Anyway, on to the questions ...
Do you agree with what Sol just said? If so, what beliefs and experiences lead you to believe that a woman has a right to control the body of her child, even to the point of harm?
Omega, I have answered this question REPEATEDLY. Do you think I'm going to change my answer because you phrase the question differently?
Maybe I think its because women can think for themselves and don't need others telling them what to do.
It is wrong to tell someone what to do with their own body. Keep your laws off my body! Outlawing abortion is only going to force women into unsafe procedures, where both lives will be lost.
What led me to this belief? Well, its simple -- it was pointed out to me quite a while ago, that I am a) not a woman and b) it'll be a very cold day in hell before I ever become pregnant myself, and c) therefore, I've no right to judge someone's decisions in a situation I will never be in.
What do the ladies around here think about pro-choice?
What would happen if the Democratic Party got everything it wanted? Analyze programs such as HillaryCare and deduce the possible results of their implementation. As specifically as possible, how would you describe the resulting society?
Omega, someday you will write great questions for college exams. However, I'm not being graded on these, so I won't "analyze", "deduce" or be "specific." Unless, of course, you care to pay me? I'm actually rather surprised you didn't add, "in less than ten paragraphs..."
The resulting society ... wow! It would be great. People wouldn't be afraid for their jobs because their boss wouldn't be able to fire them at will (gotta love unions!). People could make enough money to live on (gotta love minimum wage). People could go to the hospital and not worry about paying, because they'd have health care! Cars would be really cool, and go really fast. Republicans would be obsolete!! YAY!!!!If anyone is taking this response to seriously, LAUGH NOW
Why do you believe Bush used drugs?
My belief of it is rather irrelevent. Rather, the question should be, "can you prove he used drugs?" However, you can't ask that because it can't be proved that he hasn't.
Honestly, I find it hard to believe that most of our politicians haven't experimented with drugs at least a little. This is why I don't see why Gore and Clinton smoking a little pot is such a big thing. I also believe that Dubya lit up a few times at Yale.
Why do you favor friendly relations with the government of China, which has killed thousands of people for no reason?
I think the government HAD a reason for killing those people, Omega, they're just not reasons that the rest of the world likes to acknowledge.
Do you think I would prefer a WAR with China? Tianamen Square didn't surpress the rebellion brewing over there, and it'll come sooner or later -- look at the USSR, where Soviet troops, in the middle of a coup to overthrow Gorbachev, listened to a passioned plea from Yeltsin and turned on their officers ... we need to be in a position to help them set up a new government when that happens.
If you believe that 'if you are an individual, it is your body, and that no one can tell you what to do with it, and that no one may touch you without your permission', does this apply to Siamese twins, where affecting one's body would nesecarily affect another person? Also, does it apply to the body of the unborn child in an abortion, who is being touched without his/her permission? If not, why not?
Good fucking lord! Another abortion question? Omega I HAVE ANSWERED THIS QUESTION. I have no information on Siamese Twins, but I think I've heard that some live together, co-existing for many many many decades and longer.
Gee, Omega, see that pregnant girl over there? Well, its not your body, so don't touch it, and don't legislate it.
Effectively, what is your position on the right to do what one wishes with one's body, when the exercise of that right involves the death of another?
You mean, if I decide to use my hands to strangle someone? That would be doing what I wish with my body when the exercise of the right would be a death.
Or are we back on abortion? Let me sum up (don't ask me again, Omega
It's not your body, keep your laws off of it
Can you think of, and provide evidence of, an instance where George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole, et al. lied to the people of the country?
God, you'll be a good lawyer ... "provide evidence of" ... no, I'm sure its all locked away very well at the CIA, where Bush sr. used to be boss.
Do you believe that the unauthorized actions of a few under a previous administration are equivalent to the ordered actions of a current administration? Do you believe that previous crimes commited by people claiming to represent this country justify dealing with murderers?
Omega, look at it this way:
The U.S. sent Lt. Calley on a mission to go into My Lai. Now, why did what happen happen? Did he recieve orders for that massacre? Did he interpret his orders wider than he should have?
The point is, when people say, "don't deal with China, they've killed thousands for no reason" ... you make it too easy to point at the US and say, "so have we."
This is how you should have phrased the question in the first place.
How do you know that the Chinese officers implementing these murders were actually ordered to do so? That one man, acting on his own, didn't give the order without authorization from his superiors?
Second, how can they be murderers? By your own definition (re: US executions, and the difference between a "murder" and a "killing") the killings would be legal under that government, thus, not murder.
Or does your definition only apply to the United States?
Do you believe that all intentionally caused human death, including capital punishment, is murder. If so, what is your position on abortion?
What is your fascination with abortion?
No, capital punishment is archaic and should be abolished, but sadly enough, it is legal, therefore, not murder.
Do you believe the Chinese would cease their attrocities if we traded with them? If so, why?
What attrocities have they committed recently? Best of my memory, Tianaman Square, 10 years ago.
Do you believe that the right to speak automatically converys a right to be heard, in any medium desired? If so, how does this apply to the property rights of the owner of the press? Further, how does this apply to the freedom of expression of the published of the paper.
Most papers have what are known as "editorial pages", where readers may write responses to pieces within the paper. Therefore, the paper is already conveying readers' right to be heard in that desired medium.
What is your response to the accusation that the DNP ignores the consitution wherever it proves inconvenient, given the list of events at the top of the page?
Er ... what list? Could you repost them here and I will then reply? Thank you.
What is your basis for the belief that an unborn child is not alive?
Do you get off on abortions? You couldn't have had all those under just ONE question? Noooooo, half the questions are on abortion! Sheeeesh ...
Omega, the basis for my belief is irrelevent. The only thing relevent is my stance on the issue. If you don't know what that is, kindly scroll up. I think I've said it about ten million times in this post alone.
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 7.5 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
Shop Smart -- Shop "S"-Mart
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited December 11, 2000).]
"It is wrong to tell someone what to do with their own body."
I agree. Do you believe that this does not apply to a mother and her unborn child's body? If not, why? I have asked this question multiple times, and have yet to recieve an answer. Your only response has consistantly been, "Keep your laws off my body!" or some variation thereon. Your response was not an answer to my question.
"Gee, Omega, see that pregnant girl over there? Well, its not your body, so don't touch it, and don't legislate it."
I have no desire to do so. However, if I do not have a right to affect the mother's body without permission, why does she have the right to do the same to her child's body? Are they both not human?
Liberal programs
Your response, judging from your final sentence, is meant in jest. Your response was not an answer to my question.
Bush and drugs
"My belief of it is rather irrelevent."
Irrelevant to what? My request was that you explain your beliefs. There is nothing for this to be related or not related to. Your response was not an answer to my question.
"Rather, the question should be, 'an you prove he used drugs?'"
This is not what I desire to know. I desire to know WHY you believe he did, not whether you can prove it.
China
"I think the government HAD a reason for killing those people, Omega, they're just not reasons that the rest of the world likes to acknowledge."
Do you believe that peaceful protest constitutes a reason to kill two thousand people?
Siamese Twins
"I have no information on Siamese Twins, but I think I've heard that some live together, co-existing for many many many decades and longer."
What if one decided to commit suicide, an act which would nearly inevitably lead to the death of the other? How would your beliefs regarding one's right to one's body apply in this situation? Your response was not an answer to my question.
Alleged GOP lies
I will take your response to mean "no." Therefore, my question becomes this: "Why do you believe that these GOP politicians have lied, even though you have no evidence of this?"
Trade with China
"The point is, when people say, "don't deal with China, they've killed thousands for no reason" ... you make it too easy to point at the US and say, "so have we.""
"We" have not killed innocents. A rogue lieutenant did. He did not have orders to do so, and was punished for his actions. The Chinese government, OTOH, ordered the deaths of innocents, and is still in power. They would constitute murderers and criminals. My question remains, as your response was not an answer to my question.
"Second, how can they be murderers? By your own definition (re: US executions, and the difference between a "murder" and a "killing") the killings would be legal under that government, thus, not murder."
The Chinese government was not instituted by popular consent, and thus does not constitute a legitimate government. Therefore, all laws enacted by this government, and all actions taken by this government, are not legal, as the government itself is not legally instituted. This is all by my definitions, which are the one's you're calling into question.
My beliefs stand explained. How 'bout yours?
Capital punishment re: abortion
"No, capital punishment is archaic and should be abolished, but sadly enough, it is legal, therefore, not murder."
A valid answer.
Chinese attrocities
"What attrocities have they committed recently?"
How is timing relevant? The dictator that ordered the murders is still in power. Why should we believe that he has changed? Your response is not an answer to my question.
"Fairness Doctrine"
"Most papers have what are known as "editorial pages", where readers may write responses to pieces within the paper. Therefore, the paper is already conveying readers' right to be heard in that desired medium."
These are instituted voluntarily. I asked your opinion on forced equivalents. Your response is not an answer to my question.
DNP's disregard of the Constitution
"Er ... what list? Could you repost them here and I will then reply? Thank you."
The attempt to prevent the FL legislature from doing its constitutional duty
The support of the Fairness Doctrine
The support of banning firearms
The support of banning school prayer
The support of Bill Clinton, a man who commited a crime and thus, according to the constitution, should have been removed from office
The DNP inniated attempt in the Senate to dictate what isles food products would be placed in in supermarkets
90% of the programs that FDR implemented
The existance of the FCC
The abduction of Elian Gonzales from his court-appointed guardians
Democrat judges writing new laws that do not exist
Status of the unborn
"Omega, the basis for my belief is irrelevent. The only thing relevent is my stance on the issue."
The basis of your belief is the only thing I'm requesting you tell me, and is therefore by definition relevant. I ask not for your beliefs. I ask for the reasoning behind them, and how they apply to certain situations. Your response is not an answer to my question.
I count twelve questions. One was responded to with a valid answer. One was responded to with a request for more information. One was responded to with an answer, but what I believe to be an invalid or unclear one. The remaining nine were not answered at all.
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
The Florida legislature? Aren't they trying to bypass the voters?
The support of the Fairness Doctrine
I wasn't aware the support of a person's free speech was un-constitutional.
The support of banning firearms
When *exactly* has the Democratic Party tried to ban firearms? As a matter of fact, handguns weren't even an ISSUE in this election ... did you hear either candidate mention this? This is just NRA propoganda which you foolishly believe.
The support of banning school prayer
The seperation of church and state is consitutional, Omega. However, the support of school prayer is unconstitutional.
The support of Bill Clinton, a man who commited a crime, and thus, according to the Constitution, should have been removed from office
Omega, you are such a fucking moron. It's called a trial -- in this case, an impeachment. Or did you forget about that little party?
The DNP inniated attempt to dictate what isles food products would be placed in in supermarkets
Omega, this just makes you a twit. Food? Aisles? Who gives a shit? You, apparently. Sheeeesh.
90% of the programs that FDR implemented
Like Lend-Lease?
The existance of the FCC
How is the FCC illegal? Shouldn't we get rid of the FBI, or maybe the USDA too then?
the abduction of Elian Gonzales from his court-appointed guardians Democrat judges writing new laws that do not exist
That sentance makes no sense at all.
I agree on one part of this. Elian should have been kept in the United States.
The "writing new laws" thing sounds like our favorite talk show host babbling his nonsense. Frankly, this is why I don't like Republicans -- whenever things don't go their way, its either because laws are being re-written, or because the liberal-controlled (Jewish controlled, in some cases) media is against them (GASP!)
Do you believe that peaceful protest constituts a right to kill two thousand people?
Well, I didn't say that, now did I?
"Why do you believe that these GOP politicians have lied even though you have no evidence of this?"
You're going to hate me, but I will answer this with a question.
Why do you believe Al Gore, if elected, will attempt to ban firearms even though there is no evidence of this?
Besides which, you can't show me a politician on either side who hasn't lied. Fact.
how is timing relevent?
Er ... then you can't really say that what we did to the Indians is "all in the past", now can you?
They are instituted voluntarily. I asked your opinion on forced equivilants
Yeah, you're right, we shouldn't use force to ensure someone's Constitutional rights. We should just let them be trampled on (sigh).
What if one decided to commit suicide, an act which would nearly inevitably lead to the death of the other? How would your beliefs regarding one's right to one's body apply in this situation? Your response was not an answer to my question?
No, it wasn't an answer to your question, but its the most you're going to get.
I'm not in that position, Omega. I can't judge.
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 7.5 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
Shop Smart -- Shop "S"-Mart
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited December 11, 2000).]
3) Why do you favor friendly relations with the government of China, which has killed thousands of people for no reason?
For the record, I don't favour friendly relations with China until they fess up to their mistakes (INCLUDING Tiannamen Square). I take it that the present Administration has decided to take a different approach, that is "try peace first then get them to apologize". Let's wait and see, and not shoot-first-ask-questions-later.
I particularly do not like the idea of taking a warlike stance against countries including Russia and China. We are supposed to live in a peaceful democracy. NMD does not help that one bit, IMHO.
4) Abortion
I keep hearing things such as that it is a woman's right to choose what to do with her body, that is, if she chooses to stretch her abdomen to the size of a watermelon, then that's her business.
So if she chose not to and it still happened? Well, this brings up the next question, is that mass of flesh inside of her defined as "alive"? Personally, I believe so.
This brings two possibilities:
1) She brought this upon herself, having "too much fun" with a certain guy. Well, tough cheese, lady. That is no excuse for the ripping apart of a lifeform. You brought this upon yourself, you have to be RESPONSIBLE for your actions.
2) She did not bring this upon herself, this was "forced upon her" I do not want to go into the literal translation of this. But in this case, her rights to live a normal life in peace were completely violated by the person who forced himself upon her. Forcing her to bear what I would call a "child of a monster" further adds insult to injury, both emotionally and physically (not to forget her rights too). In essense, she should not be responsible for something she herself never did. Forcing her to do so would yet be another violation of her rights to live a normal life that was taken away from her by that so called monster by having to give birth to the Monster's Offspring.
5) Can you think of, and provide evidence of, an instance where George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole, et al. lied to the people of the country?
No one is perfect, Omega. If you believe that Republicans never lie, then I don't know what kind of world you are talking about. As well, please do not stereotype Democrats with whatever drivel you provide us with.
If a Republican does happen to lie under oath in the same degree as Clinton, I don't think you'll be saying the same thing anymore.
6)Do you believe that the unauthorized actions of a few under a previous administration are equivalent to the ordered actions of a current administration?
I will point out a couple of things: a) some of the "few" are still alive, those who carried out those massacres, and b) as long as these "few" are still alive, the current administration is still "representing" them, even though they do not hold any power in the administration, voting or otherwise.
Technically, the Vietnam War happened 30 years ago. For many people that was not a long time ago. It is these people who demand some form of admission of responsibility from the Current administration, seeing that these "few" are still under their wing. Admission of responsibility isn't too hard to ask, isn't it?
Unless you guys were talking about some other war?
So if the current administration is not responsible, then theoretically, Germany is not responsible for the actions of the Nazis, and the Vatican is not responsible for its role in the Holocaust. And Japan is not responsible for the rape of Nanking, and so on and so on and so on...........
There is another approach to this point of view, and that is the actions undertaken were caused by a representative of that society. Therefore he represents that society as barbaric and heinous. Because the government is seen as the representative, it should undertake steps to ensure that the undesired label is removed. It doesn't matter which administration is in power. As long as they are the representative, they have that obligation.
Do you believe that previous crimes commited by people claiming to represent this country justify dealing with murderers?
Yes, if we are held accountable for our own actions, as well as they are for their actions as well.
7) Do you believe that all intentionally caused human death, including capital punishment, is murder? If so, what is your position on abortion?
On capital punishment, only those who commit heinous crimes and are not ever likely to be re-integrated into society should be nuked from this place.
On abortion, the unborn offspring of the monsters who have committed heinous crimes and who forced themselves over the rights of another woman and impregnating her with this Monster Offspring should also be nuked from this place, if the woman so chooses.
8) Do you believe the Chinese would cease their attrocities if we traded with them? If so, why?
Tough gamble. I guess the US is simply trying to coerce them down the right path. Let's see what happens.
And the Tiennamen Square massacre happened at the same year 14 women were shot at the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal because they were women. So we should ignore the memory of those 14 women as well, huh?
The rest of the questions I basically don't have an answer for, or it is simply none of my business. Thank you.
------------------
"My Name is Elmer Fudd, Millionaire. I own a Mansion and a Yacht."
Psychiatrist: "Again."
[This message has been edited by Tahna Los (edited December 12, 2000).]
"The Florida legislature? Aren't they trying to bypass the voters?"
No. The Florida legislature is only intending to be prepared in the event that a judge in FL decides to disregard the law and override the certification. If there is not a certified slate of electors by December 12, the legislature is allowed and REQUIRED to name a slate for the state. They also intend to send a message to the activist FL S.C. In no way are they trying to override the voters, nor could they.
re: 'Fairness Doctrine'
"I wasn't aware the support of a person's free speech was un-constitutional."
Do you believe that the right to speak automatically converys a right to be heard, in any medium desired, even those privately owned? If so, how does this apply to the property rights of the owner of the press or broadcast tower? Further, how does this apply to the freedom of expression of the publisher of the paper?
"[Editorials] are instituted voluntarily. I asked your opinion on forced equivilants
Yeah, you're right, we shouldn't use force to ensure someone's Constitutional rights. We should just let them be trampled on (sigh)."
Do you believe that the right to speak automatically converys a right to be heard, in any medium desired, even those privately owned? If so, how does this apply to the property rights of the owner of the press or broadcast tower? Further, how does this apply to the freedom of expression of the publisher of the paper?
"When *exactly* has the Democratic Party tried to ban firearms?"
They have not, nor did I say they have. I said they support the idea. A north-eastern state governor said that his objective was to rid the state of handguns. He was a democrat. The Democrats constantly attempt to make it harder for law-abiding citizens to obtain guns, regardless of the fact that this has been statistically shown to increase crime. What other conclusion can you draw from these facts?
"The seperation of church and state is consitutional, Omega."
No, it is not. "Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion..." does not imply a seperation of church and state. It simply states that the federal government can not establish a national religion. This does not apply to a school district in any way. There IS NO seperation of church and state, in the popular meaning.
re: Clinton
He commited a crime. He should have been tried and removed. The DNP said that neither was nesecary, when the Constitution clearly states that it is.
"How is the FCC illegal?"
It restricts the use of private property beyond preventing harm to others. It is thus unconstitutional.
Your remianing responses are non-points.
"Do you believe that peaceful protest constituts a right to kill two thousand people?
Well, I didn't say that, now did I?"
No, nor did I say you did. Please answer the question.
"Why do you believe Al Gore, if elected, will attempt to ban firearms even though there is no evidence of this?"
I have never stated that I believe this. Your question is moot.
"Why do you believe that these GOP politicians have lied even though you have no evidence of this?"
You did not answer this question.
"how is timing relevent [to the comission of attrocities by a government]?
Er ... then you can't really say that what we did to the Indians is "all in the past", now can you?"
Yes, as this is a different administration. The people in the administration that hurt the natives are all dead. The people that killed 2,000 peaceful protesters in China are still in power. The circumstances are non-analogous.
"What if one [Siamese twin] decided to commit suicide, an act which would nearly inevitably lead to the death of the other? How would your beliefs regarding one's right to one's body apply in this situation? Your response was not an answer to my question?
No, it wasn't an answer to your question, but its the most you're going to get.
I'm not in that position, Omega. I can't judge."
You have beliefs on what is right and wrong. How would they apply to the situation described? Is the outcome of such application acceptable to you?
Tahna:
"If you believe that Republicans never lie, then I don't know what kind of world you are talking about."
I do not believe this. I simply asked whether you could demonstrate a time in which a GOP, say, presidential cantidate has lied to the people.
"If a Republican does happen to lie under oath in the same degree as Clinton, I don't think you'll be saying the same thing anymore."
No, I wouldn't. I'd be calling for his head.
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
Do you agree with what Sol just said? If so, what beliefs and experiences lead you to believe that a woman has a right to control the body of her child, even to the point of harm?
Because it's her body, not mine and ultimatly she's gonna have to be the one who gets to live with the fact that she killed her kid.
What would happen if the Democratic Party got everything it wanted? Analyze programs such as HillaryCare and deduce the possible results of their implementation. As specifically as possible, how would you describe the resulting society?
Why, I think it'd be great. 'Bout time this country started taking care of it's people first. As for the analyzing bit, IF I had the time and IF I had the resources of the AMA, Library of Congress, and all that rot and interested in drawing up what could possibly a million page report, well I would. Then i'd make you eat it.
Why do you believe Bush used drugs?
Because he did. And he more or less admitted to it too, only he called it and I quite "A youthful indiscression."
Why do you favor friendly relations with the government of China, which has killed thousands of people for no reason?
Find me one country on that planet that HASN'T killed thousands of people. But in China's case, why are you so hell bent in villifing them? Wanna start a war with them that THIS time nobody will win? Would you be willing to FIGHT in that war?
If you believe that 'if you are an individual, it is your body, and that no one can tell you what to do with it, and that no one may touch you without your permission', does this apply to Siamese twins, where affecting one's body would nesecarily affect another person? Also, does it apply to the body of the unborn child in an abortion, who is being touched without his/her permission? If not, why not?
No. Siamese Twins have nothing, nada, zip, ziltch to do with abortion. And you DO seemed a tab obsessed with the topic.
Effectively, what is your position on the right to do what one wishes with one's body, when the exercise of that right involves the death of another?
Then you've crossed the line from choice to actively committing murder? Your question doesn't make sence.
Can you think of, and provide evidence of, an instance where George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole, et al. lied to the people of the country?
From the top!
Vietnam (Agent Orange)
Iran-Contra (Who was in charge of things when Ollie North and Fawn Hall was playing "Shred the documents which would have gotten Ronnie Reagan impeached? - The REPUBLICANS!)
Trickle Down Economics (Which was directly CAUSAL to two economic recessions)
The Gulf War (Specifically, Gulf War Syndrome)
Savings and Loan Debacle (Yer boy Dubya was in cahoots in that one...)
...and there's prolly a ton more we don't know about yet.
Next go-round, i'll flame a few Democrats i'd love to seen removed from the gene pool.
Do you believe that the unauthorized actions of a few under a previous administration are equivalent to the ordered actions of a current administration? Do you believe that previous crimes commited by people claiming to represent this country justify dealing with murderers?
1) No, they're not. But if said gov't tries to cover it's ass, after the fact, then they're guilty of aiding and abetting.
2) Know what the "School of the Americas" is? We were ACTIVELY training Central/South American Military Junta's how to commit mass-murder and do all kinds of really NASTY things. So, yeah. We'd be guilty.
Do you believe that all intentionally caused human death, including capital punishment, is murder. If so, what is your position on abortion?
1) If I killed you, that would be murder. If they state kills me for killing you, that would be justice.
2) Pro-choice to the point where I don't wanna pay for it. (That takes some explaining)
Do you believe the Chinese would cease their attrocities if we traded with them? If so, why?
Not really. Why? Because basically it's their goddamn country. Let em' eat each other for all I care.
Do you believe that the right to speak automatically converys a right to be heard, in any medium desired? If so, how does this apply to the property rights of the owner of the press? Further, how does this apply to the freedom of expression of the published of the paper.
1) Nope.
2) If someone gets hurt because of it then the person who was hurt has every right to sue the piss out of the person who caused the harm.
3) I really oughta send you the Editorial Section from the Pensacola News Journal. You think YOU'RE conservative? HA!
What is your response to the accusation that the DNP ignores the consitution wherever it proves inconvenient, given the list of events at the top of the page?
That question is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO biased, it borders on the ludricrious.
And for the record, I would have shipped Elian Gonzales back postage fuckin due!
What is your basis for the belief that an unborn child is not alive?
Define life, bucko. Oh...lemmie guess...white, anglo-saxon protestant, straight (that means hetrosexual BTW), and REPUBLICAN. Everyone else can go to hell according to your lil' world view eh?
Have a sunshiny day, skippy!
Quatre Raberba Winner
(Libertarian)
Coming soon...I rip the Democrats!
------------------
"Omae o korusu..." - Heero Yuy
Handguns
I support a gun-free enviornment. This won't be accomplished until the black market in guns is abolished, and we get the guns out of the hands of criminals. It will be done.
See, it all depends on how you interpret the right to own guns. When the Second Ammendment was written, the U.S. did not have a regular standing military as we do today (there are many arguments that our current military is, in fact, un-Constitutional in and of itself).
There are no restrictions in Maryland regarding ownerships of Maryland ... obviously, it's illegal to own an M-16 or an MP-5 or those sorts ... I've got friends who own CAR-15s for Chrissake! The restrictions in Md. are on carrying -- in other words, if you're not in the military or a police officer, it is illegal to carry on your person a handgun. If you're traveling to the shooting range, the gun must be in the trunk or storage area, and any and all ammunition must be locked in the glove box.
You know, I've WALKED around Baltimore at night, on the way to bars, etcetra. I'm not talking about Federal Hill or Fells Point, but some rather dangerous areas of the city. In dark. Baltimore's a dangerous city -- Clancy's descriptions in Without Remorse are rather accurate. The drug trade thrives here, despite the BPD's best efforts otherwise. Baltimore ranks 3rd in the nation for homicides. Yet, I feel no reason to carry a gun for my own safety. I'm a fairly big guy, I work out, people leave me alone. I don't carry very much money on me, and I don't dress "rich" when I'm in Baltimore, therefore not drawing attention to myself. My Jeep is usually rather battered and dirty, so people don't feel the need to acquire a "new" vehicle by robbing me. I'm getting rather off tack here.
I also deliver pizzas for a living. Two years ago, when I started working at Domino's in Columbia, two Papa Johns drivers were robbed at a delivery. One was shot through the jaw (she survived). You know what? Even then I didn't feel the need to carry a gun -- why? Because if you're a cautious driver (utilizing call-backs and the like), then you've no need to fear robbers. Cut back on the amount of money you carry on you (I never carry more than $20 as a bank, for example).
Right. Off the point again -- I'm a bit of a windbag, can you tell?
What studies show guns prevent crimes? You once quoted a number of 2,000,000, Omega, which you said was backed up by the FBI, yet a link you provided actually said the number was 80,000, so I doubt those studies you place so much faith in.
