birdlike

....to speak in public ....to have children ....to vote I don't think any of those activities have led to mass murder. The first one on your list got Hitler's views popularized... The second one provided kids for the Hitler Youth. The third one got him elected... Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

....to speak in public ....to have children ....to vote ...To establish a church or religious order It truly is amazing to see people offer up 2nd Amendment rights for sacrifice as though they are not aware that doing so clearly opens the door to the same being done for the rights they don'thave contempt for. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

A situation where you would have to use a gun! In my 33 years of living I have never been close to needing a gun, If you live in constant fear of needing to use one..... you live in the wrong place. Having a gun to defend yourself against a criminal is preparation, not fear. Or do people have home insurance, fire extinguishers, seatbelts and reserve canopies out of 'fear'? Whoooo-eee! Good one, sir!

Well, the most puzzling thing is why people persist in saying that gun control is necessary at all. IT SIMPLY DOES NOT THWART CRIME. IT HAS NOT THE CAPACITY TO AFFECT CRIMINALS. Now, punishment for misusing guns, sure, that affects criminals. But not telling them they're not supposed to be carrying guns or buying them illegally. So after all the failures of gun control to help decrease the crime rate in D.C., what possible excuse can they have for wishing to cling to, and fight tooth-and-nail for, their gun ban? Can anyone dispute the FACT that prior to the ban, the crime rate was lower; it SOARED during the 32 years of the ban, while places that started actually issuing licenses to carry experienced significant decreases in crime rates? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

What you say is true. If the chase had resulted in a police death I could see charging the person that had lead the chase, but helicopter news coverage is completely OPTIONAL... That's exactly how I see it. Not only do I think that the deaths of the helicopter crews can't be laid at the feet of the fleeing suspects just because they were fleeing, I don't even think that cops' deaths in the line of duty can be blamed on suspects either, unless they are the result of specific actions on the suspects' part that could reasonably be believed likely to cause death. So simply driving away, even at high speed, is not actionable as manslaughter, but say, driving right at a cop who dives out of the way and falls off a cliff, yes, that is. What would happen if a cop arrested a guy and then on the way back to the station the cop loses control of the car on a wet patch and skids off the road, crashes and dies? You could argue that the cop wouldn't have been there under those circumstances but for the fact that he had to arrest the perp. SO? That doesn't mean the perp did anything to be a PROXIMATE CAUSE of the death. I think that term is going to come into play heavily in this situation. Hey, what if while filming the chase, the helicopters were brought down by wind shear instead of a collision? Still the fault of the suspects for having given the copters cause to be there in the first place? Jeez, why not charge the mothers for giving birth to the criminals to put them there in the first place to be filmed by helicopter crews who end up crashing? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Is eating Animal Crackers Inhumane? It can be... if you slather each one with pate foie gras! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Read my post. In fact, why don't you read the fucking ARTICLE. It's pretty OBVIOUS that you haven't. I mean, over and over in the article, it says that court recordings show there WAS a translator. And yet, here you are saying that the court screwed up by not having a translator... Howzat? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

How many of you people sounding off actually read the damned story?! Here are some excerpts: A guy can attend community college but not have enough English to stand trial for a brutal crime against a 7-year-old girl? I have to ask, what have you all been reading, to claim that the court/government failed this guy? Sounds to me like they were trying their asses off. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

