peacefuljeffrey

Quote

You guys should be carefull. He could be monitoring your actions as we speak from a secret space station orbiting the earth and then once he has your location pinpointed (if he does not already) he will likely undock one of the escape pods and once through the upper atmosphere he'll bail out and come for you... Yeah dude you don't know what kind of training and technology these super duper covert secret agents have.

Oooh, maybe he's up there with Magneto on "Asteroid M"!

--Jeffrey

Quote

Quote

He's still an infantryman, and his assigned weapon is a mortar. Were the militia in 1790 allowed horses and carts, or were they the sole province of the government?

You're being obtuse with this line of attack. You're looking under rocks for exceptions.

No JOKE! But it's what I've come to expect from people who just "don't get" the right tobear arms, why it's important, why it must be protected, why it makes sense...

---Jeffrey

Quote

Quote

To use deadly force in the aid of another, at least in most places, you better be correct on what the heck is going on. If you are wrong, you may be in jail for a long time. At least, that is my understanding for most places.

Very true. This is an endeavor that is fraught with danger for someone who is trying to be a good samaritan.

For example, let's say you come upon two men fighting, and one is losing badly. You pull out your gun and shoot the guy that is winning the fight, in order to save the other guy.

It might turn out that the guy you just shot, is an undercover cop, subduing a violent criminal.

And then you're in deep shit. Beware.

I'm not the type that says "don't get involved", because there are way too many people in our society who turn the other way, to our detriment as a whole. However, you do need to be cautious.

Wouldn't you be covered under the "what was it reasonable for you to think was happening" clause?

Quote

I will let you know if I ever find True Love.
Except from some of the posts here, I have doubted it really exists.
Some of your are Quite lucky

*sigh* I've been having my doubts lately too.
You know what really sucks, though? Knowing to yourself that you're open to falling in love, you're ready to give it and receive it, you're mature enough to accept faults with attributes, you're patient, you're kind, you're warm and affectionate, you're stable... and you simply can't find someone who sees it, recognizes it, and appreciates it. I can walk past any dozen girls who seem like I'd be interested in dating them, but what can you do, stop them on the street and blurt out all your qualifications for why you're so lovable and you should be their next One??

Then you see a thread like this, and it's frustrating to see that others -- possibly others you would consider dating -- are just as lonely or they're separated from their loved one or something, and you're all like, "Hey! I'm over HERE! Try ME!" But that's just pathetic so you don't do it. And never the twain shall meet, as they say. Both go off in different directions and never connect the way they might.

Then of course there are the people (I'm specifically thinking of women I've met) who stay devoted to jerkoffs who don't treat them right. They pass right by guys like me (who think of themselves as good guys, ripe for a relationship and being in love again) and move on to the NEXT guy who is obviously not a good choice, who proceeds to let them down yet again.

And then there are the good ones who seem sweet and just right, and of course it turns out that they're MARRIED or involved.

Like I said: *sigh*

---Jeffrey

Rychian, welcome!
I'm curious about your pilot-chute-in-tow malfunction, because the idea of those scares me a bit and I am not entirely sure what is the best way to remedy such a situation. Obviously you're still here, so something worked out right. What did you do to fix it?

---Jeffrey

Quote

Are you aware that there are people in this world that have no problems whatsoever with creating stories to gain sympathy and cut in the front of lines?

Holy shit. Everybody go outside right now and check to see if there's an eclipse happening! QUADE AND I AGREE ON SOMETHING!!!

I agree, quade, and also with the person who said that the woman should ask not just the very first person in line, since the very first person in line is not the ONLY person she's cutting!

I'd have just as much fun telling her I think she's full of shit, end of the line, bitch, as I would have telling the fat fuck that he's a jerkoff.

I had a great time making a public scene one night in the supermarket when this fat fuck undercover loss-control dude followed me around as I looked for the right bottle of wine that someone asked me to get. I was not shopping for anything else, so when they didn't have the wine, I went to leave the store.

