Douva

Members
  • Content

    2,005
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never
  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by Douva

  1. You were beaten up on campus once, and you harbor revenge fantasies in which you pull a gun on your tormentors. It's easier to play amateur psychoanalyst than to refute the arguments I made in the interview, huh, KidWicked? I've never been beaten up or assaulted on a college campus (or anywhere else). In fact, I don't think I've ever had a bad experience on a college campus. But last April 16 fifty-five individuals had a very bad experience on the Virginia Tech campus. Fifty-five individuals who chose to adhere to the campus's "gun free zone" policy were shot by one individual who didn't. It sounds to me like that policy stacked the odds in favor of a madman with no regard for the rules. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.
  2. Did you listen to the whole interview? Did you look at the website? The answers are all there. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.
  3. If you have about thirty minutes to kill, this is an interview I did with a Lubbock, Texas (home of Texas Tech University), radio station, while I was in Lubbock for Christmas. Discussion of SCCC starts at the six-minute mark. Fox Talk in the Morning (KJTV) - Audio Only (mp3) - Video (wmv) - Dec. 26, 2007 If you have questions about Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, please visit our website at http://www.ConcealedCampus.org. If you have concerns, that aren't answered in the interview, about allowing concealed carry on college campuses, check out our "Answers" page (http://www.ConcealedCampus.org/arguments.htm). I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.
  4. So there's no requirement that the sides of a triangle be straight lines? I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.
  5. The mall was a "gun free" zone: http://www.concealedcampus.org/omaha_world-herald1.htm http://www.concealedcampus.org/omaha_world-herald2.htm http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,315563,00.html The cable news networks seem to be alternating between referring to the rifle as an SKS and referring to it as an AK-47. They also seem to think the terms "assault rifle" and "assault weapon" are interchangeable (they're not). And if the weapon was an SKS, the determination of whether or not it qualifies as an "assault weapon" will depend on its configuration. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.
  6. Yes, but that was the whole source of much of the drama, with the monsters outside the store trying to kill them, and the crowd inside being divided into two camps, one of which wants to sacrifice the others to appease god... How many people in your theater cheered when Ollie shot the bible thumper? That actually got a round of applause in the theater where I viewed the movie. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.
  7. It didn't feel right to me either. After fighting for hours to survive against all odds, to just give up and commit suicide at that time, was unbelievable. I could see it happening if they were faced again with overwhelming odds and imminent horrible death. But that wasn't the situation. They were just out of gas in the fog, with nothing immediately threatening them. If I had been in their shoes, I would have just sat and waited. Maybe the fog will lift and rescuers arrive before the monsters find us... If the filmmakers wanted to end the film the way they did, they should have set up the struggle between giving up and pushing forward as a constant theme throughout the movie. If you saw the characters struggle with that choice throughout the film, only to give up moments before they would have been rescued, the ironic ending would have fit. But for these determined survivors to simply decide, after running out of gas, that it would be best to just blow their own brains out doesn't seem to fit. HERE IS HOW THE BOOK ENDS: We got to this Howard Johnson's near Exit 3 as dusk began to close in, making driving a suicidal risk. Before that we took a chance on the bridge that spans the Saco River. It looked badly twisted out of shape, but in the mist it was impossible to tell if it was whole or not. That particular game we won. But there's tomorrow to think of, isn't there? As I write this, it's a quarter to one in the morning, July the twenty-third. The storm that seemed to signal the beginning of it all was only four days ago. Billy is sleeping in the lobby on a mattress that I dragged out for him. Amanda and Mrs. Reppler are close by. I am writing by the light of a big Delco flashlight, and outside the pink bugs are ticking and thumping off the glass. Every now and then there is a louder thud as one of the birds takes one off. The Scout has enough gas to take us maybe another ninety miles. The alternative is to try to gas up here; there is an Exxon out on the service island, and although the power is off, I believe I could siphon some up from the tank. But-- But it means being outside. If we can get gas--here or further along--we'll keep going. I have a destination in mind now, you see. It's the last thing I wanted to tell you about. I couldn't be sure. That is the thing, the damned thing. It might have been my imagination, nothing but wish fulfillment. And eve if not, it's such a long chance. How many miles? How many bridges? How many things that would love to tear up my son and eat him even as he screamed in terror and agony? The chances are so