handgun! Don't you know that? If we act quickly and ban them all now, we can prevent this, and it'll be worth it if it saves even one spammer's life! Think of the internet-surfing children! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

I don't live in a small town where it would be a problem, but I do work with people I know to be religious. I have no desire to be offensive to them generally, so I keep my condescending feelings toward them quiet. I see religion as the major thing wrong with the world; it's what causes the most conflict, prevents the most cooperation, and stands in the way of progress. I think it is rooted in fear and ignorance; especially when we view the silliness and self-contradiction of much of it. I won't go into detail here, but I have considered an analyzed many of the key points and found them to be so laughable I really cannot fathom how thinking people can put all their belief into them. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Why's it ironic? You're demonstrating right here that his followers look at him like he is the second-coming. So I'd say the "right-wing religious extremists" have pretty much pegged what Obama and his zealots think he is. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

I take it you favor the government stepping between you and whatever you might like, whenever the government decides it's not healthful enough for you, and taking it away from you -- essentially saying, "You're not responsible enough to make decisions for yourself, and just in case you're not capable of moderation, you can't have any of this stuff." Why there are people like you, who don't want their own freedom, I cannot understand (and hope I never will). Are you really that afraid of what you might do to yourself? If that's the case, why don't you check yourself into an in-patient psych program? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Well, I appreciate your willingness to check up on yourself and correct yourself when necessary. I hope this is a lesson to you about trusting mainstream media to give you the straight story when it comes to guns. These are the people who refer to AR-15s as "assault weapons" in direct contradiction of the Department of Defense's own applied definition. There's precious little you can trust the media for -- but the fact that they lie about anything means you can't trust them for anything. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Some info>https://fpc.state.fl.us/Clemency.htm Best have lots of money to hire the best lawyer to suck the Gov's dick. Sure, all they gotta do is go out and use a gun they obtained illegally and commit a violent fel... wait a minute...! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

You ought to check into that. I am not under the impression that the right to own a gun is automatically restored to felons in Florida. I think we only recently passed a law that automatically restores felons' right to vote. (I don't really favor it; I think felons who want their rights back should have to work their asses off in some way to get them back by request.) But we consistently read about people charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. If their rights were restored automatically, why would that be? No, I think they have to petition the governor's office for restoration of their gun rights, and I doubt it's just a rubber-stamp scenario that plays out then. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Damn straight. Now I have to wake my brother up to that fact. But then, since he voluntarily moved from FL to MA, I doubt there's much hope... Of course, I benefit from the fact that he had to leave his guns with me... ...But wait, if Obama gets elected, my right to keep them will be that much more endangered. Ugh! Well, at least we'll get some damned good entertainment out of watching that lying piece of dung try to convince gun-rights voters that he's a duck hunter, or something. Just wait until we're closer to the election, and his REAL record on guns gets trotted out before the public. It'll happen, and it's going to cost him like the AWB cost the Dumbocrats Congress in '94. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire