davjohns

IIRC, the ban wasn't due to looking scary; it was due to how easy it (supposedly) was to convert a semi-automatic civilian version (e.g., AR-15) of a military assault rifle to fully automatic. One of the qualifying factors was a bayonet lug. I've done a bit of gunsmithing in my time. I've never found where the bayonet lug is linked to auto fire. Similarly, the extruded pistol grip was a factor. I haven't figured out how it is linked to the seer either. Then, there's the collapsible buttstock, high cap mag ability, detachable mag...hey...I don't think anything in the definition of an assault weapon was related to rate of fire. How did that happen? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Heh Heh. Ol' Johnny's dead, so one could interpret this post a couple of ways. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

OOMPA LOOMPA are Orange Smurfs are Blue Crap! I googled it. You're right. I added an apology to Smurfs on my facebook. Thanks. Bry - david n nicky johnson is the name on facebook. I think you can also look people up by their email...davjohns@hotmail.com - David I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I just posted this. Thought I would share here as well. ‎2 Questions Before You 'De-Friend' Me I've seen posts recently where people state that anyone who disagrees with them on X issue should de-friend them on facebook. I've given it some thought. I do not care how you pray. I hope you get a response (preferably in Morgan Freeman's really smooth voice). I really don't want to know how you have sex (PM me with details and I really WILL de-friend you). I'm not sure it matters how you vote (nothing seems to change / still politicians.). You don't have to think, act or believe like me to be my friend online or in life. In fact, I find the people least like me are the ones who add the most interest to my life. Sure, all of these deep, intimate facebook relationships take lots of time and emotional energy, but I'm willing to make the sacrifice. And I could surely pay the national debt if I weren't splurging on all these electrons, but you are worth it. So, if you want to de-friend me, I can't stop you. But if you require all of your friends to look like you, act like you, believe like you, and think like you; I have two questions... WHEN THE HELL DID I 'FRIEND' AN OOMPA LOOMPA AND WHAT ARE YOU DOING ON FACEBOOK??? GET BACK TO MAKING CHOCOLATE YOU LITTLE BLUE FREAK!!! I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

You sure? She would probably give you a car. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

From the article: "Last year, patrons at an Internet cafe in Seminole County went through a similar robbery attempt. Masked men ran into the cafe and shots were fired by the security guard. The robber in that incident ended up dead. After that incident, the city of Longwood put a temporary ban on Internet cafes, but the ban didn't last. State Rep. Scott Plakon has tried twice to pass a state law banning the cafes but both attempts failed. He said he will try again next year." I remember that after Columbine, the school district banned trench coats. Seems some people are bent on finding out which inanimate objects are causing people to turn violent. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I don't know if there are any studies to show disparate groups do better work, but I agree. I was talking to another caucasian conservative male about going into law practice together once. During the converstation, we both agreed that we needed to find a female minority with a liberal slant to be a partner with us. LTG Patton is attributed with saying, 'If we're all thinking alike, we're not all thinking'. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Discriminations for everyone? Sadly, that might be the best we could do. Personally, I've always looked at military promotions as, "Who is most qualified to take my child into combat, accomplish the mission, and return them to me safely? The purple, androgynous, cthulu worshipper? Hired!" I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Well.... While I don't favor quotas of any sort, this article's language is clearly biased. That makes the journalistic objectivity suspect at best. Quotas of any sort guarantee that some of the best and brightests will be discriminated against due to irrelevant factors. In this case, I'm not sure what quotas are intended to do. When it comes to vocation, the modern woman in America has more options than men. Argue with that if you want, but I've had to fight discrimination in the workplace all of my life because I was born a white male (no, I'm not whining. It is what it is.). There are plenty of incentives in business and education for females only. And, the more traditional route...stay at home mom or wife...is very unusual for a male. Your mileage may vary. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Depends on the woman. That one should. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Interesting. I don't consider my hobbies all that edgy. The overwhelming majority of skydives are without injury or close call. Hang gliding is the same. SCUBA is the same. Martial Arts the same. Motorcycling the same. Shooting competitions the same. Bodybuilding, kayaking, archery, Etc. Etc. Etc. Not pushing it at all in my view. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Thanks for the grin. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

And if the guy wasn't carrying an ID, he should have said so, but I didn't hear him say that in the video. The article I read said the guy was carrying a pistol, but had a permit. That means he also had ID with him. The woman was carrying a pistol with no permit. That's why she wasn't identifying herself. Idiots. If they had identified themselves and taken a ticket, they would have been just fine. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