good that it was nothing but a day dream that I haven't told the others . . . at least, not yet. In the manager's apartment I found a large battery-operated multiband radio. From the back of it, a flat antenna wire led out through the window. I turned it on, switched over to BAT., fiddled with the tuning dial, with the SQUELCH knob, and still got nothing but static or dead silence. And then, at the far end of the AM band, just as I was reaching for the knob to turn it off, I thought I heard, or dreamed I heard, one single word. There was no more. I listened for an hour, but there was no more. If there was that one word, it came through some minute shift in the damping mist, an infinitesimal break that immediately closed again. One word. I've got to get some sleep . . . if I can sleep and not be haunted until daybreak by the faces of Ollie Weeks and Mrs. Carmody and Norm the bag-boy . . . and by Steff's face, half-shadowed by the wide brim of her sunhat. There is a restaurant here, a typical HoJo restaurant with a dining room and a long, horseshoe-shaped lunch counter. I am going to leave these pages on the counter and perhaps someday someone will find them and read them. One word. If I only really heard it. If only. I'm going to bed now. But first I'm going to kiss my son and whisper two words in his ear. Against the dreams that may come, you know. Two words that sound a bit alike. One of them is Hartford. The other is hope. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.
  8. Because he's not a police officer, and he doesn't have to risk his own life trying to take a potentially dangerous trespassing thief alive. If this even goes to the grand jury, it will be no billed. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.
  9. I believe the trucks were coming from the same direction as the protagonist's vehicle, meaning that the danger had probably already passed the town and the store and suggesting that the people left in the store likely survived. I finally figured out where I'd seen a similar ending before--the original Night of the Living Dead. The ending is not without merit; I just don't think it works for this film. It just seemed out of place. It didn't seem to put the cap on an existing theme, as this type of deliberately shocking ending should. The ending feels like it's trying to convey a message not echoed by the rest of the film. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.
  10. I believe the trucks were coming from the same direction as the protagonist's vehicle, meaning that the danger had probably already passed the town and the store and suggesting that the people left in the store likely survived. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.
  11. We don't know this happened she could have possibly won a spiritual coin toss if not an actual toss, I believe she was killed though. We also don't know that Anton recovered the money, only that he looked for it. When Llewelyn arrived at the hotel he didn't have the satchel with him. He only had something that looked like a gun case. This leads me to believe that the money was stashed and he intended to only tell his wife its location but he was prepared for a counter ambush but not really well enough. I assume Chigurh killed Llewelyn's wife because I don't believe he'd go back on his promise and because he checks his shoes (presumably for blood) when he walks out of her house. Do we actually see Llewelyn check into the hotel, or do we just see him walking to his room carrying the gun case? We might assume he's already checked in and is just carrying the gun with him for protection. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.
  12. FYI (More Spoilers) I didn't find the ending vague; I just found it dumb. The Mexicans find Llewelyn by talking to his mother-in-law (while they're helping her with her bags). They then gun him down at the motel where he is waiting to meet his wife and mother-in-law. But they gun him down so fast (as indicated by the sound of machine gun fire and the speeding getaway vehicle witnessed by Sheriff Bell) that they don't have time to search for the money. Llewelyn's wife and mother-in-law show up just after the murder has taken place and never have a chance to meet with Llewelyn or retrieve the money. When Anton Chigurh visits the scene of the murder, that night, he knows the money is in the vent because he saw the scuff marks in the vent at the previous motel, where Llewelyn stashed the money. When Sheriff Bell returns to the scene of Llewelyn's murder, Chigurh is in the process of retrieving the money from the vent. Chigurh hides behind the door, and while Sheriff Bell is checking out the bathroom, Chirgurh escapes with the money. Sheriff Bell finds nothing in the room but the open vent. The fact that Chirgurh doesn't have the money with him when he kills Llewelyn's wife and subsequently gets hit by another car means nothing because there is no indication of the amount of time that has passed between him retrieving the money and him going to kill Llewelyn's wife. The two events might have happened days or even weeks apart. If you had a suitcase containing two million dollars, how long would you carry it around with you? As for the gas station owner and the coin toss at the beginning of the film, the "everything" Chigurh tells him he has to win is his life. It's inferred that if he'd lost, Chigurh would have killed him. It's never inferred that Chigurh has any intention of giving him any money. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.