I had noticed this asshole following me, but he was making like another customer. So I was fully aware that he was tailing me as I headed for the exit. I was about to go out the door to the parking lot at night, and while I was armed, I did not see a need to INVITE having to shoot or slash this guy, so I paused and pretended to look at the sale circular that was posted in a case near the door -- but I was really watching the guy. He was behind me on the left. I turned around and said, "Yeah, can I help you?" with some attitude, and he actually stepped forward, grabbed my left upper arm and said, "Come with me."

I backed away, told him to let the fuck go of me, and challenged why the fuck I should go with him. THAT is when he said, "Store security. Let me have that bottle of wine you took"!!!!

So I was like, 'bottle of wine??' He was now making futile reaches toward my right hip, which was where, in fact, I had my shoulder satchel with you know what in there. So I protected it by sidling off to that side. But when he said he thought I had a bottle of wine there, I realized that it was the bump under my shirt from my cellular phone on my hip that he thought was a bottle neck. So I lifted the shirt, said, "It's my fucking CELL PHONE!" he got all sorry and embarrassed. By this time, everyone near the checkout counters had heard my commotion -- and I was glad. I saw one of the managers standing there -- too dumbstruck to even come over and see what was going on with a customer who'd just been accused of shoplifting. I looked right at him and said, "You got an asshole security guard accusing regular customers of STEALING?! IT'S A FUCKING [I]CELL PHONE[/I]!!!" At this point the guy was backing slowly away -- he obviously wanted to crawl into a hole. He meekly offered, "Sorry..." and I barely heard it, so I said, "Excuse me??" and he said "SORRY," again. I gave a nod and said, "Alright, then." And I walked out. Man, was I pissed off. If this schmuck was such a good detective, and thought I'd stuck a bottle of wine into my pants when I never did, how did he come to think he knew I'd done something that he could not possibly have seen happen?

---Jeffrey

I'd make my face always available as a seat.



---Jeffrey

I just went and looked at the very beginning of that PDF...

Just from a cursory inspection, I don't expect much in the way of accuracy or lack of bias from it. Did you notice that the "NGPSs were designed by NORC in collaboration with the Center for Gun Policy and Research of Johns Hopkins University with funding from the Joyce Foundation of Chicago"? It is well known that both the Joyce Foundation and Johns Hopkins are anti-gun proponents, which fund and support anti-gun initiatives.

Perhaps that explains why the introduction to this survey lists 10 bulleted items about the horrors that occur annually because of guns -- but says NOT ONE WORD about the times people use guns to save their lives, defend the weak or the innocent, prevent robberies, rapes, murders... Not one mention there. It's as though defensive gun uses do not exist -- despite reliable studies that put them at between 80,000 and 2 MILLION annually. (And repeat studies edge closer to the 2M mark than the 80k.)

Also, there are claims like, "88% want to make gun-safety training mandatory before a gun may be purchased. 79% support requiring a police permit before a gun can be purchased. 78% favor requiring background checks for sales between private individuals. 77% endorse the mandatory registration of handguns and 77% also agree that 'the government should do everything it can to keep handguns out of the hands of criminals, even if it means that it will be harder for law-abiding citizens to purchase handguns.' 74% want to require that all new handguns be personalized so they can only be fired by their legal owner... 52% favor allowing concealed carry permits only for those with special needs such as private detectives..." also "A near majority of 49% backs having handguns limited to law enforcement personnel." Also, "The public is evenly split on whether laws allowing any adult who passes a criminal background check and a gun-safety course to carry a concealed gun in public makes things safer or less safe."

There is, to me, a pretty clear anti-gun bias in this "survey." It exists in some overt ways and some subtle ways, like the choice of wording in some phrases, or the selection of what to say in the first place.

The survey is not consistent with itself. First it says that a near majority favor limiting handguns to police-only, then it says, "Only a call for the general prohibition of handguns is opposed by a solid majority with just 11% wanting a 'total ban on handguns.'" I guess that 11% wants even the police to not have them?? Otherwise how can there be a difference? Limiting handguns to police-only is the same as a total ban on handguns, if the police are set aside as a separate group which would retain handguns in the face of a "total civilian ban." One scratches one's head over this one.