And kindly tell me what is so wrong with requiring people to at least know how to use a firearm before they can buy one? Or be in the correct state of mind to own one? For some reasons, the NRA freaks out about this stuff ("WHAT? They want to limit us to 30-round clips? Dammit, we need FIFTY round clips!").
Frankly, if you can't hit a guy with TEN rounds much less THIRTY, you shouldn't own a gun in the first place, but ...
Church and State
The church can be a great thing. It can also be a very BAAAAD thing. I grew up with prayer in school, but I went to St. John the Baptist School in Silver Spring for grades 1-6. It was nice, but I liked public school better. I don't think kids should be forced to say the Lord's Prayer every morning at 7:30, especially if some kids aren't Christian.
Now, on the other hand, arguing for a moment of silence is something completely different. But not prayer. It's forcing one's beliefs on those of different religions, and is therefore, very much un-Constitutional. Unless of course, you believe that America should be a Christian nation?
China
I didn't say they had good reasons for executing 2,000 people. Well, I take that back. I'm sure they had very good reasons to do so. Same way Fidel would have a good reason to order an execution of someone speaking against him.
You have beliefs on what is right and wrong? How would they apply to the situation described? Is the outcome of said application acceptable to you?
You know, I remember reading once in a newspaper where a cop shot and killed a teenager to prevent said teenager from shooting himself in the head ...
Suicide is sad. It's sad that people choose to take their own lives. It's sad that people can't look around them, and see how wonderful the world is, and to reach out and grasp it and laugh as loud as you can. There's nothing better than shifting into 5th gear as I race down Route 50 towards Ocean City, with the top down, and a gorgeous girl in the passenger seat, and the music blaring. Nothing better than laughing with a girl or some friends at a pool table as we drink beer and laugh away the stress of life. Nothing better then curling up in front of a fire with a good movie on the television as it snows outside, and your cats curled up on the couch next to you as content as ever.
I can't even begin to put myself in a situation where I would even consider suicide. Omega, I can't answer that question, I just can't. It's not that I haven't tried, I have ... but I can't. I can't place myself in that situation, so I won't judge him. I'm sorry, but that's an un-answerable question.
And what DOES this have to do with abortion?
Republican Lies
Considering its what he WON on ...
READ MY LIPS, NO NEW TAXES!
And of course, what Quatre said above.
Please somehow distinguish your remarks from others that you're quoting. It's a pain in the ass to have to read through the whole reply, trying to figure out what someone else wrote and you're quoting and what you're replying too, thank you
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 7.5 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
Shop Smart -- Shop "S"-Mart
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited December 11, 2000).]
Because it's her body, not mine and ultimatly she's gonna have to be the one who gets to live with the fact that she killed her kid.
Could not the same thing be said for, say, the so-called "Christian Scientists?" The parents are the ones that will have to live with the fact that they killed their kid, after all.
And who asked anything about the mother's body? We're talking about the unborn child, not the mother.
IF I had the time and IF I had the resources of the AMA, Library of Congress, and all that rot and interested in drawing up what could possibly a million page report, well I would. Then i'd make you eat it.
So you don't know enough about these programs to give me an analysis, and yet you know the results anyway?
Because he did [use drugs].
Would this not qualify as circular reasoning? "I believe he used drugs because I believe he used drugs."
Find me one country on that planet that HASN'T killed thousands of people.
Is there not a difference between someone who formerly ruled a country a centruy or two back, and someone who actively rules a country? It's not the country China I have a problem with. It's the dictator, Jiang Zamen.
Siamese Twins have nothing, nada, zip, ziltch to do with abortion.
I would disagree. It is an analogous situation, in that it is two beings living in symbiosis. What affects one nesecarily affects the other. Does one Siamese twin have the right to decide for BOTH to die, unilaterally? Does a mother have the right to end her child's life, again, unilaterally? Seems like an analogous situation to me.
Trickle Down Economics (Which was directly CAUSAL to two economic recessions)
I'd love to see how you figure that one. Last I checked, we've only had one major recession since the Reagan tax cut, and that was because of a tax INCREASE.
As for the rest, where's your evidence? In fact, what are you refering to, for some? Your posts seem to be rather disjointed at times.
Define life, bucko.
As death is clinically defined as the absence of a detectable brain wave, life would be defined as the presence of such. A brain wave can be detected at six weeks into the pregnancy.
JK:
I support a gun-free enviornment.
Why?
The restrictions in Md. are on carrying -- in other words, if you're not in the military or a police officer, it is illegal to carry on your person a handgun.
Would this not be a violation of your right to "bear arms?"
Yet, I feel no reason to carry a gun for my own safety. I'm a fairly big guy, I work out, people leave me alone.
Well, if you suddenly disappear from the forums, we'll know what happened, won't we? You think someone with a gun is going to care that your big and work out? Muscle don't stop bullets, mano.
What studies show guns prevent crimes?
"More Guns, Less Crime." By John Lott, IIRC. Available in your local public library.
And kindly tell me what is so wrong with requiring people to at least know how to use a firearm before they can buy one?
Um... that the government was never given the right to do this? What's to prevent the government from upping the standards to an impossible level? There are people that want to ban guns completely (Rosie O'Donnel, anyone?). This would be a simple way to do it. Why should the government have the power to determine whether you can defend yourself or not?
I don't think kids should be forced to say the Lord's Prayer every morning at 7:30, especially if some kids aren't Christian.
Agreed.
But not prayer. It's forcing one's beliefs on those of different religions, and is therefore, very much un-Constitutional.
How exactly does praying around someone force beliefs on them? That's like saying I'm forcing my opinion on you, by telling you what it is. It's not possible to force beliefs or opinions on anyone. Certainly not by speech.
I didn't say they had good reasons for executing 2,000 people.
Nor did I say you did.
And what DOES [suicide] have to do with abortion?
The question you were asked to answer was: "What if one Siamese twin decided to commit suicide, an act which would nearly inevitably lead to the death of the other? How would your beliefs regarding one's right to one's body apply in this situation?"
Oh, and BTW, breaking one's word is a seperate action from premeditated deception. Yeah, he was wrong, not to mention stupid, to trust the DNP congress to cut spending in exchange for a tax increase, and he paid for it with a recession and his second term. But it wasn't a lie. He did not intend to deceive the people of the country.
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
I forget, what's that definition of the word 'is' again?
------------------
"I finally see that what we thought was a fun way to celebrate our love was really an expression of hostility and disrespect toward Jesus."
--
Bill Metz, in The Onion
****
Read chapter TWO of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! Now with 30% more plot.
Okay...
10) What is your response to the accusation that the DNP ignores the constitution wherever it proves inconvenient, given the list of events at the top of the page?
"The support of the Fairness Doctrine"
This is a bad thing?
"The support of banning firearms"
Since when did banning bullets that can tear through kevlar vests become a bad thing? To say NOTHING of high-number round clips.
"The support of banning school prayer"
I have NEVER heard a Democrat say that.
"The support of Bill Clinton, a man who commited a crime and thus, according to the constitution, should have been removed from office"
What crime would that be? Sex with an intern? Yes, Billy-boy deserved to get smacked down for that one. But I never saw any proof that he committed a crime. And while we're on the issue of supporting politicians who've diddled their secretaries/inters whatever - does the name Bob Packwood ring a bell? And to say nothing of the fact Newt Gingrich was divorcing his infirm wife who was in the hospital undergoing cancer treatments while he was fucking HIS secretary. If you're gonna say Clinton should be reoved from office on that account, then you'll have to toss out damn near everyone Congressman too.
"The DNP inniated attempt in the Senate to dictate what isles food products would be placed in in
supermarkets"
Huh? As if they could.
"90% of the programs that FDR implemented"
Some of which YOU will be the recipent of when you get elderly. Historical Fact - said programmes was instituted during the Depression and helped create some of this country's historical landsites/monument.
"The existance of the FCC"
The FCC regulates frequencies for TV, radio, other electronic media. How is the FCC a bad thing?
"The abduction of Elian Gonzales from his court-appointed guardians"
Oh this is RICH. For start...Elian was removed from Cuba by his mother after his parents divorced. The crazy bitch then took herself, him and a few other people and headed for the Florida Keys in a makeshift raft where during the fall/winter season can be some UGLY seas. SHE put her child in dire risk from being killed on said ill-fated journey. His father had LEGAL CUSTODY of his son in the first place. Not the so-call court appointed guardians. THEY were the ones who polticized this whole matter, forcing the "Midnight Raid" just because this country and half of Miami Florida is still pissed off at Fidel Castro. So you would rather keep the kid from his father just because you're pissed at Cuba?
On a side note - the majority of the Cubans who are plucked from the waters off the Keys are generally processed and shipped back to Fidel. But yet NOBODY in the Cuban-American community protests much over this. Not at the same level they did over Elian. Another side note - I also suspect if Elian was black and maybe a Haitian orphan with HIV, he'd be shipped back REALLY fast and the whole incident would be on the back page of the Miami Hearald.
But I digress...
The whole Elian case was a tragedy. Not just for Florida but for us all because I think the time that came for real rapproachment between the US and Cuba came and went and all we did was hurl insults at each other.
Here's another lil' factoid - Technically, it is illegal for any US citizen to travel directly to Cuba. It's one of the provo's in the HIGHLY IMMORAL Helms/Burton Law which also denies any kind aid except in the most extreme emergencies to Cuba. So, there you have a case where not only is US Law is killing children in other countries, but it was also penned and signed by our lovely Republican brothers in Congress.
This clear anything up for you?
Quatre.
------------------
"Omae o korusu..." - Heero Yuy
"Could not the same thing be said for, say, the so-called "Christian Scientists?" The parents are the ones that will have to live with the fact that they killed their kid, after all."
It could. If your kid gets ill and you deliberatly let the kid die while you're busy praying over him/her, then yep, that's murder.
"So you don't know enough about these programs to give me an analysis, and yet you know the results anyway?"
Well, you seem to know that if the Republicans got their way, everything would be skittles and care bears in the country. And just for the record, I don't support every Democrat project that comes down the pike. There have been some that was incrediably ill-concieved.
Would this not qualify as circular reasoning? "I believe he used drugs because I believe he used drugs."
Evidentially you missed him saying that he was involved in a "youthful indiscression". (Which is EXACTLY what he said.) Or maybe you just blotted it out of your mind.
------------------
"Omae o korusu..." - Heero Yuy
And you know this how?
------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns
Back to the subject...
"Is there not a difference between someone who formerly ruled a country a centruy or two back, and someone who actively rules a country? It's not the country China I have a problem with. It's the dictator, Jiang Zamen."
Who happens to be the duly appointed leader of China. Live with it.
"I would disagree. It is an analogous situation, in that it is two beings living in symbiosis. What affects one nesecarily affects the other. Does one Siamese twin have the right to decide for BOTH to die, unilaterally? Does a mother have the right to end her child's life, again, unilaterally? Seems like an analogous situation to me."
So why the hell did you bring up the issue of Siameese twins if it had no bearing?
"I'd love to see how you figure that one. Last I checked, we've only had one major recession since the Reagan tax cut, and that was because of a tax INCREASE."
Wrong! There was one during Reagan's second term and then there was one during George Bush's term.
"As for the rest, where's your evidence? In fact, what are you refering to, for some? Your posts seem to be rather disjointed at times."
My evidence is from experience and from various Governmental sources online. (SELF-CENSEORS snappy comeback about how Omega needs to get his head out of his arse and laid more often for implying that i'm an idiot)
"As death is clinically defined as the absence of a detectable brain wave, life would be defined as the presence of such. A brain wave can be detected at six weeks into the pregnancy."
So? I challenge ALL conservatives here to tell me that while abortion may be bad, state executions aren't. If you're going to have respect for preborn life...why not all life? Even if it is the life of a mass-murderer. You can't it both ways y'know...
------------------
"Omae o korusu..." - Heero Yuy
You neglect to mention the fact that the unborn child is scientifically unconscious (as opposed to spiritually), while the other Siamese Twin CAN make conscious decisions. You neglect the fact that whatever happens to push one twin to the edge, must also happen to the other twin as well. Since the twins are connected physically and mentally, how are you to know the other twin couldn't consent to the suicide? Analogous situations? You're way off.
------------------
"Solipsism, like other absurdities of the professional philosopher, is a product of too much time wasted in library stacks between the covers of a book, in smoke-filled coffeehouses (bad for the brains) and conversation-clogged seminars. To refute the solipsist or the metaphysical idealist all that you have to do is take him out and throw a rock at his head: if he ducks he's a liar."
--Edward Abbey
Why exactly is a gun-free enviornment a bad thing? Is it because someone else might have a gun and shoot you? Oh, right, gun free enviornment, NO ONE has any guns. Unless you're afraid of the US being invaded, in which case, we'd need guns to fight off enemy troops, right? Which country would invade us, exactly? Canada? Mexico? And do you conveniently forget our military? Or is that what you're afraid of? The United States military coming out and getting you? And why even worry about that? In the end, even the vaunted and feared soldiers of the Soviet Union turned against the generals leading them into a coup and listened to the impassioned words of one Boris Yeltsin, so why would soldiers of the good ole' U.S. of A be any different if ordered into such actions?