  13. I call "The Emperor Has No Clothes" on the positive reviews this film has received. (SPOILERS) The ending is intentionally vague and basically pointless. First, the filmmakers intentionally break one of the basic rules of filmmaking--the second act climax occurs off-screen--and then the entire third act opts for some sort of absurd commentary on the random, fleeting nature of life, rather than providing closure to the story. And what is the point of introducing Barry Corbin's character in the third act? So that he can talk Tommy Lee Jones's character out of giving the movie a functional ending? (HERE'S THE REAL SPOILER!) If we'd seen Josh Brolin's character die, we might have been able to accept that as some sort of closure, but for him to be portrayed as the protagonist through most of the film, only to have his death occur off-screen and the film immediately switch to the point of view of Tommy Lee Jones's character and then go NOWHERE was extremely disappointing. For fifteen minutes or so we watch Tommy Lee Jones's character, our new protagonist, and wonder how he's going to wrap up everything we've seen so far; then, after his discussion with Barry Corbin's character (a character introduced in the third act for no apparent reason other than to provide the story with a little philosophical exposition), we're treated to his breakfast table recount of the too-obviously symbolic dream he had the night before, and then the credits roll. Sorry, but I thought it was pseudo-artistic crap. Up until the death of Josh Brolin's character, the film was pretty good, but the third act sucked the big one. And if the critics weren't so afraid of questioning a film that makes such an obvious attempt to be "artistic"--particularly a film by the revered Coen brothers--they'd say so themselves. If you loved the last episode of The Sopranos, you'll love this film. Honestly, I can't even say that, because I kind of liked the last episode of The Sopranos, but I still thought this film was crap. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.
  14. Where alchohol was being served, a violation of the law in every state I can think of. I hate to challenge your clearly extensive legal background; however, only certain states have laws against possessing a firearm where alcohol is served. To the best of my knowledge, Alabama does not have such a restriction. And again, I don't recall seeing any pictures of firearms inside the restaurant. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.
  15. The only weapon I saw inside a restaurant was a baton. Did I miss something? I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.
  16. More evasion. Where is it established that carrying a concealed weapon ANYWHERE is a RIGHT prescribed by any means whatsoever? Certainly is is not a right endowed by the Creator, nor in law. If you, Douva, have ever applied for a CCW permit you have already acknowledged that concealed carry is not a right. Rights do not need permits for their exercise. I'm not evading anything. I'm trying to get you to answer the question I originally posed. But you'd rather debate whether or not carrying a concealed handgun is a "right" than whether or not there is sufficient evidence to support prohibiting concealed carry on college campuses because you know that if we actually debated the real issue at hand, your argument will be ripped to shreds. I don't know anywhere where it's written, "People have the right to carry concealed handguns on college campuses." I also don't know anywhere where it's written, "People have the right to carry photos of their loved ones, on college campuses," but I doubt you'd argue that a prohibition against carrying family photos in one's wallet was a perfectly justifiable law. Laws must have solid, well-supported reasons behind them. If the word "right" is throwing you off, we can call it whatever you want. From the beginning of this discussion, my argument has been that citizens of a free nation should not be told they cannot do something unless there is empirical evidence that doing that thing may unduly infringe upon the rights of others. Based on what empirical evidence do you believe that concealed handgun license holders who are allowed to carry their concealed handguns in virtually all other unsecured locations should be told they cannot carry their concealed handguns on college campuses? Your opposition to concealed carry on college campuses isn't based on any verifiable evidence that concealed carry would present any greater danger to college campuses than it does to any of the places it's currently allowed; your opposition is based entirely on your disdain for guns and disapproval of gun ownership. You're not arguing against concealed carry on college campuses; you're arguing against concealed carry in general. If this were a debate about whether or not concealed carry should be allowed in movie theaters or shopping malls or banks or office buildings or grocery stores, you'd still be arguing against it. Unfortunately for you, the fight against concealed carry has already been lost in 80% of the nation. Most states now agree that trained, licensed individuals have the right (or whatever you want to call it) to carry concealed handguns for personal defense. So based on what logic should those states allow concealed carry in most other places but prohibit it on college campuses? I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.
  17. From my limited understanding of the two conflicts, the conflict between American settlers and Native Americans had some similarities to the current conflict between America and Islamic nations. In both cases, small bands of the native inhabitants of the land in question responded to what they felt was an unjust intrusion and unfair treatment by the United States government, by lashing out against American civilians with harsh, violent attacks. The American government responded by pointing to those attacks as justifications for further intrusions into the territory of those native inhabitants and for further unjust actions against all native inhabitants in those lands, not just the small bands perpetrating the attacks. These further intrusions and further unjust actions on the part of the American government rallied more individuals to the cause of the rogue natives. This lead the American government to send more soldiers. It's an ugly cycle. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.
  18. Where has it has been established in law that it IS a right to carry a concealed weapon at all. If it were a RIGHT, no CCW permit would be needed, anywhere. Wow! You're really determined to debate the semantics of my wording, rather than debate the facts of the issue, aren't you? What is a "right?" Dictionary.com: a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral American Heritage Dictionary: Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law: something to which one has a just claim: as a : a power, privilege, or condition of existence to which one has a natural claim of enjoyment or possession Thomas Paine: "It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect — that of taking rights away. Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few. ... They...consequently are instruments of injustice. "The fact therefore must be that the individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a compact with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist." Now that we've established that a "right" is not necessarily prescribed by law, what empirical evidence justifies denying concealed handgun license holders the right to carry concealed handguns on college campuses, the same way they carry in virtually all other unsecured locations? I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.
  19. Kallend, since I'm the one who made the original post, why don't you try responding to what I'm saying, rather than responding to only those posts you think you can easily rebut. I'm not saying that states don't have the authority to make their own laws regarding where people can and can't carry concealed weapons; I'm saying that nobody should be denied the right to do ANYTHING without empirical evidence showing just cause for denying that right. Based on what empirical evidence do you think states that allow concealed handgun license holders to carry concealed handguns virtually everywhere else should deny CHL holders that right on college campuses? I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.
  20. I'm whining about my rights because the belief that rights should not be denied without just cause is the foundation of a free nation. Again, where is it written that you have a right to take a concealed weapon into a public school? Kallend, between the two of us, you're the only one making a Constitutional argument. I'm arguing my case based on the facts of the issue. There are countless rights not expressly guaranteed (notice that I said "guaranteed," not "granted") by the United States Constitution. The absence of a Constitutional guarantee, in and of itself, is not justification for a state legislature or other governing body to deny people a certain right. If your only remaining argument in opposition of allowing concealed carry on college campuses is that it's not written anywhere that people have the right to carry concealed handguns on college campuses, I believe this discussion has come to an end. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.
  21. SCCC is in the process of tearing it apart line by line. There is very little substance to it. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.
  22. I'm whining about my rights because the belief that rights should not be denied without just cause is the foundation of a free nation. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.
  23. com·pro·mise [kom-pruh-mahyz] 1. an accommodation in which both sides make concessions Proponents of gun control typically argue that gun owners should be required to undergo training, testing, expanded background checks, and licensing. Proponents of gun rights typically argue that gun owners should be allowed to carry handguns in public, for self-defense. Concealed carry laws allow gun owners who undergo training, testing, expanded background checks, and licensing to carry handguns in public, for self-defense. When both sides give a little and both sides get a little, that is the true definition of compromise. Who is less willing to compromise—gun rights groups who support licensed concealed carry or gun control groups who oppose licensed concealed carry? I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.
  24. Correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that the reason you guys wear a reserve parachute is in case you need it to save your life. Do you also wear a tertiary parachute on every jump? Do you also wear knee pads and elbow pads? Do you also wear a shock absorbing vest, like bull riders and motorcycle riders do? No? Then I guess it stands to reason that every person determines his or her own level of preparedness. --Douva PS. Don't come back at me with, "The FAA requires me to use a reserve parachute," unless you're ready to state that you wouldn't use one if you didn't have to. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.