And here remains the problem - the taser is not a compliance device. It is a (usually) less than lethal weapon that kills often enough that the "non lethal" tag had to be removed. Since too many cops are fucking idiots using it as a compliance or just as often, retaliation tool, I'm convinced that we need to take it away from them. Go back to the baton. You lose the ability to torture (subdue) your suspect without leaving marks, but at least it will force you to use proper procedure. I strenuously disagree. The Taser is much less damaging than a stick. Do you have any idea how much damage you have to inflict to gain compliance with a stick? Do you know how much more training and liability is involved? Consider just the simple difference in media reaction had these officers been striking the guy with sticks. I've been there many times. The Taser is much less violent than the stick. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Asked if it was against the law, Williams chuckled and said, "You just can't go around jumping off buildings anytime you feel like it." Apparently, you can. I know that area and the building in question well. I used to patrol it. The building was abandoned over twenty years ago when I was a cop there. I imagine making your way to the top was the dangerous part. And then the neighborhood is a good place to get mugged. All in all, I would say the jump was the safe part. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

It amazes me how anything gets done in this country when so many people seem bent on villifying anyone who has a different opinion. Liberals have some very generous attitudes. They want to help others. They expect good from people and want to provide good. I find the position a little too optimistic, but hardly anything to villify. Conservatives tend toward the rugged individual making their own way. They want everyone to work as hard as they can and expect a system that encourages that. It can be made to seem harsh, but nothing to villify. Why does so much energy go into bashing others? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Personally, I speed as much as the average driver on long drives. Not at all on the daily commute. I accept my faults. But I would be fine with automated devices that take a picture of your tag when you get 5mph or so over the limit and mail you a ticket. Move them around at random. We would probably all be a bit safer. On a humorous note, I was at a course where we were issued government vehicles. We were warned that local stop lights had cameras and would automatically issue tickets if you ran them. We were advised at the beginning of the class to let the instructors know if you thought you were going to get a ticket. I raised my hand... They told me to wait until I had actually run the red light. You can see my confusion. :) I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

so let him walk away? Choose which laws to enforce? Yes, let him walk away. He posed no threat to anybody. He did not endanger himself or anybody else by crossing against the signal. The police escalated the situation then assaulted him then made up some bogus, trumped up charges to try to cover their ass. Florida already sets priorities for law enforcement. The listed priorities indicate that it is only a priority to enforce pedestrian violations when they lead to cars having to swerve or brake forcefully. These policemen obviously had an agenda other than guarding public safety. This is not up to your usual high standards. I didn't see any evidence to controvert the criminal charges; yet you insist the police made it up. Logically, letting this guy walk away is the equivalent of letting traffic violations go if the driver doesn't care to pull over when signaled. Is that your suggestion? He broke the law. The officers attempted to deal with it in an appropriate fashion. The guy refused. He was arrested. He resisted arrest. The officers handled it extremely well. The cops were within their right to issue him a citation. They were not within their rights to escalate the sitatuion to violence. They were not within their rights to charge the guy with trumped up charges. These were cops clearly looking for a pre-textual stop. Yup, the guy should have provided his name an address when the cop wrote him a citation, but I find a lot more to criticize in the cops for needlessly escalating a situation to a violent confrontation. If there is no need to escalate force, then the cops should not escalate force. They are trained specifically with non-violent methods to handcuff passively resisting subjects, as this guy was. If they can't figure out, between the two of them, how to get handcuffs on a guy standing still, then they need to be sent back to training. I'd suggest as a first step that they tell the guy he's under arrest and start reading him his rights. That may be enough to notify him that it's serious enough that he should stop trying to demand a statute number and should shut up and put his hands behind his back. As a second step, they should tell the guy that since they're arresting him, if he doesn't put his hands behind his back, then he's resisting arrest, and that's an additional, potential felony charge. All of this could be accomplished easily within those 30 seconds, and a lot more efficiently than shoving a taser into the guy's face. He's also not as likely to pull 20 feet away at that point. Leave the taser for when he does an affirmative action, like pushing them, running, etc. Standing still does not qualify. The taser is not a compliance device. It's a less-violent alternative to a gun. You wouldn't shoot someone for not putting their hands behind their back if they're not doing anything else, so you shouldn't tase them either. The woman with the camera should not have kept yelling at the officers (not helpful, plus extremely distracting with her video). She should not have been carrying without a license. Nonetheless, this guy was very fortunate this incident was caught on video. Without video he most likely would have been injured much worse. He also likely would not be able to fight the ridiculous trumped up charges of battery on a police officer and resisting with violence. How are they supposed to cite him if he refuses to identify himself? You said earlier that they should have let him walk away. Now, you say they should have cited him. (By the way, the police don't have 'rights' in these situations. They have duties.) When you are told to put your hands behind your back and two cops have their cuffs out, telling you that you are under arrest seems redundant, but I'll give you that they could have given him a play by play. He is, afterall, on the dense side. Once you are told that you have committed a crime; been told to put your hands behind your back; been warned that you will be tazed if you do not comply, and; continue to resist arrest...I cannot agree with your view that it was the cops who escalated the violence. The cops did what was minimally necessary to perform their duties. Had the guy identified himself as required by law, there would have been no tazer or physical contact at all. By the way..the law allows law enforcement to use one level of violence above the suspect. It has to be that way, or the officer will always die first and the bad guy will always win. I am very critical of law enforcement. I have done the job myself. I know there are lots of bad cops. These guys did an excellent job. Also...there is another video on youtube of this suspect doing something very similar. It seems he has a history of baiting the police by committing infractions and then refusing to identify himself while video-taping it. If we follow your view that the police are trumping up charges on him, we have to wonder why the police are following him around while he videos things. The simpler explanation is that he is provoking situations. Also, the cop in the other video happens to be black. Apparently even black cops are against this guy because of his race (I don't think you brought up the race thing, Southernman, but it was brought up.) I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Had they actually handled it well, there would be no controversy. Non sequitur I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

so let him walk away? Choose which laws to enforce? Yes, let him walk away. He posed no threat to anybody. He did not endanger himself or anybody else by crossing against the signal. The police escalated the situation then assaulted him then made up some bogus, trumped up charges to try to cover their ass. Florida already sets priorities for law enforcement. The listed priorities indicate that it is only a priority to enforce pedestrian violations when they lead to cars having to swerve or brake forcefully. These policemen obviously had an agenda other than guarding public safety. This is not up to your usual high standards. I didn't see any evidence to controvert the criminal charges; yet you insist the police made it up. Logically, letting this guy walk away is the equivalent of letting traffic violations go if the driver doesn't care to pull over when signaled. Is that your suggestion? He broke the law. The officers attempted to deal with it in an appropriate fashion. The guy refused. He was arrested. He resisted arrest. The officers handled it extremely well. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Here's the deal. First thing you do is ID the people you are talking to. You get it on the radio who you are with, so dispatch knows. If you go off the air because one of them shot you, there is a start to the investigation. If you read the article, both of these people were armed. Hers was illegal. The police officer is wearing a uniform and has a name tag. You know who you are dealing with right off. Why shouldn't people identify themselves to the officer? It's a common courtesy. When I call someone on the phone, I identify myself right off. Next, the guy committed an offense. Often, the officer would make sure there were no outstanding warrants on the guy and then give him a warning. The fact that the guy would not present ID becomes a problem. When you receive a citation, you have been arrested. You signed your bond on the bottom of the ticket and then you leave. If the officer can't ID you, he can't let you walk. You have to go to jail. That's what this officer was doing. He may not have said 'You're under arrest.', but the guy was. I once took a guy to jail for driving without a license because he lied to me about who he was. The SSN he gave me came back to a female. I later found out he had an outstanding warrant and that's why he was lying. But I had to take him to jail because I couldn't confirm his ID. You don't need positive ID to go IN jail; just to get OUT. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Integrity among politicians is like virtue among whores. Keeping track of the lies is like keeping track of the Johns. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

The size would suggest Cheech, but I haven't seen her on here in a while. I think the glisten is just fine. Especially after a run. Suggests the breast support system (the rest of the body ) is being maintained. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I've never taken that sort of pic. Never will. To post it on the internet? Ha! I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I always question the stories in the news that are too clear cut. Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc. They all report selectively. This is another case. I ran searches just like others here did. This guy had warnings. He was running a church in his backyard and it was a nuisance. It was not a quiet little study group. I have a neighbor across the street who has a study group at his house every Tuesday night. The cars aren't too numerous and I rarely notice. This guy was not in that category. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.