And kindly do explain why you need a 30-round clip and kelvar-piercing (aka, cop killing) bullets to defend yourself? It's not like a CAR-15 conceals under your jacket very well, you know? Now, an MP-5, with a collapseable stock, yes, but ... darn ... that's only for police and military use. Good thing, too, its the prefered weapon of terrorists, did you know? Hey, who can blame 'em? Collapseable stock, they come in 10 milimeter firing capacity, silencers ...
I don't fear walking around Baltimore at night. Why should I? Believe it or not, if you get mugged, the guy isn't going to pop you. He just wants your money, and then he'll be gone. I had a guy mug me once. He got the gun out and in my face and then realized the building I had just walked out of was the Baltimore County Police Headquarters in lovely central Towson, Maryland. Suffice to say, yes, it was scary (and I got SOOOO drunk that night), but it was strangely satisfying watch himself pee his pants as about ten cops drew on him. Talk to any cop, Omega. Cooperate, the robber'll leave you alone. Give him your money, and you'll be fine. It's not worth losing your life (or taking his) over a $20 bill. Have you ever killed anyone, Omega? Well, I haven't, but my grandfather has -- over in World War II. Nazis. Worst of the worst. Wanna know something? He still has nightmares about it, every now and then ... not so much anymore. He told me he can see every one of their faces on those nights. Those were Nazis ... how would he feel if he gunned down some poor man who turned to a life of crime through an environment not his fault?
Forgive me for the run-on paragraphs, I just came from "Dungeons & Dragons" and it was the worst movie I've ever seen in my whole life -- "Speed 2" was better than this, and that's saying a lot ... part of that may be because I never played "D&D", so nobody take offense and goddammit, I'm doing it again...
John Lott, now there's a reliable source. If I gave a resource as being a speech or report or book by FDR, or Hilary Clinton, you'd shoot it down in a minute, but you expect others to accept a book by John Lott as a reference? Come on ...
Me: I don't think kids should be forced to say the Lord's Prayer every morning at 7:30, especially if some kids aren't Christian
Omega: Agreed
Me: But not prayer. It's forcing one's beliefs on those of different religions, and is therefore, very much un-Constitutional.
Omega: How exactly does praying around someone force beliefs on them? That's like saying I'm forcing my opinion on you, by telling you what it is. It's not possible to force beliefs or opinions on anyone. Certainly not be speech
Is that so, Omega? Where do you get your beliefs from? Your parents? How do they communicate with you? By ... speech, right?
The above statement proves what a ... (ad-hominem self-censored) you are. Kids are impressionable, do you not know that?
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 7.5 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
Shop Smart -- Shop "S"-Mart
Isn't Omega also FOR expanding the military? Is that a paradox or what?
------------------
"Solipsism, like other absurdities of the professional philosopher, is a product of too much time wasted in library stacks between the covers of a book, in smoke-filled coffeehouses (bad for the brains) and conversation-clogged seminars. To refute the solipsist or the metaphysical idealist all that you have to do is take him out and throw a rock at his head: if he ducks he's a liar."
--Edward Abbey
Guess what. NOTHING HAPPENED!
Or did it? (Muwahahahahahaahahahah!)
Pfft. What a twat. I refuse to debate this subject or any other one with him anymore.
Quatre.
------------------
"Omae o korusu..." - Heero Yuy
Yeah, Omega, why do you want a stronger military if you're afraid of it so much?
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 7.5 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
Shop Smart -- Shop "S"-Mart
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited December 12, 2000).]
However, even I, tortured, twisted, morose little cynic that I am; even I must confess that I am uncomfortable with he himself becoming the focus of this thread or those like it. I think his ideas are largely the product of misinformation. But that doesn't preclude him from being an OK fellow when the rifles are safely stowed away and the topic drifts off the subject of killings and stones and eyes for eyes and onto nice things like clouds and starships and magazines.
------------------
"I finally see that what we thought was a fun way to celebrate our love was really an expression of hostility and disrespect toward Jesus."
--
Bill Metz, in The Onion
****
Read chapter TWO of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! Now with 30% more plot.
Jordan:
"The support of the Fairness Doctrine
This is a bad thing?"
We're not discussing the merits of the program. We're discussing the constitutionality. I can guarentee you that you can't find a sentence anywhere in the constitution that authorizes the existence of the 'Fairness Doctrine,' and as it's the government regulating what you can and can't do with your private property, it is therefore unconstitutional.
"Since when did banning bullets that can tear through kevlar vests become a bad thing?"
Oh, yes, the so-called "cop-killer" bullets, that have never been used to kill a law enforcement officer, ever, anywhere.
"Bill Clinton, a man who commited a crime and thus, according to the constitution, should have been removed from office
What crime would that be? Sex with an intern?"
Oh, you're one of the ones that never got it. Listen to me very carefully: IT WASN'T ABOUT SEX. It was about perjury, which, last I checked, was a crime.
"The DNP inniated attempt in the Senate to dictate what isles food products would be placed in in
supermarkets
Huh? As if they could."
Whether they could or not is irrelevant. They tried, and as the law would have been unconstitutional, this would show that they have no regard for said document.
"90% of the programs that FDR implemented
Some of which YOU will be the recipent of when you get elderly."
This is relevant to their constitutionality how?
"The FCC regulates frequencies for TV, radio, other electronic media. How is the FCC a bad thing?"
Again, not discussing their merits. Only their constittionality.
re: Elian
Law enforcement officers entered a family's home without their permission, without ID'ing themselves, and without a valid warrant. They abducted a child from his legally appointed guardians, after they had specifically been told they could not do so, BY A COURT. They broke the law. Period.
"It could. If your kid gets ill and you deliberatly let the kid die while you're busy praying over him/her, then yep, that's murder."
So it's murder to let your child die, but it's not to actively kill him/her?
"Well, you seem to know that if the Republicans got their way, everything would be skittles and care bears in the country."
Did I say that?
"Would this not qualify as circular reasoning? "I believe he used drugs because I believe he used drugs."
Evidentially you missed him saying that he was involved in a "youthful indiscression"."
This has what to do with drugs? He could easily have been refering to his DUI, or the time he stole a Christmas wreath as a college prank. You make unwarranted assumptions.
"It's not the country China I have a problem with. It's the dictator, Jiang Zamen.
Who happens to be the duly appointed leader of China."
Funny, last I checked, they weren't a democracy. Would you say that Sadaam Housein was the duly appointed leader of Iraq? They "appointed" themselves.
"I would disagree. It is an analogous situation, in that it is two beings living in symbiosis. What affects one nesecarily affects the other. Does one Siamese twin have the right to decide for BOTH to die, unilaterally? Does a mother have the right to end her child's life, again, unilaterally? Seems like an analogous situation to me.[/i]
So why the hell did you bring up the issue of Siameese twins if it had no bearing?"
Did you even read what you just quoted me as saying?
"I challenge ALL conservatives here to tell me that while abortion may be bad, state executions aren't."
Because abortion ends an innocent life, whereas execution ends an incredibly guilty one.
Tora:
"You neglect the fact that whatever happens to push one twin to the edge, must also happen to the other twin as well."
What if one twin was born with some brain damage or something like that that lead him to be clinically depressed? What if one had a GF that left him? Siamese twins are, in fact, two different people, you know. Your statement does not apply.
JK:
"And do you conveniently forget our military? Or is that what you're afraid of?"
Can you honestly say that you trust EVERY politician and EVERY general and EVERY soldier, beyond a shadow of a doubt, not to try and take your freedom away? I didn't think so.
"Oh, right, gun free enviornment, NO ONE has any guns."
And just how do you suggest we create this Utopia? It's like communism. It's a dream that can never happen.
"Believe it or not, if you get mugged, the guy isn't going to pop you. He just wants your money, and then he'll be gone."
You're quite naive. I've read stories of pizza delivery guys (and, hey, isn't that your occupation?) going out to deliver a pizza. The one I'm specifically thinking of was robbed, then told to lie face-down in the ditch and count to 100. He got to about seven before they blew the back of his head off. He barely survived.
Just want your money, eh? Criminals also typically don't like witnesses.
"John Lott, now there's a reliable source. If I gave a resource as being a speech or report or book by FDR, or Hilary Clinton, you'd shoot it down in a minute, but you expect others to accept a book by John Lott as a reference? Come on ..."
Uh, Jeff... go look up the first name of the Senate majority leader, wudja? It might clear up some of your misunderstanding if you were better informed and didn't jump to conclusions so often.
Oh, and just so you know, I'd shoot anything those two said that I diasgreed with down on the lack of merit of their argument. This is opposed to you, who are reduced to attacking a person who, due to your own ignorance, you believe to be the source, even though you've never seen the information for yourself.
"Is that so, Omega? Where do you get your beliefs from? Your parents? How do they communicate with you? By ... speech, right?"
Oh, yes, my parents forced their beliefs on me. I feel so violated.
*/Sarcasm*
My parents forced nothing on me. It's MY belief. You can't force anyone to believe anything.
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
[This message has been edited by Omega (edited December 12, 2000).]
Considering they should have know that the country would grow in size, with all the land being explored, and all the room for population growth.
I am sure that if we really dug in deep, we would find that several things we take for granted here in the lovely US of A that are unConstitutional, since the are not written in said document.
Speed limits are probably unConstitutional.
The segragation of smokers and non-smokers in restaurants is probably unConstitutional.
You say?
------------------
Well, it's done, yes, the deed is done.
Of course they gave it the ability to adapt. That's why they put in the thing about ammendments. Article IV, IIRC.
"Speed limits are probably unConstitutional."
How do you figure? The tenth ammendment states that all powers not granted by the constitution to the federal government, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or people. This means that unless the constitution specifically gives the federal government the power to do something, or disallows the states from doing it, then the states can do it, subject to their own constitutions and laws.
Thus, states and municipalities can apply speed limits, and owners of private restaraunts can segregate their customers however they darned well please.
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
Now somebody brough up the bit about why does snybody need high-end weaponry.
That's a good question, which I'll attempt to answer.
#1. The bad guys already have the stuff, and since its easy for them (especially the drug traffickers) to import, they don't have to worry about getting US-made stuff. In fact, now, they can buy it as old USSR surplus.
#2. It's not just the scumbag down the street you have to worry about. Despite our American 'but -we're- civilized, that could never happen here' mentality, some of us still believe -- with some reason, that we can't always put all our trust in the people who are supposed to be running things. Hell, it wasn't bandits that the Founders fought against, it was, as some would put it today, 'their legitimate government.'
Some of this has been borne out in recent actions. Note the rampant police corruption coming to light in Los Angeles. It's not so much the robbers in their neighborhood they worry about as it is the robbers among our legislature.
#3. Just in case the Fundies, or any other fanatical group at ANY end of the political spectrum, DO actually someday manage to wrest power by 'fooling most of the people some of the time,' I want my stand against them to mean something, and a guy with heavy weaponry can go out in a bigger blaze of glory than a rock-chucker.
((Edit: You know, that's funny. I sound like a Fundie up until point #3. Maybe I should tone down the rhetoric a little. ))
------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master
[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited December 12, 2000).]
First: Yep, you're right.
------------------
Well, it's done, yes, the deed is done.
Which would be a clear violation of the FIRST Amendment.
------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master
"You keep saying it's not in the Constitution, as such, but neither are the things I have brought up."
Did you even look up the tenth ammendment? Yes, you're right, the FEDERAL government can't establish speed limits or segregate restaraunts. But it is stated that, unless it's specifically forbidden, which it isn't, the people and the states CAN.
The constitution is only the end-all be-all when it comes to the federal government.
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
Could someone verify this? I am under the impression that whoever initiated the raid HAD a warrant to take Elian into Custody. And was it the Guardians who were defiant and breaking the laws by not honouring the warrant?
Warrant or not, the actions undertaken by the INS to take Elian were not in the best interests of everyone involved. And Warrant or not, Elian's father is the one who should have full custody of Elian. The relatives were appointed legal guardians under the impression that the Father does not live in the country. I believe that the relatives should not have been appointed legal guardians in this case. So what happens if the Father was Canadian in this case?
And so we have a "reverse Elian" case going on in Cuba. I'm betting that Cuba will be happy to turn over the young child back to who should have primary custody, in this case, the father.
------------------
"My Name is Elmer Fudd, Millionaire. I own a Mansion and a Yacht."
Psychiatrist: "Again."
[This message has been edited by Tahna Los (edited December 12, 2000).]
Get a clue, brainstem.
Quatre.
------------------
"Omae o korusu..." - Heero Yuy
I know you want to beat him at this, but the best way to do it would be at his game.
------------------
"My Name is Elmer Fudd, Millionaire. I own a Mansion and a Yacht."
Psychiatrist: "Again."
[This message has been edited by Tahna Los (edited December 12, 2000).]
No, they didn't. They had a SEARCH warrant, which would not be valid for abducting person. Even an arrest warrant wouldn't be, since Elian was not accused of commiting a crime. A court order was what was needed.
What's more, they waited until after the judge familiar with the case was off duty, and went to a magistrate to get the warrant. And they lied to him, saying that Elian was an alien, and that they didn't know where he was.
The warrant was not valid.
"And Warrant or not, Elian's father is the one who should have full custody of Elian."
This is irrelevant to the question at hand. The question was whether the abduction was legal. The answer is, as shown above, "no."