I reflect back on the preposterously high percentages claimed in the above paragraphs. Do they mean to tell us that even as people support, in such high proportions, all kinds of restrictions on guns, they have nonetheless given clear indication to their state legislators in THIRTY SEVEN of FIFTY STATES that they want concealed carry passed into law?! And this is SINCE 1987. And yet, somehow, the claim is made that 52% think carry permits should not be available unless one is a private detective!? How can concealed carry be so unpopular that 49% support handguns for police only (handguns are what you would be carrying if you had a concealed carry permit). and 52% don't think CCW permits should be generally available, but that the public is "evenly split" on whether concealed carry for those who pass the criteria is good and makes things safer? And if 49% really opposed anyone but the police having handguns, doesn't that mean that the states that have passed concealed carry, which intrinsically means citizens would have handguns, have completely gone against nearly half of their constituents to install a quite unpopular policy? Do you really think that elected officials would pass concealed carry in their states if they believed that just about HALF of the people OPPOSE handguns for anyone but the police?!? This flies in the face of logic. In addition, the claims that such large percentages support all kinds of restrictions and one-gun-a-month ploys and licensing by the police and handgun registration (which would be used and has been used to later collect guns from civilian owners) -- these are preposterous, and the study's publishers should never have made these claims because by their very nature, they are suspect.

Anti-gun propagandists are not very bright. They tend to make such ambitious and grandiose claims that they forget the more modest the claim, the less difficult it would be to believe it. Rather than making small lies that might be believed, they make idiotic grand lies that are immediately called into question. If there weren't such important things at stake, it would be funny.

---Jeffrey

Why not do a medley, and segue into "Wooden Jesus" by Temple of the Dog?

---Jeffrey

Quote

Quote

that's about as bad as you can get, using a double negative, and then misspelling the word "no."

There's a quadruple negative in the blues song "Parchman Farm": Well I'm sitting over here on the Parchman Farm,
Ain't never done no man no harm."

What's wrong with double or triple negatives?
If Chaucer (and many other fathers of English language) used them, they cannot be wrong...

Double (or triple) negatives were commonly used until 18th century to emphasize the meaning (2xno means NO!, etc.) in very high literary texts. Some dork just came up with the idea of double negatives being un-logical or incorrect a bit over 200 years ago.

I never didn't fail to ever hear that they used to commonly use triple negatives! That didn't fail to not fail to be news to me!

If you think of any other linguistic anomalies, please don't make sure to not forget to fail to send them our way, okay?

P.S. I think those song lyrics mean that there isn't any man that speaker has not harmed at least slightly. Busy guy!

---Jeffrey

Quote

Quote

Is it correct to put the apostrophe afterwards, as in:

"I cut off all of the cats' tails"

Yes...

If you said "...all of the cat's tails" then that would indicate you removed many tails from one cat. Which is a humorous image!

Yes, in fact, it sounds rather... Lovecraftian.
i.e. the Goat with a Thousand Young... The Cat with a Thousand Tails...

Spooooky...

---Jeffrey
(edit: Oops! My contacts are drying out. I had thought you'd written "humongous" image!)

Quote

got one for ya:

We have a furniture store with a large lit sign reading "Dillon Interior's"

WTF? What possessed them to OK the proof?

Dave

Three blocks from me is a place with a large painted sign on the side of the building, at second-floor level, that reads: "Classic Chandaliers."

The local paper ran a story once recently about misspellings like that in obvious and public places, particularly on store signs. They had a quote from the store's owner, saying that they "wanted it that way."

How full of shit do you have to be to lie like that when you know you're being quoted for a newspaper?

I know the guy was lying because I just looked up their listing in the yellow pages and it's spelled correctely ("chandeliers") there!

Man, the lengths some people will go to because they're too petty and small to admit they had made a mistake...

---Jeffrey

Hmm, still no thieves showing up on the poll so far. And I was hoping I'd get a clue to who stole my camcorder from the DZ...

j/k I wasn't holding out the hope of finding that out in this way, but I'm not kidding about my camera being gone. If anyone knows someone who can't explain why they have suddenly acquired a Sony TRV-20, please PM me.

