JohnRich

Sure, a few of them go too far to ignore, and then they deserve prosecution. That's true of any group of people. A few skydivers have been known to smuggle illegal drugs. However, that does not mean that the United States Parachute Association should be put on the DEA's watch list as a drug-smuggling gang. Let's be careful about taking the actions of a few extremists, and using that to characterize an entire movement.

So take it out of the title when you post new messages, as I have done above, and it will fade away as the discussion continues. As government taxes get higher and higher, and government intrusions become ever greater, then it's natural for more and more people to protest with civil disobedience. That's been the American way since the Boston Tea Party, and it's enshrined in our Constitution. The problem I have is that you seem to be blaming the civil disobedients for all the nation's problems, when in fact it is the government that is to blame. If the government would do what the citizens want, such as being more frugal with our money and cease the intrusions into our lives, then this would be a non-issue. The root of the problem is the government, not the protestors. Your position seems to be like blaming the Jews for the extermination camps.

No. And on the other side of the coin, if you go through life unhappy because you failed to pursue your passions for the sake of your family, you would be an unhappy and unfulfilled husband and father, and that would reflect negatively on your family. Just be careful, and have life insurance.

The problem I see with this idea is that BSR's are like laws to USPA drop zones. And anyone who waivers away from them is putting their neck on the chopping block with our legal system, should that waivered jumper subsequently hurt himself. The lawyers and courts will want to know why you gave him permission to vary from the accepted practices, and try and hold the jumpers responsible who allowed him to downsize more quickly than the chart allows. All of that will discourage people from issuing waivers, and then we're back to a one-size-fits-all chart, that everyone is afraid to violate, regardless of individual circumstances.

From the FBI: "They could be dismissed as a nuisance, a loose network of individuals living in the United States who call themselves “sovereign citizens” and believe that federal, state, and local governments operate illegally. Some of their actions, although quirky, are not crimes. The offenses they do commit seem minor: They do not pay their taxes and regularly create false license plates, driver’s licenses, and even currency..."OMG! There are people who don't want to pay their taxes! We're all going to die! Run for your lives!

How about nationwide acceptance by all states of interstate travel with guns in cars, without the gun being unloaded and the ammo stored separately - are you in favor of that too?

I'm trying to understand why you consider this "cheesy". If it was at the end of the film, instead of "in the middle", would that be okay? Is it cheesy to stand and cheer after a touchdown at a football game? Is it cheesy to applaud at the end of a Broadway play? Is it cheesy to applaud at certain points during someone's speech?

These reports have been popping up in the news lately, and the source is... The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). I'm not surprised by all the knee-jerk liberal reactions here as a result of this to call folks on the right kooks. The real kooks are the SPLC. They've been on this witch hunt for decades, counting everyone who says something about guns and the government as an "anti-government militia". Despite all the dire predictions about these groups, almost nothing ever happens. They have a reputation for running around like Chicken Little crying that "the sky is falling!" Yeah, I know, the liberals here cry about how fear is used to get conservatives to buy guns, but at the same time, this kind of SPLC fear is used to get liberals stirred up to pass more gun restrictions. But hey, they need the publicity now and then to get people to donate money to keep their coffers full. You would think that with a name like "Poverty Law Center" that their mission would be to give legal representation to poor people. But instead, they run around trying to scare everyone about militias. Go figure... Link to their so-called "Intelilgence Report": http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring/active-patriot-groups-in-the-united-states Quote:"Generally, Patriot groups define themselves as opposed to the “New World Order,” engage in groundless conspiracy theorizing, or advocate or adhere to extreme antigovernment doctrines. Listing here does not imply that the groups themselves advocate or engage in violence or other criminal activities, or are racist. "The list was compiled from field reports, Patriot publications, the Internet, law enforcement sources and news reports. Groups are identified by the city, county or region where they are located..."Note how they don't actually have to be considered violent, criminal or racist to be on their list. And their list contains entries culled from sources as simple as the internet. And everyone knows that what's said on the internet doesn't mean crap. But if someone has a web site that espouses a certain view that the SPLC doesn't like, suddenly that becomes an "anti-government militia". They would have more credibility if they just listed groups that actually advocate violence. But that number would be so small, it wouldn't frighten anybody into opening up their pocketbooks. The fact is, the large majority of these "groups" are just exercising their 1st Amendment free speech rights, and there's nothing wrong with that. Chicken Little's. And a lot of people here are falling in line right behind the rooster, strutting and cackling like they're king of the chicken coop.

The problem with your idea for national level gun laws is that the Constitution gives the Feds no authority to regulate guns - that's a matter left to the states. The Feds do it anyway under the guise of "interstate commerce", but that's their only camel's-nose-in-the-tent to do it. Do you want concealed handgun licenses issued by states to be automatically honored by all other states, just like they already do with driver's licenses?

I've always loved can-can dancers. Those chicks are hot!

News:High Court Denial of Seattle Gun Ban Appeal "The Second Amendment Foundation is delighted that the Washington State Supreme Court has unanimously denied the City of Seattle's petition for review in the case of Winnie Chan v. City of Seattle, a legal action brought by SAF, the National Rifle Association and five individual plaintiffs. "The decision affirms the state's long-standing preemption law and two lower court rulings, thus preventing the city from banning firearms from city parks property. "It was the third straight loss for the city, which had first attempted to ban firearms from park facilities under former Mayor Greg Nickels, in open defiance of Washington State's model preemption statute..."Full story: Market Watch Strike three - you're out, Seattle! The preemption statute means that gun laws are the authority of the state, and that local municipalities may not pass laws more restrictive than the state. The purpose is to prevent a patchwork of differing gun laws that would ensnare innocent citizens in legal trouble. The SAF continues their long string of successes in beating back bad gun laws in court.

You don't need a permit to have a concealed one in your own yard.

Are you suggesting that like-minded people shouldn't be allowed to organize together and voice their opinions? Does the phrase "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" sound familiar? The NRA is respected by politicians not because of the size of their membership or the size of their bank account, but because their members vote. If you don't like that state of affairs, get enough of your own like-minded people to out-vote the NRA folks. Good luck!

Well, what we need is more laws to make the law-disobeyers obey the laws that they're disobeying. Yeah, that'll fix it!

Of course you don't, because it's been censored. Whatever. The world ain't fair. You're right, I should just move on.... Read this quick, before it's For what it's worth, I tried to speak on this earlier also. My comment in the Incident thread was censored - it wasn't even anything nasty. Then I tried to send you a private message, but you don't allow that in your profile. So next I started a new thread addressed to you in General Skydiving to get my message to you, and that too was censored. The censors are very busy here keeping us from talking to each other.

That armed doctor helped 50 people in the building escape from a looney gunman. Criminals are loonies, and none of those perpetrators shot and killed in the commission of their crime will ever be going out to hurt anyone else ever again. Even those only wounded are likely to be dissuaded from commiting crimes again where the threat of an armed victim is likely. More people are killed and injured by criminals one at a time, then by all of your mass loony shootings combined. Your psychiatric clinic story was also irrelevant. Nothing in your linked story said that the shooter was a loony, or that he obtained his gun without a background check. But that didn't stop you from jumping on your bandwagon and firing up the calliope to make noise.

Yeah, those people calling for just facts are full of crap. We ought to be able to assign any kind of mistakes or blame we want, regardless of the truth. And if that slanders our dead friends, well that's their tough shit. Specualtion is all good! You've already got what you want, so I don't know why you're resurrecting this thread to complain. Speculators get away with murder, and those who call for facts are censored. And thus, the Incidents forum is a joke. What's wrong with telling the speculators that they should go start their own independent thread about their topic, unconnected to the fatality that made them think of it? You want to automatically censor people who call for restraint awaiting facts? Since when did facts become a bad thing in your mind, worthy of suppressing people who ask for them? And at the same time you prefer that the speculators be let run wild. How screwed up is this pair of ideas? You've got 'em bass ackwards.

"Armed Colo. doc helps others flee from gunman" http://www.broadcastnewsroom.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=1904237 And at a urology office, no less. "Convenience Store Owner Shoots, Kills Career Criminal During Armed Robbery" http://www.carolinalive.com/news/story.aspx?id=727220#.T1d_vOBSRBk "Woman Shoots and Kills Home Invader" http://www.wcnc.com/news/local/Gastonia-woman-shoots-kills-intruder-inside-home-141296523.html "Homeowner Shoots Knife Wielding Burglar Several Times" http://adf.ly/65Fa1 "Business owner stands up to robber" http://www.whptv.com/news/local/story/Business-owner-stands-up-to-robber/zj9QK45qpU-tgZdD9rAjIA.cspx "Home intruder killed by Springville man" http://adf.ly/66p0I "71 Year Old PA Man Pistol Whips 29 Year Old Street Robber" http://www.phillyburbs.com/my_town/quakertown/year-old-pistol-whips-attempted-robber/article_f34c26fc-5815-59ad-ba1a-ccc3b611c769.html "Convenience store owner fires shot at robber" http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/breaking/s_784320.html "Woman Shoots, Kills Home Intruder" http://www.koco.com/r/30575218/detail.html "Intruder killed" http://adf.ly/65Jp1

"Our priorities are all screwed up."

You forgot the skateboard helmet, altimeter wristwatch, and the gopro camera!

The militia is but ONE of the reasons for the 2nd Amendment. Other reasons are self defense, property defense, deterring mischief, and hunting. The problem with your argument is in presuming that the militia is the ONLY reason for the 2nd Amendment - it's not. It is, however a strong reason for it. So the militia idea is important, but not the sole reason for it. That's not having it both ways, that's just the facts, Jack. Here's some reading homework for you: http://old.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopelprint051601.html http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm

Sales of all such hybrid economy cars were declining starting back in 2007: http://images.thetruthaboutcars.com/2010/07/graph38.png But when I google "Prius sales" I now get lots of news stories to the contrary. They sell about 29,000 per month, more than all the the Volts total. And with gas prices rising, the Prius is gaining in popularity. Sample story, Business Week: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-03-01/toyota-beats-sales-estimates-prius-rises

The Second Amendment: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."The "militia" is a subset of "the people". The militia was referenced as an example of why the people should be allowed to bear arms, because without an armed populace, you can't have a militia which is drawn from that populace. So "the militia" was just an example, and "the people" are the subject to whom the Amendment is directed. Try this: "Well stocked libraries, being necessary to the maintenance of an educated electorate, the right of the People to keep and read books shall not be infringed."Would you interpret this phrase to mean that only libraries should be allowed to own books? Of course you know all this because we've been through it all with you before. But you never want to miss an opportunity to confuse people.

Yet most people in this forum don't think that's a problem worth sending 100 U.S. troops as advisors to solve. Other thread: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4277540#4277540

So how does Toyoto manage to make the similar Prius in a manner that is economical enough for them to sell it cheaper than a Volt and still make a profit off of it?