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
You're quite naive. I've read stories of pizza delivery guys (and, hey, isn't that your occupation?) going out to deliver a pizza. The one I'm specifically thinking of was robbed, then told to lie face-down in the ditch and count to 100. He got to about seven before they blew the back of his head off. He barely survived.
If I'm naive, I guess that makes you a monkey's ass, huh? How would have a gun improved the delivery driver's chances for life? A pizza is big, Omega. It's not as easy to toss it aside and draw a weapon as it might seem, especially is said weapon is tucked into a jacket or the like (as it would have to be, as no reputable delivery business would allow their drivers to carry a weapon, so the driver would have to have it hidden pretty well to carry it at all).
I own a Glock 17. Don't ask me why I bought it, I did so when I turned 21. Guess I felt it was a "rite of passage" or some stupid shit like that. Even if I was to carry it on a delivery, there would be no point. It would be tucked into my waistband with a shirt and a sweatshirt (and possible, a jacket) covering it, I wouldn't be able to get to it. It's spent the last year and couple of months abandoned in my dresser drawer, because I've no need for the dammed thing.
Needless to say, this was back when I thought everyone carrying a weapon and the death penalty were good ideas. I no longer think that way, and I don't think I've even so much looked at the gun in well over a year
The person at fault for this was the driver for not utilizing very basic safety precautions -- a call back at the house, etcetra. I've made deliveries, pulled up in front of wherever it was I was supposed to go, and drove away because something didn't look or feel right about it.
And, gee, for every story you can tell me about a pizza guy getting shot, I can tell you about a hundred of the robber coming up, getting cash and the pizza, and running off (or I could tell you about Mo Ahmed -- guy tried to rob him with a knife, and Mo broke the guy's arm and nose). And despite what some people make it out to be, pizza robberies are very rare. There hasn't been one in the area I work in for about three years now. Now, the Highs and 7-11s on the other hand ...
And just how do you suggest we create this Utopia? It's like communism. It's a dream that can never happen
So you do believe Communism to be Utopia and therefore the perfect society? If so, why are you a Republican?
The DNP inniated attempt in the Senate to dictate what isles food products would be placed in supermarkets
Now, see, you know you're paranoid when you're worried about what aisle the milk and candy is in ...
How the hell is asking that bread be in aisle five across the country unconstitutional?
and owners of private resteraunts can segregate thier customers however they darned please
They most certainly can not. Discrimination by race, gender, or age is very much unconstitutional and illegal.
Oh, you're one of the ones that never got it. Listen to me very carefully: IT WASN'T ABOUT SEX. It was about perjury, which, last I checked, was a crime.
Yes, and there was a trial, Omega. It was called an "impeachment" ... yes? And ... gasp! Wasn't he found not guilty? Yet, you still say he was guilty! But wait, he was found not guilty ... he certainly wasn't proved not-innocent, unless you've forgotten the whole "innocent until proved guilty" ... or maybe you're really a judge?
Kelvar rounds
Police officers seem rather upset about "cop-killing" rounds. Why do you support the existance of weapons which could kill a police officer?
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 7.5 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
Shop Smart -- Shop "S"-Mart
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited December 12, 2000).]
(For the two people who might actually get that.)
------------------
"I finally see that what we thought was a fun way to celebrate our love was really an expression of hostility and disrespect toward Jesus."
--
Bill Metz, in The Onion
****
Read chapter TWO of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! Now with 30% more plot.
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 7.5 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
Shop Smart -- Shop "S"-Mart
Not that I've ever seen the other kind, either.
Come to think of it, I don't believe in pizza delivery at all.
------------------
"I finally see that what we thought was a fun way to celebrate our love was really an expression of hostility and disrespect toward Jesus."
--
Bill Metz, in The Onion
****
Read chapter TWO of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! Now with 30% more plot.
Er, the girls, I mean. Well, pizza delivery too, but the girls as well. Although they're rare.
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 7.5 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
Shop Smart -- Shop "S"-Mart
"So you do believe Communism to be Utopia and therefore the perfect society? If so, why are you a Republican?"
You might be interested to know that "Utopia" means "nowhere." Meaning, yeah, it's the perfect theoretical society, but it CAN'T EXIST. I'm a realist.
re: Pizza and guns
"Even if I was to carry it on a delivery, there would be no point. It would be tucked into my waistband with a shirt and a sweatshirt (and possible, a jacket) covering it, I wouldn't be able to get to it."
Well, DUH! If you were dumb enough to keep a gun in a place like that, of course it's not going to do any good. That's why we have holsters.
Now who was it around here that was a pizza delivery dude, besides you? Whomever it was, he told about how casually displaying his gun to a group of thugs caused them to back off. He also talked about how when the chain he worked for had the policy you claim everyone has (BTW, they don't), robberies were relatively rampant. However, when the company announced that they were changing their policy, and that drivers would be allowed to carry guns, robberies nearly stopped. Now who was that? First?
"Now, see, you know you're paranoid when you're worried about what aisle the milk and candy is in ..."
So you think it's OK for the government to start making irrelevant laws that they have no business making? What if they made a law saying that you couldn't put a TV and a computer in the same room? Or governing the organization of your pantry? It's the same principle, isn't it? I mean, it doesn't REALLY matter, does it?
Oh, and BTW, your sentence made no grammatical sense. I simply replied to what you, as any other liberal, would say.
"How the hell is asking that bread be in aisle five across the country unconstitutional?"
Again, look up the tenth ammendment.
"Discrimination by race, gender, or age is very much unconstitutional and illegal."
Show me the clause in the constitution that says that business owners can't discriminate. 'Cause unless specifically stated otherwise, the ninth ammendment says they can. Have you ever even read the document of which you speak?
"Why do you support the existance of weapons which could kill a police officer?"
Who said I did? BTW, last I checked, most bullets can kill police officers. It's not like kryptonite is required.
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
Domino's Pizza, Papa John's Pizza, and Pizza Hutt, do not allow drivers to carry weapons of any kind. Knives, guns, etcetra. I don't know what chain this person worked for, but it sounds like a mom-n'-pop operation or possible a franchise.
I couldn't wear a holster, you dolt. First, its illegal to carry the gun in the first place, and second, if anyone I worked with same me with it I'd be fired. Not to mention it would be hard to conceal effectively.
I don't know where this person worked, but if you work in a dangerous area delivering pizzas, you take those chances. Carrying a gun isn't going to do anything but get yourself killed when you try and draw it on the robber (who more than likely just wants your money and maybe the pizza).
Most reputable chains only allow their drivers to carry no more than a $20 bank on them at any time (and they advertise this fact -- Domino's goes so far as to do so on its uniforms). I've seen drivers from Bruce Lee's Chinese bring out WADS of twenties and tens to give me change ... they make themselves a target, not the Papa Johns guy who has trouble breaking a $20 on a $10.49 order and walks away with the pizza when some asshole tries to give me a $50 expecting that we've got $35 in change for him.
Robbing a pizza guy (or gal) isn't a spur of the moment thing. It can be frustrating to be waiting outside an apartment complex for a pizza guy (or gal) in the hope that they'll show up -- they're usually setups, where someone who has ordered before (or worked for the company), calls in an order and waits in ambush. This is why simple precautions like asking customers to light up their doorway, and using call-backs (gotta love cell phones) keep the dangers down. So does carrying money. Any robber in this area will go after the mom n' pop drivers, because they carry a shit load more money than the "big" chain drivers, but they don't make a secret of it.
I was an Assistant Manager for Domino's Pizza for a year and a half, in Columbia, Md and then Cockeysville. I worked thirty to forty hours a week, and do you know how many robberies happened when I was working? None. And I mean, nowhere. Not from Papa Johns, or Pizza Hutt, and not just in our delivery areas, but in the surrounding ones. Pizza Boli, Waterloo Pizza, they had some problems, and the cops looked into it. They put some people in undercover with all the big chains after two Waterloo guys got robbed two nights in a row (they didn't catch the guy), but the criminals usually don't go after the big chains because the big chains are smarter about the whole thing.
Trust me, if I worked with people who flashed $50 and $20 bills routinely while delivering pizzas, I'd be carrying the Glock (or at least considering it). Hell, there's more chance of someone walking into the store to rob it then getting me when I'm standing on Scott Adam Road knocking on a townhouse door.
This is something we discuss routinely at Papa Johns. I work with people who have been robbed. Most just handed over their money and pizza and the robbers raced off (I feel sorry for the guy who stole the triple-anchovie pizza, but oh well). But everyone at the store I work at is unanimous that there's no need.
It's all about prevention. And it works.
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 7.5 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
Shop Smart -- Shop "S"-Mart
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited December 12, 2000).]
quote:
JeffKardde said...
I don't know where this person worked, but if you work in a dangerous area delivering pizzas, you take those chances. Carrying a gun isn't going to do anything but get yourself killed when you try and draw it on the robber (who more than likely just wants your money and maybe the pizza).
Take chances? There is no reason for the delivery person to take any less chances of the people he/she is delivering pizzas to. I'll also argue that carrying a gun will certainly keep your chances from getting murdered better.
The criminal may just want the money, and even the pizza.... They still have the weapon and the capacity to harm you in most cases - Even if just to scare you or kill you destroying any identification they can be made on.
quote:
but the criminals usually don't go after the big chains because the big chains are smarter about the whole thing.
Tell that to the employees of the Canton, NC Pizza Hut who were robbed last month. Usually they don't correct, but they still know how to make a robbery... The criminal has not been found or identified yet because he was wearing a mask.
Being less than a mile away, don't think for a second I wasn't carrying my gun the rest of the night.
quote:
It's all about prevention. And it works.
Preventing what? Your not preventing robberies. Your not preventing the fact you can be killed for that money.
Responsible use and education of a firearm is not to be shamed. A gun may make it easy to kill someone, but it's a hell of a lot easier to purchase a knife and mutilate and in effect kill someone.
------------------
DEAverification :P
According to www.dictionary.com, "nothing" is nowhere listed as a definition. Kindly explain your source for that definition?
"An ideally perfect place, especially in its social, political, and moral aspects."
Of course, why would anyone want to live in Utopia when you can shoot people with CAR-15s?
Take chances? There is no reason for the delivery person to take any less chances of the people he/she is delivering pizzas to. I'll also argue that carrying a gun will certainly keep your chances from gewtting murdered better.
You mean the house you deliver to, the people will rob you? Yeah, that'd be real smart. Even if they were to kill you and bury you in the basement, the store would know the last address the driver was at, and would know something was wrong within twenty or thirty minutes after such a thing occured ("Hey, where's Tom? He was just going to Venture Court, wasn't he? Let me call his cell ..."). You'd have to be insane to rob a delivery driver at your own home.
The criminal may just want the money, and even the pizza ... They still have the weapon and the capacity to harm you in most cases - Even if just to scare you or kill you destroying any identification they can be made on.
Robberies of delivery drivers are non-existant during day hours. Most robbers (when they strike), prefer to do such things at night. Most deliveries are in residential areas, so doing it during the day would draw to much attention and possibly too many witnesses. Therefore, they rob at dark. And how many people fit the description of "maybe a 6 foot tall black male?" or "he was latino, I think, I couldn't see how high he was." It's not like we've got night-vision, people. Identification is going to be hard to make 'cuz we're never going to see them.
Tell that to the employees of the Canton, NC Pizza Hutt who were robbed last month. Usually they don't correct, but they still know how to make a robbery ... the criminal has not been found or identified yet because he was wearing a mask.
Now, did he walk into the store and rob it? Or did he rob several different drivers? If he walked into the store, well, it happens, to everyone. It seems everybody cooperated, and no one got hurt. Also, he wore a mask, wasn't identified, and didn't kill anyone, now did he?
Being less than a mile away, don't think for a second I wasn't carrying my gun the rest of the night?
Why would you? If he robbed a driver, it was more than likely a setup. He picked to rob a driver because he knew the guy would carry money. If he robbed the store, then the same thing. I doubt it was a spur of the moment robbery, and therefore, he wouldn't be out for some random guy walking around.
Preventing what? Your not preventing robberies. Your not preventing the fact you can be killed for that money
Shit, man, I could be killed for my money as I walk out my apartment door. It doesn't mean I feel the need to carry a gun. And yes, we are preventing robberies by taking precautions. We don't carry large amounts of money, doing that makes us non-desireable targets for a robber. We often call people's homes before we deliver to ensure that they are in fact home, and often, ask them to come to the door and watch us walk to the house and then back to the car. Etcetra, etcetra. I completely disagree with you on this point, but I suppose you feel the only precautions that should be taken are a 9mm round? Sorry, bud, I'm not going to kill someone over a few bucks and a pizza.
Responsible use and education of a firearm is not to be shamed. A gun may make it easy to kill someone, but it's a hell of a lot easier to purchase a knife and mutilate and in effect kill someone
I didn't say it was to be shamed. If anything, when people feel so scared where they live that they can't walk outside without a firearm, perhaps they should consider that fear, and move to a safer area? Just a thought.
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 7.5 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
Shop Smart -- Shop "S"-Mart
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited December 13, 2000).]
Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, pp. 1300
Let's see. Utopia apparently comes from the Greek words "ou," meaning "not," and "topos," meaning "place." 1: An imaginary and indefinitely remote place. You've already got the second definition. 3: an impractical scheme for social improvement.