A 3 year delay pretty much blows your 'good faith effort' line out of the water. It doesn't matter why they failed, or if the defendent is accused of something really bad. The right to a speedy trial is one of the original protected rights of our country. The article didn't say if he was jailed during this time. That's an interesting detail to me. The length of time it took them has everything to do with how long it is fair to expect it would take to find a qualified, bona fide interpreter of a language spoken by less than twelve thousandths of one percent of the earth's population. Read in the story that they had arranged several interpreters, but they fell through for various reasons. That means they didn't just let the guy sit there for three years straight. At several points along in the three years, I'll bet it seemed to everyone that they were about to get underway, until things went screwy with these whacko african interpreters! (Like the one who bolted from the courtroom because of the subject matter being abhorrent.) In this case, it seems to be hardly the fault of the government/prosecution that they couldn't get started because they were working to get this guy the fair treatment he's entitled to. HE'S the one with the special needs. They tried over and over to fill them. I also don't know if he was in jail awaiting trial the whole time or not. If so, maybe they could've let him out on bail with an ankle monitor. But gee, it must be nice to be untouchable because the government holds itself to fairness standards and won't/can't try you because the language you speak is so obscure. I'd like to know more about the claims that he was just fine with English... Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Do you have any evidence to support this claim (that the guy doesn't even need one), or you're just speculating? Well, the claim was made that the guy attended school in the U.S., and spoke with detectives in English. I would've hoped they'd have recorded or videotaped those conversations (which is growing more common, and is actually required in some jurisdictions) to back that claim up. For whatever reason, apparently this guy was believed to need an interpreter. Once again, he'd have a lawyer to make sure he didn't get railroaded. My understanding is that unless a defendant is called to testify, the court proceedings have really very little to do with him. And in many cases, defense attorneys advise their clients NOT to testify. I think you are putting too much weight on the idea that this guy would be able to follow every last word of legalese in the courtroom. I'd wager that MOST criminal defendants are not smart or educated enough to do that, yet we don't let them go free just on the idea that we can't dare try them because they don't understand the legal proceedings. That's absurdist. Because the Constitution guarantees fair trial to ANYONE. Even to the person whose language is spoken by oh, about 0.00002 of the earth's population. Please show me that specific language in the Constitution. You're making the claim; now back your claim up. ALL THE MORE REASON TO JUSTIFY THAT IT HAS TAKEN THREE YEARS TO FIND A QUALIFIED INTERPRETER FOR THIS SHITBAG'S SHITHOLE LANGUAGE THAT ONLY TWO THOUSANDTHS OF ONE PERCENT OF THE EARTH'S POPULATION SPEAKS! That's been my whole fucking point! The story details how the government had a line on at least three such interpreters, and they fell through for various reasons. Well, for one thing, I'll bet they'd fucking laugh at me if I said they had to drop the charges and let me go just because they didn't have someone who could translate Thai into my language. I wonder, can you confirm that Thailand would provide a no-cost interpreter to an English speaking criminal defendant in a Thai court? To answer your question, I wouldn't like it, no. But if my language, instead of being English, was vanishingly rare, I think it should be expected and accepted that it might take a good long time to arrange an interpreter for me. I'd like confirmation from anyone who knows, about whether other countries go to these lengths like the U.S. is in this case expected to. I can't even answer the question "Does England provide a defense lawyer to those who cannot afford one, as the U.S. Constitution guarantees here?" Let alone, "Do they pay for and arrange interpreters for speakers of foreign languages no matter how obscure?" Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Paranoid is what your enemies call you when they know you know the shit they're up to. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

I think such a law would be clearly unconstitutional and I would be opposed to it. Just like I am opposed to all of Bush's assaults on the Constitution. This is just funny. You were asked whether you would be in favor of the law, and what you would do if it passed (facilitate it, defy it, or nothing). You answered only the part about whether you would favor it. Then of course there was the obligatory introduction of Bush's 'assaults on the Constitution'--as though that had any relevance here to this discussion. People are right to say that you constantly neglect to answer straightforward questions, and then delve into trivial nuances in syntax or absurd tangents as though you think we don't see what you're doing. It's quite amazing to witness. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Apparently you don't keep up with the aviation news. If they ATA and FAA have their way GA will be priced out of the sky. Mayor Daley is trying to ban GA in his city. Disney has managed to ban GA over its park. GA is banned over huge areas of the western and southern USA. Ah, I was hoping you would go there. Because now you have opened up the door for gun/plane comparisons. There are types of places where you can't take a gun, but that doesn't mean that they are banned. These are deemed "reasonable restrictions", in the name of crime fighting. So likewise, just because there are a few places where you can't fly your airplane, that doesn't mean that people are trying to ban private aviation. Those are just deemed "reasonable restrictions". It may be for anti-terrorism reasons, military training areas or national park noise restrictions. Whatever the justification, our elected representattives have deemed them prudent. And as you are fond of saying, since you voted them into office, you are responsible for these restrictions. If those aviation restrictions chaff you so much, I'll expect more sympathy from you in the future when I complain about gun restrictions. Okay? Dude, this one was just... plain... MASTERFUL.

You mean, like the ATA and the pols they have in their pockets, and, of course the Feds Against Aviation) Show me where they're trying to ban private aviation. Apparently you don't keep up with the aviation news. If they ATA and FAA have their way GA will be priced out of the sky. Sounds like Ted Kennedy's "10,000% tax on ammunition," to me. So I guess JohnRich is right about high-powered politicians trying to end gun ownership. Maybe you're right about ATA and FAA trying to do the same with flying. It just means that YOU should be seeing it OUR way when it comes to what we claim they're trying to do with our gun rights. Your own examples BOLSTER our claims. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Do you mean when Daley had his crews go to Meigs field in the dead of night and slash X's into the runway, even though he did not have the authority to do so? When he caused pilots to have their planes STRANDED at a defunct airport? (They eventually had to get permission to take off from the TAXIWAYS to get their aircraft out of there!) I wouldn't trust the government of Chicago, or IL, with much of anything at all. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Yes, but YOUR proffered reason for was promptly demolished. Why did you offer it? You had to know it was intrinsically flawed and invalid. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Do you really think your comparison to cars is helping yours? Despite the fact that this system you claim would save lives when applied to guns is currently in place with regard to cars, cars still kill more people each year than guns do. And there are far more guns in the U.S. than cars. How well has registration of cars and licensing of drivers worked for keeping down the deaths? Not very well, it would seem. You don't have to look far to find unlicensed people killing other people in vehicular accidents with unregistered cars. Gee, how'd they do that? Th-there's a system in place, run by the government, that's supposed to be taking care of all of that! So who's making the silly arguments? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