P.S. The poll is still in earnest.

---Jeffrey

Don't worry, this is not a morbid thing.
I was telling a whuffo I know about the woman who was in last month's Parachutist, the one whose head was struck by the Beech's tail and whose Cypres saved her life.

It sounds goofy but I found the story heartwarming. I was curious if she's someone maybe known around here or something. I just wanted to also congratulate her because her decision to have herself equipped with lifesaving equipment, well, saved her life. What better endorsement could there possibly be for Cypres?? This woman must look at people who jump without AAD as though they're walking around juggling bottles of nitroglycerine.

I don't know her, but I find myself glad she's still around. I imagine sometimes what it must have felt like to wake up in the tree, not remember having deployed at all, and think, "OMG I'm alive and I know EXACTLY why I am."

Has she jumped since that day?

---Jeffrey

I am relatively new to skydiving, but just bought myself a rig and graduated from student status this fall.

I don't mean to disparage any who use the services of packers-for-hire. For some it is the way to go -- I know for certain that since I'm slow as shit to pack my rig, I would make more loads than I currently do.

I simply GREATLY prefer to do it myself -- even if that means my openings won't be so great until I get a bit better. My preference is for self-sufficiency and self-reliance, and I feel that for me it would be a cop-out to pay a packer to do what I, as a beginner, should really be spending time learning to do well.

I have been told of various people around who have not packed for themselves in so long that they don't remember how. I consider that a bit dangerous. If you are so out of the loop re: packing, that you couldn't do it if there wasn't a packer around, doesn't that mean that you're not super-familiar with your own rig, the way you really should be? I mean, if you no longer remember how to pack, does that mean you could look at a rig with something done WRONG, and not recognize that it's wrong?? Plus, I have had people come over to me when I was really new to packing and stop me from actually screwing something up -- something I was not about to necessarily notice! If a person doesn't really know how to pack, and he's the only one witnessing a screwup, he's essentially "not there for" the person who's gonna jump that rig with the packing error. Something to think about.

I'm interested in your opinions about using a packer as opposed to packing for yourself.

P.S. I know that packers work damn hard and deserve respect. I've seen them in action.

---Jeffrey

Quote

so you're insisting people compensate for your limited attention span?

if you don't like the thread titles, don't read em. your choice.

Now that's not fair. You're clearly putting words in his mouth. He did not use the word "insist," he used the word "urge," which is like "entreat." YOU are the one saying, now, that he's INSISTING.

We KNOW it's "his choice." When I read his post, I understood that he's simply making a very good suggestion that would enhance communication on the forum. Better labeling of threads means less time spent on those you don't care to read, and also fewer MISSES of threads you WOULD have read, if only they had been labeled well enough for you to know you're interested.

I see no problem with John's suggestions.
But please. It is disingenuous to characterize him as "insisting people compensate for [his] limited attention span."

---Jeffrey

Quote

Well, let's say a politician made it known that she was gathering as much support as possible to continue, and in fact close some loopholes in, the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.

Would a politician like that not get your support for re-election based solely on that? Regardless of Party affiliation? I mean, what if she was a Republican with those views? Would you try to boot her out of office?

Fuck YES I would oppose that lying c**t's reelection. There is nothing wrong with the "loopholes" in the 1994 ban that letting it expire will not solve.

Nothing was accomplished by that travesty. Same guns made and sold, just without some flashy doodads on them. Are you any less able to be shot by an attacker with an AR-15 that has an uncollapsible stock? Of course not. Good thing they're used in less than a single percent of gun crimes (according to our own FBI).

Why do you persist in appearing to think that the 1994 ban did anything at all? We've made it abundantly clear that no good and functional purpose was served.

---Jeffrey

Quote

If a person is pro personal ownership but anti assault weapon would you say the person is pro or anti gun?

If a person had those opinions, would that automatically make him, as Winsor might say, a person beneith contempt?

I would first attempt to determine, through questioning, what is this person's understanding of what "assault weapon" means.

I have found that most people -- and make no mistake, this is by design of the anti-gunners -- are CLUELESS about what is implied by the term.

Josh Sugarmann of Handgun Control Inc. (which interestingly changed its name to The Brady Center To Prevent Handgun Violence after it realized that Americans who are concerned with rights don't like the term "control" very much) has been quoted saying that gun controllers should, essentially, capitalize specifically on the confusion that many non-gun-owners (i.e. people unfamiliar with guns and how they work) have in distinguishing the "good" guns from the "bad." Here is the quote:

"Assault weapons... are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons — anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun — can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."

-Josh Sugarmann, "Assault Weapons: Analysis, New Research and Legislation", March 1989

That is telling. Here he is admitting that while assault weapons are not in fact machine guns, anti-gun forces should trade on that confusion in garnering public support for a ban. In other words, get the people to support a ban before they figure out that what you are trying to get them to support is not what they think you are trying to get them to support.

I wonder, quade: DO you know what an "assault weapon" is?

DO you know that the AR-15 I have, which fires only one bullet per pull of the trigger regardless of how long it is held, is what Sugarmann is calling an "assault weapon"?

DO you know that the Department of Defense defines an "assault rifle" as one which has a selector switch that can make it fire in semi-automatic OR fully-automatic modes?

DO you know that the "assault weapons ban" did not ban anything? It did not call for the collection of or surrender of any guns currently in private possession. It did not ban any MACHINE guns, as those have been strictly controlled since 1934. It singled out a group of gun models that LOOKED like military rifles, except they did not fire in full-auto mode. The menacing attributes of these guns? They had bayonet attachment points, flash suppressors (which simply disperse the flame from the muzzle so that it does not blind a shooter using the gun in low light), pistol grips, collapsible stocks, or grenade launcher attachment points. The guns are not allowed to have any 2 or more of these features. Oh, also, magazine capacity is limited to 10 rounds of ammunition.

Apart from that, the guns do not function ANY differently from many many other guns that no one singled out to "ban." The "ban" on the aforementioned types of guns simply meant no more manufacture of them for sale to civilians. They are still made, but sold only to police and military. But how safe did this law make anyone, when ALL of the previously manufactured models (even those on the shelves waiting to be sold) are still able to be sold, bought and owned by civilians? No one had to turn in their AR-15 with a pistol grip, flash suppressor and bayonet lug. I can still go to a store and pay a jacked-up price for a 15 round magazine for my Glock. The price is high because supply is now cut off, but they're still around and obtainable.

So I bought an AR-15 that has only a pistol grip. No flash suppressor, no bayonet lug. It would now be illegal for me to add those things after the fact. The exact same ammunition is used and fires at the exact same speed. The gun was made after the ban and COMPLIES WITH THE TERMS OF THE BAN. The anti-gunners characterized the re-release of the banned models WITHOUT the offending accessories as "skirting the ban," and tried to make it seem like this was dishonest or immoral. Let's see about that.

In California, it is illegal to drive an RV that is over a certain number of feet. (I don't know the exact number, it's something like 35-or 40 feet I guess.) Does that mean that if the length limit is 40 feet, and a company makes and sells an RV that is 39'6", it is a bad nasty company that is "skirting the law"??

Quade, I don't know what it is about this subject that causes you to have such difficulty accepting facts from people like me, winsor and johnrich, among others, without disputing or remaining so recalcitrant about it. You spitefully demand "cite" when we tell you something that we have no reason to lie about. Truth is truth. Hopefully now you know more about assault weapons than you did. Hopefully you trust that I'm not making shit up -- because you know, that'd be pretty stupid of me since these things could be independently checked on and you could come back and say, "Jeff, I checked, and you were full of shit."

An interesting story:
When I was in college, I was at my friend Ian's with my other friend Matt. Matt and I both owned guns. Ian and his parents were quite opposed to the idea of gun ownership, being educated suburbanite elites who always had 911 at their beck and call. The subject of guns came up, and Ian's dad exhorted that people shouldn't be able to have "these semi-automatic assault weapons." I said, "Mr. R., do you know what an 'assault weapon' IS?" He said, "Sure, you pull the trigger and bratatatatatatatat!" And he made the motion of a soldier raking a field with machine-gun fire.

I said, "Thank you, you just proved my point." Mr. R. probably had written his congressman urging support of the assault weapons ban because he THOUGHT, MISTAKENLY, that he was going to be "getting machine guns off the streets." He knew about guns, essentially, ONLY what he had been told by anti-gun propagandists. This is, unfortunately, typical. Unless someone has an interest in guns, he is not likely to know all that much about them. Same goes for flying, skydiving, scuba diving, or anything that has its own jargon and esoteric information. The sad result is that many people can be swayed by propaganda. When my brother was in the Army and brought home a Glock he had bought, I was shocked! I was about 16 and didn't know jack about firearms -- just bb guns. I said, "Isn't that the one that's plastic and can go through metal detectors?!"

I knew only the bullshit propaganda LIES that I'd seen on the nightly news and in articles in dumbass magazines like Rolling Stone.

My brother then handed me the cleared, unloaded, open-chambered gun, and I got to feel that it contained about a pound or so of metal. Hardened steel. This was what they had tried to terrify us about, with claims (*LIES*) that it could go through airport metal detectors covertly?! WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS LIE? IT HAD BEEN ALL OVER THE COUNTRY by the time my brother brought home one of the guns that the lie was about! HOW COULD ANYONE WITH EVEN A PASSING FAMILIARITY WITH THIS GUN MISTAKE THE FACT THAT IT IS NOT MADE WITHOUT THE USE OF METAL?! There was no possible explanation for the misinformation except that it was deliberate: that it was intentionally spread by someone who knew that it would take years to reign in the lie and set the record straight, and that we might never even fully accomplish that.

I have yet to see a deliberate lie or misrepresentation by the pro-gun side.

So now to finally answer your two questions directly:
If a person claims to be pro-gun but is anti-"assault weapon," I not only call that person anti-gun but I question that person's understanding of gun functions and the very utility of the right to keep and bear arms.
And if a person holds this "opinion," since it is based on misinformation and lies, generally -- I do not hold that PERSON beneath contempt, for he or she might be a very good person, but I do question his or her rationality and reasoning skills, ability to spot an obvious lie, credulity, etc. I have contempt for the ignorance that can lead a person to think there's something wrong with so-called "assault weapons" that is somehow not wrong with "sporting arms" and "hunting rifles." Did you know that there is NOW a push to ban various HUNTING rifles, because suddenly since they are accurate and powerful at distances in the hundreds of yards, they've morphed into ... wait for it ...

SNIPER RIFLES!!!

And you thought it couldn't get any more inane.

---Jeffrey
---Jeffrey

Man, we are just a bunch of SLUTS!!

I just answered and checked out the poll results. SO many would "kiss anyone!"

Of course, that's what I answered as well, but
still...
We are such SLUTS!

BTW I have not had a kiss pass yet.

---Jeffrey

Mel, WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME! Remember me? We had a good chat tonight. I sure wish I was an instructor instead of a 56-jump A-licensed newbie, 'cause you seem like an A+ student; willing to ask questions, willing to listen to answers, eager to learn. You'll do great.

Sure it may seem like there are cliques around the DZ (I don't know SDC but I'd bet they're all at least kinda similar) but if you stick around, maintain a happy look on (even with bad weather), listen more than you talk (I should take my own advice, and I usually do but sometimes I can't help myself), keep showing up, remain willing and eager to learn, and occasionally screw up to have to buy beer, you will come to be accepted and befriended. In my case, I brought home-made beef jerky and other stuff I made and passed it around like I'd made it for my family. I think that opened people up to me. Oh, I also tried to keep a happy-go-lucky attitude about me. The only time I'm moody at the DZ is when I have already tried three times to get my main into the d-bag and still haven't kept it from squirreling away on me. (And when that happens, I don't yell and scream, I just sulk and walk away and try again later, usually with help from someone.)

I wish you blue skies and fun times. Keep in touch with reports about your progress and adventures, 'kay?

---Jeffrey

Quote

Quote

True, of course. But the comparison is lop-sided, as shown by this 1994 Poll:

"Do you happen to have in your home any guns or revolvers?"
Republican .............. 49% Democrat ................ 37% Independent ............. 39%

Uh anything newer than 10 year old Data?????

A fair question. Probably just stuff that shows that those Democrats who have since been mugged are now Pro Gun.

(There's that joke that a Conservative is a Liberal who's been mugged.)

---Jeffrey

Quote

I think I just put a LARGE smile on a great woman's face. Make someone smile today. It's a cool thing!

Did you throw in an apple pie with her Number 3 and not charge her for it? You dawg, you! Cuttin' into McDonalds' bottom-line like that just to impress a chick!

---Jeffrey

Quote

Quote

Here's my ? for ya, how come guys can get all these girls just being a skydiver but I never get any guys when I tell them I jump (and they don't)?!?!?! WTF, how come it only works for guys?!?!

since when, and where does this work for guys? me thinks you is confusededed.

I know! Right?! I'm still waitin' for all the chicks to think I'm cool and adventuresome and want to bed me! LOL!

In the meantime, if that doesn't happen, I'm still engaging in a kick-ass fun recreational activity! So, no big loss. Besides, a girlfriend or a wife would probably eat into my available time and money for skydiving. Maybe I'm ahead of the game after all. Besides, there's some pretty entertaining porn out there these days to sublimate the urges...

---Jeffrey

Quote

Quote

I've seen him post about other stuff. Apparently you have, too. Are you tired of new people coming to your little playground with views different than yours, CanuckinUSA?

I'm not here to debate whether guns are good or bad and whether or not people agree with whatever it is NY state is trying to do.

But I bet if you did a search for every post that John has ever made on DZ.COM, 95% (or more) are gun related. I don't know about you, but I come to DZ.COM to talk about skydiving. If I wanted to talk sports or aviation or whatever else, I'd be on some other forum.

Back to your regular scheduled programming...

I started posting here only in the last few weeks, and the same can be said of me: I have posted a large portion of my total number on the subject of guns.

Perhaps we just like discussing guns with fellow skydivers? It's like you can talk guns with gun people, you can talk skydiving with skydiving people, but sometimes you want to find out how the one feels about the other. I'm glad to read John's gun posts, and I suspect him not of being a "gun troll." He is erudite and articulate about the subjects he posts on, that's for sure. Frankly, his rationality and expression have earned him my respect. That and the fact that he maintains decorum even in the face of some really abject willfull ignorance... That's the kind of guy who really earns my respect. Me, I tend to lose patience and get condescending.

---Jeffrey

Quote

Quote

What if the threat is to someone else?? Can you shoot the bad guy in that case??

In TX, yes. For anywhere else, I couldn't tell you.

For instance, if you walk into a C-store and someone has a gun pointed at the clerk or a knife drawn on the clerk, you have the right to use lethal force. You will not be persecuted if you do or if you don't, its your judgement if you're willing to take action for someone you don't know, putting your life at risk (you never know if there's a sleeper in the store/outside the store with a weapon as well).

In NY and here in FL, when I've gotten information about the use of "deadly physical force," it always said that it was justified if there was a threat of grievous bodily harm or death to yourself or another person. That means if a rapist has a knife to the throat of a woman and is on top of her looking like he's about to kill her, you can shoot him and it'd be legal. It's a fair presumption on your part that a knife to the throat demonstrates intent to kill, because if you are held to any stricter standard of determining whether he intends so, well, the knife would have to have been already drawn across her throat, right? That's why you can assume you're at risk of deadly harm if someone points a gun at you. What's the alternative, I ask of the liberals: do I have to wait til I see the muzzle flash before it's fair for me to conclude he "means it"?

Dave, btw, "prosecute" -- unless you really meant "PERsecute." I thought that was an apt freudian slip. It seems that some localities actually DO "PERsecute" those who act in self defense, since it's not a very PC thing to do these days...

---Jeffrey