Next time, do your own homework, eh?
Now what is it with liberals and letting criminals win? "If someone breaks into your house, you should make your family jump out the window until he leaves." "Just let him HAVE the money. Don't take any precautions that he won't kill you when he's done."
Stupidity.
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
------------------
"My Name is Elmer Fudd, Millionaire. I own a Mansion and a Yacht."
Psychiatrist: "Again."
I told the story of his successfully using the simple display (not even unholstering) of his weapon to discourage two potential criminals, during a delivery run to a particularly crime-ridden area. I used this as a single, personally-known example of the more than 2 million times that the display or use of firearms is successful in prefenting and/or stopping crimes each year, as reported by the FBI.
His pizza store did not ban the carrying of firearms by delivery people.
As to the idea that a criminal is somehow MORE likely to attack and kill a visibly armed person than an unarmed one... I'd have to swallow a lot of orange pills before I'd beleive THAT concept was remotely logical. TV may teach you that, but TV is full of crap, too.
>""If someone breaks into your house, you should make your family jump out the window until he leaves." "Just let him HAVE the money. Don't take any precautions that he won't kill you when he's done.""
I'm sorry, but that IS stupidity.
Therefore, while you may not yourself BE stupid, and nobody called you so, if you hold this belief, then you do indeed believe a stupid thing.
------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master
[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited December 13, 2000).]
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
Please Omega. Cut the Crap.
------------------
"My Name is Elmer Fudd, Millionaire. I own a Mansion and a Yacht."
Psychiatrist: "Again."
quote:
JeffKardde said... You mean the house you deliver to, the people will rob you? Yeah, that'd be real smart. You'd have to be insane to rob a delivery driver at your own home.
If you were confused by my post then I'll clarify... Taking chances for the delivery person going anywhere that the actual people receiving the pizza, may have firearms to protect their homes.
quote:
Robberies of delivery drivers are non-existent during day hours. Most robbers (when they strike), prefer to do such things at night. Most deliveries are in residential areas, so doing it during the day would draw to much attention and possibly too many witnesses. Therefore, they rob at dark. And how many people fit the description of "maybe a 6 foot tall black male?" or "he was latino, I think, I couldn't see how high he was." It's not like we've got night-vision, people. Identification is going to be hard to make 'cuz we're never going to see them.
I don't see the point your making since I was talking about evening hour robberies anyway. I also fail to see why your using minorities to back up your point. Either way there is no difference, if you have a face to describe, you have at least something to go on. Fact is though most criminals won'r be found in a night situation.
quote:
Now, did he walk into the store and rob it? Or did he rob several different drivers? If he walked into the store, well, it happens, to everyone. It seems everybody cooperated, and no one got hurt. Also, he wore a mask, wasn't identified, and didn't kill anyone, now did he?
A little of both actually. The criminal caught the delivery fellow going back into the closed restaurant after the final delivery - That's how he gained access.
No one got hurt, but they easily could have been with a criminal pointing a .357 at them the whole time. Many criminals would have shot them for being scared if they didn't actually have a mask to be cruel. Other criminals would have shot them to fell the power of a gun, or somesuch.
quote:
Why would you? If he robbed a driver, it was more than likely a setup. He picked to rob a driver because he knew the guy would carry money. If he robbed the store, then the same thing. I doubt it was a spur of the moment robbery, and therefore, he wouldn't be out for some random guy walking around.
I would because we close out business day at 10PM. That means we have a load of money in the safe. If a criminal wants that money, fine... He's not going to hurt me or any of my people to get it though.
quote:
Shit, man, I could be killed for my money as I walk out my apartment door. It doesn't mean I feel the need to carry a gun. And yes, we are preventing robberies by taking precautions. We don't carry large amounts of money, doing that makes us non-desireable targets for a robber. We often call people's homes before we deliver to ensure that they are in fact home, and often, ask them to come to the door and watch us walk to the house and then back to the car. Etcetra, etcetra. I completely disagree with you on this point, but I suppose you feel the only precautions that should be taken are a 9mm round? Sorry, bud, I'm not going to kill someone over a few bucks and a pizza.
To each there own. I personally wouldn't kill anyone for a pizza an $20 either. Like I said though, I'd rather have a chance in protecting my life.
I'm not talking about automatic weapons, or militia crap. If you ever had to really deal with someone threatening you with a knife though, I'd advise you to have a firearm for backup... Just in case?
quote:
I didn't say it was to be shamed.
No, but your entire argument is implying it.
quote:
If anything, when people feel so scared where they live that they can't walk outside without a firearm, perhaps they should consider that fear, and move to a safer area? Just a thought.
I actually live in a small town, and with little violence at all. I don't carry firearms because I'm scared, I carry them for personal protection - That being of myself, family and children.
This area is fairly safe because most of the citizens do own firearms. I would prefer my area where most people carrying guns are licensed to own them instead of the many places criminals can get them on the street.
------------------
This thing that we've made is fat and feeds on the hate of the millions that it's taught to sing its song...
DEAverification :P
I'm trying to sit on both sides of the fence here. Canada's new Gun Control Law is to come to effect Jan 1 of the new year, and already there are people who are intending to make a statement by not getting a firearms licence.
A firearms license I believe should be a must for anyone wanting to purchase a gun. I don't believe that there is anything wrong with getting a license, IMHO. As for registration, I'll have no further part in that conversation.
------------------
"My Name is Elmer Fudd, Millionaire. I own a Mansion and a Yacht."
Psychiatrist: "Again."
[This message has been edited by DEAvendetta (edited December 13, 2000).]
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
Or a planet-killer shows up.
------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master
Now what is it with liberals and letting criminals win? "If someone breaks into your house, you should make your family jump out the window until he leaves" "Just let him HAVE the money. Don't take any precautions that he won't kill you when he's done"
Gotta love the National Rifle Association, Omega.
Okay, here's what I don't get about being burglarized: a thief breaks in. You hear him, wake up, you get your gun. You call the police. If he comes near your bedroom or those of your children, then, yeah, I could see (or at least understand) your motivation in confronting him and possibly using deadly force. If he's just taking your TV out the front door (and leaving your family alone otherwise) why would you confront him? Let the police handle it. Are you really willing to kill someone over a TV set that could be easily replaced?
It's not about not taking precautions if you want to, its about letting the police do their jobs and not taking matters into your own hands. Certain people on this board seem to take life cheaply, including talking about shooting a mugger in the back when he's walking away after having robbed them. I couldn't take a life for a handful of money, and I certainly couldn't contemplate doing it unless I knew for certain my family was in danger. If the guy is in the living room ripping off my TV and EASILY REPLACED stuff, why entertain that possibility? Let the police do their jobs.
As to the idea that a criminal is somehow MORE likely to attack and kill a visibly armed person than an unarmed one ... I'd have to swallow a lot of orange pills before I'd believe THAT concept was remotely logical. TV may teach you that, but TV is full of crap, too.
I don't believe I ever said that.
You're apparently skipping over the fact that in Maryland, only police officers may carry a "visible" weapon. Military servicemen (and women) may carry concealed weapons with a permit. No one else may. Therefore, I couldn't carry a visible weapon, now could I?
of the more than 2 million times that the display or use of firearms is successful in preventing and/or stopping crimes each year
I've still yet to see that report. Omega posted a link once, which said that reports DRAWN from the UCR came to that conclusion, but that government reports (therefore, the FBI) themselves only put that number at 80,000.
I'm happy your brother wasn't robbed or worse.
Come on folks, don't you think if I thought I needed to carry a gun, I'd be doing so? Or at least bitching about not being able to do so? "Those Republicans have some backwards ideas, except when it comes to guns..." The biggest problem I have when it comes to delivery is the dumb-shits who think I like it when they give me a quarter as a tip and tell me not to spend it all in one place.
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 7.5 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
Shop Smart -- Shop "S"-Mart
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited December 13, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited December 13, 2000).]
And how do you suggest I do this, if I don't have a gun? And what if the criminal does? Frankly, I'd rather confront the criminal while he's occupied from across the room, instead of as he's entering my child's room from four feet. How 'bout you?
"Certain people on this board seem to take life cheaply, including talking about shooting a mugger in the back when he's walking away after having robbed them."
Who says anything about killing someone? Usually pointing a gun at someone is enough to get them to do what you want. You know, like wait for the police to show up?
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
The saying that if you face off with an armed criminal they are more likely to kill you is usually right. Anybody planing on doing any kind of activity like that will always take out the biggest threat first, gun, knife, bat, then any agitated person.
------------------
Well, it's done, yes, the deed is done.
I doubt you'll have a family of your own to defend before you turn 21, Omega, unless you've changed your mind about purchasing a firearm?
Frankly, I'd rather get my kid into my room and let the police handle it. Let's say you surprise the robber, who happens to be just a bit quicker than you expected, and he puts one into you. Now, you're dead, your kid is without a father, but hey, don't worry -- the cops'll still get the guy.
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 7.5 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
Shop Smart -- Shop "S"-Mart
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited December 13, 2000).]
And I would point out that you did not answer my question. As usual.
"Frankly, I'd rather get my kid into my room and let the police handle it."
And if the robber comes into your room? How fast do you think the police can get there? Fast enough to keep the robber from killing you and your family? Are you really willing to take that risk? If so, you don't deserve to have a family.
If given a choice between confronting and neutralizing a threat with a minor risk to your person, or cowering in your room hoping the police will make the bad man go away before he can kill you, would you honestly choose the second?
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
The guy walks into the room, yes, I'd take action. I wouldn't go hunting him down in the house. He could hear me coming and wait in ambush or any one of possible situations. He could have a partner with him, and while I cover him with my gun, his buddy shoots me. Did none of those occur to you?
Kindly explain why, as the gun-owner I'm sure you'll someday be, you wouldn't be content to stand guard at your kids door, only engaging the robber when he came into close physical proximety, hoping that the cops hurry up or the robber gets out of the house, because you don't want to explain to your children why daddy killed someone, or having their mother explain to them why daddy isn't around anymore because he got himself killed.
Not you Omega! Give you a gun, hell, you'd take down Fidel Castro by himself! No mission is too dangerous for OMEGA MAN, armed with a Smitty-nine-Milly, he'll do any job, at any risk! His own kids are upstairs, and he doesn't give a rat's ass to stay near them and reassure them with his presence, no! He has to run downstairs and pull his gun on the baddies and pretend he's got a big cock!
This is what I would do if someone broke into my house in the future.
a) Call the police. "Yes, there's a robber in my house, my wife and children are here, and I think he might be armed".
b) Get my children into my room, lock door.
c) Grab a sword ... maybe the Glock, if I've still got it.
d) Wait for police to arrive. Take action if robbers approach the room.
I'm not going to risk my life over material pocessions. I think it was First who said that he would kill someone for trying to rob him, even if it was just over "slips of paper." I couldn't do that. I couldn't even imagine the circumstances under which I could take the life of another human being.
[/rant]
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 7.5 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
Shop Smart -- Shop "S"-Mart
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited December 13, 2000).]
Setting up an ambush in unfamiliar territory is an... interesting proposition, Jeff. Besides, robbers tend to run AWAY from danger. Otherwise, we'd have a lot more burglaries-turned-hostage situations when the cops show up.
"He could have a partner with him"
Quick, Rob. Statistics on how many burglars work in pairs.
You know, maybe I should put you in charge of the federal archives...
As for the rest of your "argument," Jeff, we've been through this before. First posted statistics proving you wrong. I've got almost no chance of the burgler shooting me because I confronted him.
"He has to run downstairs and pull his gun on the baddies and pretend he's got a big cock!"
Pretend?
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
Not all robbers act the way you think, Omega. JeffK is siding on the idea of caution. His moral? NEVER underestimate a criminal.
Frankly, I'd be doing the same thing. My material possessions are not worth the possibility of risking my life. I do not believe that my wielding a gun will "scare" criminals away. I'd be foolish to carry this kind of "invulnerability complex".
------------------
"My Name is Elmer Fudd, Millionaire. I own a Mansion and a Yacht."
Psychiatrist: "Again."
[This message has been edited by Tahna Los (edited December 14, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Tahna Los (edited December 14, 2000).]
*rim shot*
I do agree with Jeff about one thing. I can't imagine ever taking someone's life, no matter the situation. Can you think what it would be like explaining to your 5 year old kid why you've just killed someone?
------------------
"I am in one of those rare periods of life where I am convinced I am a sexy devil."- Simon "Sol System" Sizer
I think you'd all be surprised at what you'd be capable of if lives were at stake.
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
Burglars working in pairs or groups isn't unheard of, but neither is it a common occurance. It happens more often in rural areas like mine, where people sometimes drive a truck up to a house and load up all the stuff.
Of course, in rural areas like mine, police response time is anything from 15-45 minutes or more. The time I got rear-ended, it took precisely 47 to get one lone oficer to the scene. An armed group takes longer.
However, a scenario of a pair of criminals is more likely out here to end like so:
Criminal 1 enters house - resident awakes.
Criminal 2 enters house - resident arms self.
Criminal 1 loots downstairs while Criminal 2 heads upstairs.
*KABOOM*
Criminal 2 flies back downstairs, his chest a smoking bloody ruin.
Criminal 1 drops everything and runs like hell, praying the gun wasn't double-barreled.
*2nd KABOOM* (Optional)
>"I couldn't do that. I couldn't even imagine the circumstances under which I could take the life of another human being."
Yes, you can. You did it in the abortion thread. The difference is, this human being is consciously trying to harm you and yours, and is fully capabale of understanding the potential consequences of his actions, while a fetus isn't.
So I guess it really depends on how you classify 'human.'
In your view, criminals and murders and rapists are human, and unborn children aren't.
My view is precisely the opposite.
Thus the quandary.
------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master
[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited December 14, 2000).]
quote:
JeffKardde said...a) Call the police. "Yes, there's a robber in my house, my wife and children are here, and I think he might be armed".
b) Get my children into my room, lock door.
c) Grab a sword ... maybe the Glock, if I've still got it.
d) Wait for police to arrive. Take action if robbers approach the room.
It's easy and foolhardy to have a circimventive plan when you can't really predict the situation. The point is to stay in control, or at least as much as you can.
Where will the criminal come from? What direction will he/she go? Does the layout of your home make a difference? Assuming you'll even have time to pull your kids to real safety is really optimistic at best.
Now on the grab a sword thing... What is that about? Do you have a sword? You best grab the Glock and keep them away from you if it's necessary to shoot them. They may only have a knife, or an axe, and I really wouldn't like to duel an axe with a sword.
Calling the police is a responsible thing to do, but I wouldn't lay all value on them saving you and your family.
quote:
PsyLiam said...I do agree with Jeff about one thing. I can't imagine ever taking someone's life, no matter the situation. Can you think what it would be like explaining to your 5 year old kid why you've just killed someone?
Yea, really I have to agree with Omega there. I'd much rather explain to my children I killed someone to save their life than be attending their funeral, or expect my family to attend mine and theirs.
------------------
This thing that we've made is fat and feeds on the hate of the millions that it's taught to sing its song...
DEAverification :P
Yay! A ray of sanity!
Kindly explain to me, Omega and First, what is wrong with caution?
Now, re: police response time. If I called the police, they'd be here in under a minute. I live at what is known as a "party complex" -- and I have called the police on one or two occasions when there have been fights (in one, a kid got pushed through a sliding-glass door and damn near lost his arm).
I called the police. "Hi, there's a fight at Mustone Court in the Colony?"
"We'll send someone right over," and at that moment, you could hear the sirens come to life. Four different cruisers were at the scene in under two minutes, and a couple more arrived later.
On one occasion, a half-naked drunk girl wandered into my apartment. She was looking for someone named "Tom", and that would be a damn fool reason to shoot somebody with a shotgun, now wouldn't it?
Officer: "Why exactly did you shoot a half naked drunk girl?"
Resident: "I thought she was going to kill me."
Officer: "With what? Her cigarette?"
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 7.5 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
Shop Smart -- Shop "S"-Mart
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited December 14, 2000).]
On one side of the fence, I believe that JeffR, Omega, and Fo2 live, or used to live in rural areas where the police are too far to provide any form of decent assistance. Whereas JeffK and myself, who probably spent most of our lives in urban areas where the police response time is fast and reliable. So, I could probably understand some of the points that JeffR, Omega, Fo2, and DEA are trying to make.
But JeffK makes a very good point though. Anyone remembers that Japanese foreign student who went to the wrong house looking for a party and got blown to kingdom come (literally)?
------------------
"My Name is Elmer Fudd, Millionaire. I own a Mansion and a Yacht."
Psychiatrist: "Again."
The Third Rule of Gun ownership is "ALWAYS know your target," - this means never shoot something until you know for certain what it is and whether or not you really need to kill it, or whether scaring it will do, or whether you can go ahead and put your gun away because it's only your houseguest making a midnight refrigerator raid. Anyone intelligent enough to follow that rule has Zero chance of shooting a half-naked drunk girl.
(Gun grabbers like to pretend that gun owners are like you see in sitcoms on TV, suddenly blasting away in darkened rooms before they get a clear look at who they're shooting. But that's another way TV lies to you.)
You know, us human-qualified people, we LOOK before we blast.
(If you don't look, you don't have a very good chance of hitting your target, anyway.)
As for that poor japanese student:
1. The gun owner was not following the commonsense rules. He SHOULD have been fined, jailed, and whatever else they did to him. It's still a crime committed with a gun. A reasonable case for self-defense would be damned hard to prove in this instance.
2. It's mean to say this, but it's hard to believe that there's anybody who DOESN'T realize that having a gun pointed in your direction is the Universal sign for "GO AWAY FAST."
------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master
------------------
"My Name is Elmer Fudd, Millionaire. I own a Mansion and a Yacht."
Psychiatrist: "Again."
I've never seen a real whale, digeridoo, or snowboard, either, but I know what they are and what you do with them.
------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master
Would he have known it meant to get the hell out of the area? He's from a completely different culture, First, I don't think its safe to assume he "knew" to get the hell out of the area. I mean, the police over there don't even carry guns!
Given that this man didn't know the "3rd rule" (can you post the others, just curious), what would be the problem with insisting all people wishing to purchase a handgun attend a training class? At the very least, it might have saved this man's life.
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 7.5 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
Shop Smart -- Shop "S"-Mart
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited December 14, 2000).]
Felt the blood run through you, knees turn weak, focus go off, senses reach out, doubt & fear flood you? Obiviously not. So, until you have been there, stop spouting all this crap about 'yeeha, I'd just go down there and bust all their asses!'.
When you are in a life threatening situation, no matter what training you have had, or what weapons you carry, you'll realise how immaterial all this squablling and posturing is. You have a split second to make a decision that could end a life, one way or the other. Now, any kind of martial training helps keep you focused, and some experience with weapons is invaluable, but you, I would guess lack and experience with high pressure situations and I'd bet a months wages that your stomach would turn to jelly and you'd want mamma to come cover you up the first time you're really shite scared of being killed. Theres' nothing shameful in that, but just make sure you can seperate your realistic reactions from your fantasies about being the all conquering hero who takes out the baddie.
These situations are fluid, and never what you expect. Your reactions are always half as good as they should have been, upon reflection. Keep that in mind.
------------------
Re: Russia in WWII
"Hey, we butchered Poles! Thats OK."
- DT.
quote:
Tahna Los said...
But JeffK makes a very good point though. Anyone remembers that Japanese foreign student who went to the wrong house looking for a party and got blown to kingdom come (literally)?
That goes back to my earlier comments that education is the key, and learning respect for the firearm. You never play with guns, you never point a gun at someone - Loaded or not unless your prepared to fire, and you most certainly don't shoot before you ask questions, unless your attacked. Now is some intoxicated student tries to climb me while I'm armed and am trying to identify whom they are and their intentions, the honestly its their own fault they are shot.
I understand that wasn't the case for the student, but I'd never fire unless I saw a potential threat. I don't really think her never seeing a gun would wash either. Japanese anima is full of all firearms, and the cultures television is too.
I am a proponent of firearm education. Without knowing the rules and standards for owning a gun, you really shouldn't have the right.
------------------
This thing that we've made is fat and feeds on the hate of the millions that it's taught to sing its song...
DEAverification :P
I'm genuinely shocked. Do you really believe that?
------------------
"I am in one of those rare periods of life where I am convinced I am a sexy devil."- Simon "Sol System" Sizer
------------------
I have been floated to this spot this hour
On a series of events
I cannot explain
--
Olivia Tremor Control
****
Read chapters one and two of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! Read, read, read, read, read me now.
FESS UP! *L*
Quatre.
------------------
"Omae o korusu..." - Heero Yuy
And while that may have been a very witty comment by Sol, I also have no idea what he means. Translation please.
I meant it though. I am shocked that someone would actually think like that.
------------------
"I am in one of those rare periods of life where I am convinced I am a sexy devil."- Simon "Sol System" Sizer
...who is correct. If you get shot because you got drunk and make yourself seem a legitimate threat to someone, it IS your fault. This is why getting drunk is a bad idea. You loose control.
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
The first two rules are:
1. ALL guns are ALWAYS loaded. Even if you just emptied the thing. Treat them as such. (Basically, this means that if you always treat a gun as if it were loaded, even when you know it isn't, you'll never have an accident with one.)
2. Never point a gun at something you do not intend to KILL. (Closely related to rule 3)
------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master
quote:
PsyLiam said...I'm genuinely shocked. Do you really believe that?
Well of course I do. If someone is intoxicated, entering my house, refuse to identify themselves, then in fact grab me in an opposing manner... *bang*
You don't really expect me to wait for an unidentified stranger in my house to get close enough to impale me with a knife do you? The room would have to be sufficiently lit, and even if I could see a weapon, I would probably just go for a leg, or other non-lethal area to incompasatate them.
That's a little expanded of First's rule number two, but I think its a sufficient policy.
I plan on teaching my oldest girl about guns in the next year. Not only respect for it, but general rules they will always abide by besides stay away from them at all costs, as is all they know now.
I have two handguns, one stays in my vehicle unless the children are in it alone, the other is above a desk in my kitchen out of reach, and certainly off limits.
------------------
This thing that we've made is fat and feeds on the hate of the millions that it's taught to sing its song...
DEAverification :P
------------------
Re: Russia in WWII
"Hey, we butchered Poles! Thats OK."
- DT.
And what do you mean, he "loose" control? That's not until you've been shot dead because you had one beer too many and vomited on some schmuck who drew his gun and shoots you in the chest, and then your bladders are loose because you're dead.
Yes, I know that's a run-on, shaddup!
SELF-DEFENSE
1. Defense of oneself when physically attacked
2. Defense of what belongs to oneself, as one's works or reputation
3. LAW. The right to protect oneself against violence or threatened violence with whatever force or means are reasonably necessary.
Now, the 3rd definition is what interests me, because it is the legal definition. Kindly explain to me how shooting a drunk is using means reasonable necessary?
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 7.5 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
Shop Smart -- Shop "S"-Mart
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited December 16, 2000).]
I was just refering to this statement, which I found to be a delightfully unique example of word usage. But, as I am an unthinking monster opposed to God himself, I really meant that I think everyone should be rounded up into work camps and forced to worship Satan.
------------------
I have been floated to this spot this hour
On a series of events
I cannot explain
--
Olivia Tremor Control
****
Read chapters one and two of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! Read, read, read, read, read me now.
Your conclusion is based on your evaluation of my character and personality. These are things you know nothing of. I was, in fact, rather surprised that you, of all people, would post something so lacking in basis. How can you evaluate how I'd act in a high-pressure situation, when you have no idea how my mind works?
I thus judged your post to be pointless, and ignored it.
Satisfied?
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
[This message has been edited by Omega (edited December 16, 2000).]
------------------
Re: Russia in WWII
"Hey, we butchered Poles! Thats OK."
- DT.
Look, we've all got pictures in our minds about how we'll act in a certain situation. I'm sure in this case, you picture yourself walking down the stairs, bringing up your shotgun, and blowing them dammed intruders away while laughing "hasta la vista, baby!"
Well, maybe not. But the point is, you've got a picture of yourself defending your home.
Cool and suave, I stepped to the entrance to my living room and cocked my Glock. The criminal freezed in mid-motion, and I saw his hand drop to the gun tucked into his waistband. "Don't do it," I warned, my voice cold and steady. He didn't heed my warning, and I placed three perfectly centered shots into his upper chest, dropping him to the floor. "Oh, darling!" my wife said, kissing me on the cheek and dragging me into the bedroom...
Okay, again, maybe not. But you've got the idea, right? I'm sure you've got an idea how you'd act. Same as First, JeffR, and everyone else in here does for a similar occurance.
But what Daryus is saying is that "real life" doesn't happen like we expect it too.
I mean, it's sorta like ... sex. I always had this "image" of what I'd be like the first time I had sex. You know, how I'd act, how I'd make her squeal with pleasure ... and it didn't happen that way at all. It was great, but I was very nervous (okay, totally scared out of my mind), and suffice to say, nothing of how I thought I'd act happened how I'd imagine it happening.
And that's sex, nothing to do with being prepared to shoot someone. I mean, at least in the above case, worse comes to worse, we'd both still be alive afterwards.
Thats what Daryus is saying. Until you're in the situation, you can't predict how you'd react in the situation. Unless maybe you're in the military or ex-military ... then, maybe, but mostly because you'd've had quite a bit of training in tactics and thinking under less than ideal conditions.
Do you disagree with that as well?
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 7.5 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
Shop Smart -- Shop "S"-Mart
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited December 17, 2000).]
So anyway, answer the question.
------------------
Re: Russia in WWII
"Hey, we butchered Poles! Thats OK."
- DT.
I think Sol was asking if you were a tree. Or a mountain. Or something. I mean, if not, why would a drunk college student be trying to climb you?
Except of course for the obvious sexual technique
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 7.5 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
Shop Smart -- Shop "S"-Mart
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited December 17, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited December 17, 2000).]
------------------
"I am in one of those rare periods of life where I am convinced I am a sexy devil."- Simon "Sol System" Sizer
Yes, but I am now curious...do people climb you on a regular basis for sex?
Mount Liam and all that.
Mind you not that I really want to know.
------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns
[This message has been edited by Jay (edited December 17, 2000).]
------------------
Re: Russia in WWII
"Hey, we butchered Poles! Thats OK."
- DT.
------------------
I have been floated to this spot this hour
On a series of events
I cannot explain
--
Olivia Tremor Control
****
Read chapters one and two of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! Read, read, read, read, read me now.
------------------
"I am in one of those rare periods of life where I am convinced I am a sexy devil."- Simon "Sol System" Sizer
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 7.5 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
Shop Smart -- Shop "S"-Mart
------------------
Re: Russia in WWII
"Hey, we butchered Poles! Thats OK."
- DT.
Yes, all the fashionable people come to Liverpool. And leave again, rather quickly.
------------------
"I am in one of those rare periods of life where I am convinced I am a sexy devil."- Simon "Sol System" Sizer
------------------
Re: Russia in WWII
"Hey, we butchered Poles! Thats OK."
- DT.
------------------
"I am in one of those rare periods of life where I am convinced I am a sexy devil."- Simon "Sol System" Sizer
------------------
Re: Russia in WWII
"Hey, we butchered Poles! Thats OK."
- DT.
------------------
"Still one thing more fellow-citizens--A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government..."
-Thomas Jefferson
I think you what question we want an answer to. Stop stalling.
Er, I for one would also like to invite anyone who carries or wants to carry a handgun to answer the question as well.
Ah, well, I'll type it here. You might also want to refer to my post from 17 December for some more info on what Daryus is talking about ...
A question for Omega. Ever been in a critical situation? You know, where you are really in danger?
Felt the blood run through you, knees turn weak, focus go off, senses reach out, doubt & fear flood you? Obviously not. So, until you have been there, stop spouting all this crap about 'yeeha, I'd just go down there and bust all their asses!'.
When you are in a life threatening situation, no matter what training you have had, or what weapons you carry, you'll realize how immaterial all this squablling and posturing is. You have a split second to make a decision that could end a life, one way or the other. Now, any kind of martial training helps keep you focused, and some experience with weapons is invaluable, but you, I would guess lack any experience with high pressure situations and I'd bet a months wages that your stomach would turn to jelly and you'd want mamma to come cover ytou up the first time you're really shite scared of being killed. Theres' nothing shameful in that, but just make sure you can seperate your realistic reactions from your fantasies about being the all conquiering hero who takes out the baddie.
These situations are fluid, and never what you expect. Your reactions are always half as good as they should have been, upon reflection. Keep that in mind.
And I've got a question to add.
Okay, ya'll most vocal that if someone breaks into your house and rips you off, he's going to kill you, rape and kill your wife, and sodomize your children before he kills them too, 'cuz lordy, he can't leave any witnesses around!
Aren't you only witnesses if you (I dunno) witness the thing? Why is he going to go out of his way to kill you if all he wants is the big 30" TV in your living room? The cops would put more effort into finding someone who killed a bunch of people then just someone who stole your (replaceable) Television -- yes?
I mean, I'm just asking here. Maybe you didn't know that witnesses had to see the thing going on, or that most criminals wouldn't want to kill someone because that would means the cops would be after them more than before?
Just curious.
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 7.5 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
Come the millennium, month 12,
In the home of greatest power,
The village idiot will come forth
To be acclaimed the leader
--Nostradamus, 1555
***
"It's important for us to explain to our nation that life is important. It's not only life of babies, but it's life of children living in, you know, the dark dungeons of the Internet." - George W. Bush, 24 Oct 2000
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited December 22, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited December 22, 2000).]
------------------
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 7.5 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
Come the millennium, month 12,
In the home of greatest power,
The village idiot will come forth
To be acclaimed the leader
--Nostradamus, 1555
***
"Mr. Vice President, in all due respect, it is - I'm not sure 80 percent of the people get the death tax. I know this: 100 percent will get it if I'm the president." - George W. Bush
Michigan is passing a bill on that will make it easier for people to get a CCW Permit. I am still trying to decide if that will be a good thing or not. After I think about it a bit more I'll let you know how I feel about it.
------------------
To reiterate my feelings, I don't think I'd want to live in a state where the citizens need to carry a gun to feel safe. Just my two cents.
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 7.5 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
Come the millennium, month 12,
In the home of greatest power,
The village idiot will come forth
To be acclaimed the leader
--Nostradamus, 1555 (Allegedly)
***
"Mr. Vice President, in all due respect, it is - I'm not sure 80 percent of the people get the death tax. I know this: 100 percent will get it if I'm the president." - George W. Bush
"Michigan is passing a bill on that will make it easier for people to get a CCW Permit. I am still trying to decide if that will be a good thing or not."
How could it be a bad thing? Anyone who's going to break the law with a gun isn't going to care about something so minor as a CCW. Thus, the law would only make it easier for a law-abiding citizen to defend himself and those around him.
------------------
"Still one thing more fellow-citizens--A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government..."
-Thomas Jefferson
Now, what happens if you, or one of our Canadian friends is here in Port Huron. Your driving along and come to one of our plentiful construction zones and you merge over, cutting him off. He would follow you to where ever you want, but not tailgating you, he's not an idiot. He is a careful sneaky person.
He's now armed with his .45 semi-automatic pistol, which he is legally able to carry concealed. He approaches your car, that big smile and easy going stride of his wouldn't catch your attention, after all your not paraniod.
He's been known to bash in someones face for something like that. What would he do armed?
If he was having a bad day he would, in my opinion, shoot you.
I don't know if he carries a shooting weapon in his van now or not, I will not ride with him anymore, twice was enough, but if that law comes along that makes it easier for him to carry legally he will.
Now, you will say you will be ready with your weapon, just incase. I doubt it, unless you are a paranoid person, then you would be the one I would be worried about. If I came up, unarmed, and started calling you a stupid motherfucking piece of shit driver that can't read road signs you might fear that I might cause you bodily harm, which my records show I wouldn't do, and I get shot for expressing my opinion.
Ever hear the whip-crack of a near miss by a chunk of lead flying past you. That kind of thing is what makes you bowels and bile turn in to a nice watery excrement that just leaks from your body.
Thank you Omega, this little bit here that I've typed has persuaded me to pray that they keep the existing law for CCWPs. Between bigots and paranoids I am fearful that Michigan easing restrictions will be a nightmare. I am for those that need one being able to get one, a business man for his trips to the bank, the security guards on the job, and the such, but to giv them out like candy seems a more dismal idea be the minute.
Yes, I always think worst case senario.
------------------
Firing him is also recommended, if possible. Just do it anonymously.
But again, if he's willing to run someone over with a car, which is obviously illegal, what makes you think he's not ALREADY carrying a gun in his vehicle? He obviously doesn't care about the law.
Making something against the law doesn't prevent criminals from doing it. It just gives the police one more charge against them in court.
"if that law comes along that makes it easier for him to carry legally he will."
See, here's my point. Why is it being illegal to carry a weapon making it hard for him to do so in the first place? Are there regular police sweeps of his vehicle? It's all psychological.
Law has two main effects.
1) Prevent law-abiding people from doing something, because law-abiding people don't break the law, by definition.
2) Give the police another charge against arrested criminals.
I can not say this enough: A criminal is not, repeat, NOT going to care about the law. This is by definition. Therefore, making it harder by law for a law-abiding citizen to carry or obtain or own a weapon is not going to have ANY effect on the criminal.
Why is this so hard to understand?
Now enforcing EXISTING law more effectively will prevent criminals from breaking it, because they'll be in jail. How to do that is another topic altogether.
Let's use the analogy of drugs.
It doesn't matter if you outlaw drug use. Some people are going to do it anyway, because they lack a basic respect for the law. Sure, you can make it incredibly hard for people who aren't going to use drugs anyway to use them, but that's not going to affect the drug-users, because they're going through illegal channels in the first place. You shut down those channels to stop the crime.
The law-abiding citizens aren't the problem. If they were, laws would fix everything.
Yes, you do have a point in that occasionally, a law-abiding citizen will snap and shoot someone. But I have the point that the number of lives SAVED by law-abiding citizens far outweighs that.
------------------
"Still one thing more fellow-citizens--A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government..."
-Thomas Jefferson
You STILL didn't answer the question.
------------------
Re: Russia in WWII
"Hey, we butchered Poles! Thats OK."
- DT.
------------------
"Still one thing more fellow-citizens--A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government..."
-Thomas Jefferson
I did answer your questions. You just rejected all the answers because you didn't like 'em. Tough shit, buddy. You said you'd answer this question, now you back out? Hey, if THAT's the way you want to be, that's fine with me.
How the fuck is it irrelevent? Knowing how to use a gun and how to handle a gun and knowing how to do those things in a critical situation is VERY relevent to the question at hand. If you're avoiding the question ... well, that begs the question, why? Why do you avoid this question? Why do you think it is irrelevent? Hmmmm? Going to avoid the question altogether?
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.83 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
"Mr. Vice President, in all due respect, it is - I'm not sure 80 percent of the people get the death tax. I know this: 100 percent will get it if I'm the president." - George W. Bush
Or we can revert to the Old West where almost everybody had a revolover on their hip. Didn't stop Jesse James, but what the hell.
Criminals have weapons now, but if Michigans CCWP restrictions are lowered I may have to quit my job as a collections person, for fear that the 'law abiding' citizens in my area my think differently, since they can carry their weapons around.
------------------
------------------
A question for Omega. Ever been in a critical situation? You know, where you are really in danger?
Felt the blood run through you, knees turn weak, focus go off, senses reach out, doubt & fear flood you? Obviously not. So, until you have been there, stop spouting all this crap about 'yeeha, I'd just go down there and bust all their asses!'.
When you are in a life threatening situation, no matter what training you have had, or what weapons you carry, you'll realize how immaterial all this squablling and posturing is. You have a split second to make a decision that could end a life, one way or the other. Now, any kind of martial training helps keep you focused, and some experience with weapons is invaluable, but you, I would guess lack any experience with high pressure situations and I'd bet a months wages that your stomach would turn to jelly and you'd want mamma to come cover ytou up the first time you're really shite scared of being killed. Theres' nothing shameful in that, but just make sure you can seperate your realistic reactions from your fantasies about being the all conquiering hero who takes out the baddie.
These situations are fluid, and never what you expect. Your reactions are always half as good as they should have been, upon reflection. Keep that in mind.
----------------
Jeff & yours truly are waiting for an answer.
------------------
Re: Russia in WWII
"Hey, we butchered Poles! Thats OK."
- DT.
you might want to add the unsettling for the stomache and the complete urge to vomit......
------------------
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.83 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier ... just as long as I'm the dictator." - George "Dubya" Bush, Dec 18, 2000
------------------
Re: Russia in WWII
"Hey, we butchered Poles! Thats OK."
- DT.
------------------
Re: Russia in WWII
"Hey, we butchered Poles! Thats OK."
- DT.
I will instead quote the answer I gave earlier that you all apparently missed. I will also refrain from commenting on this answer until all the questions I have asked of JK are answered.
"No."
Satisfied?
------------------
"Still one thing more fellow-citizens--A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government..."
-Thomas Jefferson
------------------
Omega, in all seriousness, if you have never been in any such situation then I suggest you take a reality check on your views and expectations of such an encounter. I can assure you, your initial reaction won't be pleasing to your ego, or perhaps, your life expectancy.
------------------
Re: Russia in WWII
"Hey, we butchered Poles! Thats OK."
- DT.
I *did* answer your questions, you just chose to reject the answers because they didn't fall into your world view.
And might I point out that in another thread you said you would answer this question? So much for that.
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.83 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier ... just as long as I'm the dictator." - George "Dubya" Bush, Dec 18, 2000
In all cases the problems were resolved withoutr gunfire, but in the most dangerous case both brute physical force and weaponry were involved.
Recently, we've had thieves on our property, stealing, of all things, wood siding. They might have stolen more, if they had made it to the house. My father and I came home and caught them in their pickup in the driveway. Unfortunately, their pickup was faster than my dad's giant SUV, and they got away. Decided it wasn't worth firing at them after old barn lumber that was starting to rot anyway, (see, JeffK, ther ARE some things that even I think aren't worth killing for ) despite the obvious benefit to evolution their demise would have secured.
I've been in a number of physical altercations, many of which were due to my open expression of a lack of (and occasional sharp derision of people who have) religious faith.
And in my last year of college I faced off against a guy who was stalking a female friend of mine. He was 6'4 and about 250, and armed with a baseball bat. I'm 6', was a scrawny 170, had no weapon at all, and in the first few moments of the altercation, I got tossed down a flight of stairs.
Fortunately, speed, intelligence, 'frenzy' and a huge amount of luck was enough in this case to overcome strength, size and weaponry. But my arms were good for nothing for a week, and the rest of me was pretty banged up as well.
So what's the followup question, exactly?
------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master
Therefore, the argument here is moot, on should check eggs before consumption. Be warned.
------------------
"Karate is a form of martial arts in which people who have had years and years of training can, using only their hands and feet, make some of the worst movies in the history of the world." - Dave Barry
------------------
Re: Russia in WWII
"Hey, we butchered Poles! Thats OK."
- DT.
------------------
"One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking"
------------------
Re: Russia in WWII
"Hey, we butchered Poles! Thats OK."
- DT.