This discussion is about making this information available to anyone, not just cops. So answer the question being asked. Do you honestly think the police would need to know this information before they arrest a person for murder? Their procedure isn't going to change a single bit. Exactly. Billvon is obviously very intelligent, so I have to wonder why he uses sophistry to argue. Surely he can't think that cops will be going to arrest a suspected MURDERER, and benefit one whit from finding his name and what guns he's registered on some database. Like that's the trip that's going to spur them to be careful when they go to apprehend a guy they already have fingered for murder? Mr. Von can do better than that... why the ruse? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Did you even read the full article before going off half-cocked? It's not as though the government just sat there on their asses and pretended to be looking for an interpreter for this jackal. To me, it seems that the government made good-faith efforts to get an interpreter (for a guy who evidently doesn't even NEED one) and each time, it was the interpreter or the interpreter's circumstances that fell through. The government even had one IN the courtroom, and she couldn't handle the facts of the case and ran out. Hmm. This guy seems to have just been playing the system. He attended school in the U.S. in English. He spoke with detectives in English. NOW he needs to have English translated into ...Vai? Only now that it's crucial to his bullshit claim of denial of a speedy trial. And how is the government to be faulted for having a hard time locating a QUALIFIED translater for a language spoken by oh, about 0.00002 of the earth's population? (100,000/5,000,000) I can't figure out where in the Constitution a foreigner is entitled to having court proceedings translated into a non-English language. I think they should have gone on with the trial in English, and FUCK this pig-dog child molester! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Quote>what gain is there in this opening of information? There is certainly potential gain in knowing whether a given person has a gun if the police are about to arrest him for murder - they will know that they must be extremely cautious. Oh, because if they do a check and he doesn't show up as a gun owner, they can be UNcautious? They can proceed as though they know he does NOT have any guns? Or would they be better-advised to proceed as though he may have an ILLEGAL, STOLEN gun that their records don't know about? Your example fails utterly. The reason should now be obvious (well, more obvious than it was already). Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

[reply>a gun registry simply provides cetralization of data of who to confiscate >them from once that law is passed. Do you believe that requiring cars to be registered is really a plot started by those who wish to confiscate everyone's cars? Well, no. But then, we have actually WITNESSED gun registration lists used for the exact purpose people claim we're "paranoid" for worrying they'll put them to. I have never read or heard of a politician or activist calling for the confiscation of all motor vehicles. There is no movement to do that. There IS, however, a clear-cut movement to ban guns. That puts this issue a world apart from why they register cars. And the fact is that they register cars to make money to build and maintain roads. It certainly cannot be argued that registering cars is done for safety or anti-vehicular-crime reasons. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

What was once a pioneering hero-driven enterprise is probably doomed now to be a corporate dumpster for stifled ideas and fiscal waste, driven by executive egos more than passion for discovery. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

If you cannot see that it is sensible to allow people to guard the information of what guns they own from random inquiries, then I have to assume that in cases of even less sensitive or safety-related information--particularly that not pertaining to Constitutionally-protected rights--you would not object to its publication? So, in other words, if keeping quiet about who owns what GUNS is not justified, I suppose you wouldn't object to publication of who owns what large screen televisions; expensive jewelry; sex toys... Yeah, let's keep a federal database that anyone can access, and fill it with reports on who has insured what expensive jewelry. That'll be a good idea! After all, if it's not putting people in greater danger of being targeted for theft, what's the problem? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

And cars kill more than guns -- DESPITE the fact that "guns are designed to kill, and cars are not." Imagine if the cars were designed to kill! Now, let's ask the question, "How well have the laws that make it easy to look up who has what car, and the laws that require people to get a license before they drive, worked to eliminate vehicular deaths?" People scream on and on about licensing guns just like we license cars, but they never think for a moment about the fact that licensing cars has zero ability to stop car accidents from happening, as evidenced by how common car accidents actually ARE. I sure wish you would stop obfuscating, and offering these pathetic distractions about cars and airplanes, sir, as they bring us no nearer to anything that we can call the truth of the matter. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

For the same reason that every pilot's name and every airplane owners's name is posted on the FAA web site. You just complain now because you see your favorite ox being gored. That so-called "explanation" clarifies nothing. Now you have two tasks: explain the benefit of doing away with the Tiahrt amendment, and explain the benefit of having every pilot's name and every airplane owner's name on the FAA website. I'm starting to think you don't have a substantive answer to offer, here. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire