birdlike

And I know a hotel that banned skydivers, a quarter mile from a dropzone. Blues, Dave Did they hope that they go in? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

I heard that the hotel won't rent rooms to skydivers either, and tells them to get lost, and that they hope that they go in. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

In the FURTHER interest of balance, DID THE HOTEL THEN STATE THAT THERE WAS FOUND TO BE [I]CAUSE[/I] TO REFUSE [I]THIS PARTICULAR[/I] SOLDIER a room? You know, "case by case"? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Key words: "up to". That's the maximum time that the State is allowed to process an application for a CHL. The purpose of that is to keep the state from dragging its feet and denying citizens the license that they deserve. It doesn't take that long to do the background check portion of the application. That 60-days includes time to process the fingerprint card, the photos, the training certificate, the money, do the background check, print and laminate the license, etc. You gotta love how Kallend just automatically assumes that the entire 60 days is spent doing this hellaciously thorough background check. NO SHIT. I've been calling him that forever, but all he wants to do is wish me a good day. What a swell guy!

Why, then, does the Texas CHL check take "up to 60 days" and NICS is instant. Might have to do with the fact that they are giving themselves time to receive your paperwork, process it, have someone make the call to do the background check, create the license card, stuff it into the envelope with associated forms and letters, and get it mailed; and who knows how many people on staff are there to handle those tasks for how many hundreds, or thousands, of applicants? Might also have to do with the fact that it RARELY EVER TAKES THE FULL 60 DAYS. What proof do you have that even though they state that it will take "up to 60 days" that it usuall, or ever, does? I imagine they are probably checking the NATIONAL records and probably also the STATE records, which would of course be kept by different agencies. Not enough to satisfy you, anyway. I wonder, if we gave the same information that you want the government to have about anyone who wants to buy a gun to the Department of Homeland Security, how much of an uproar your balls would get into. Do you know for a fact that a charge that received deferred adjudication makes one ineligible for the concealed carry license? In Florida, it does not. (This has been the subject of some debate here recently, actually.) Do you profess to have knowledge of what IS in NICS? How can you state what is NOT in NICS without knowing what IS in it? I am not certain but I think it was the FBI that they called when I bought my last gun in Florida here. It is the person on the other end of the line who is doing whatever checking they do. For all I know, that could include checking the elements you think are missing. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

He doesn't care about that -- in this case, it's only gun owners. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

You must've meant, "equally as flowery." Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

You're mighty proud of that "I-won't-listen-to-anyone's-points" attitude. You might want to think about how it appears to others besides me when they see me ask you reasonable questions and you plug your ears and say, "Have a nice day" as cynically and sarcastically as you do. I am not obliged to respond to anyone. I find your debating style offensive and choose not to be drawn in to debate with you any more. Have a nice day.

How is it that you can make this correction and yet insist that "Birdman" is the one who does this all the time but you don't? Does this one (and the last three) not count, or something? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Comma not required According to my university it does, I wish to belive them over you, sorry. I really don't give a fuck, I don't spell-correct, Birdman does tho. Not to mention, the question mark and exclamation mark should be within the quotation marks, unless the author actually wrote it that way. I stand corrected. You're right on both points. Congratulations: now you're both wrong. Not that--even if you ever come to understand why--you'll ever admit it. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

"....closed to accepting PMs..." Not really surprising. I'd post the message, including the name of the sender, if it had been sent to me. No, the next thing you know I'd be chastised for making a private convo public. At least I'm concealing this wonderful specimen of a human being's actual identity. Post the name of such a coward and people here will be sure to tell you that you did the wrong thing. I mean, take a look: six people already think what he did was justified. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

According to my university it does, I wish to belive them over you, sorry. Not only should you have said, "According to my university it is," (meaning "is required"), you misspelled "believe" and wrote a run-on sentence. Your university probably owes you a refund. You should check into it. Another nice run-on. You should have written that you really don't proofread your own work. Reading comprehension troubles? I was asking a question that quoted a declaratory statement, not a question asked of me. The question mark and exclamation mark do not belong inside the quote. What university is this, anyway? I want to steer clear of it if I should ever decide to go back for a graduate degree. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

It should have been a colon instead of a period. Yes, if I had followed with the quote directly, instead of leading into it by posing a question. The part where I said, "Who'd have thunk that a grammar chide would net..." interrupts the relationship between the colon and the quotation. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

That must be why I had this extra piece of punctuation left over in my set. It was bouncing around in the box and I couldn't tell if I had left out a comma or a single-quote. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

That doesn't surprise me in the least. Upon whom else have you wished death on a skydive, then? Just curious. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

You can throw that old strawman around if you want to, that I'm forever correcting people's grammar and spelling. The fact is, it's bullshit. I've done it once in a while, at most, to jab at people who were themselves in the process of giving others shit for grammar and spelling errors while making their own. As for it being "______" to post about it; well, maybe if the "_____" (whom I will not name) had not closed off replies by PM, I could have just addressed it with that person privately. Who knows, maybe that person will be anonymously shamed into feeling bad about doing something that most of us (well, there are 6 who think it's ok so far) think is pretty reprehensible. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

I'm not blown away by it, considering some of the crap people spout here. Was it a PM or a direct post? And no, a grammar chide does not warrant a response like that. It was in a PM from someone who is closed to accepting PMs in return. I first tried to send back, and would have expressed how flabbergasted I was, but I was met with a message that the user does not accept PMs. Go figure. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Jeez - you need examples?? You really know nothing about third-world countries. That just shows how illiterate you are. Scary, such a nescience. So, how many warnings do they allow you on the personal attacks? I wasn't even addressing you. May I remind you that in an internet forum, it's rarely a discussion between 2 ppl? It's an open forum, so you just have to expect replies from every participant/visitor. A PA? Dear, that's just warmest greetings from a sh*t hole. Calling someone "illiterate" is not a PA, huh? OK. Well, have a very very nice day.

Here's an idea. People are pumping the idea of a single-payer health care system. All of the money to pay for health care would come out of one pot of taxes, and everyone would be covered. Why not the same thing for LEGAL DEFENSE? No one would be allowed to hire his own attorney, because everyone's legal defense would be paid for and provided by the state. No rich person would get a better deal than any poor person. It would be very egalitarian. Now, I know some of the reasons why people would oppose this. First of all, the concept that any attorney working for and paid by the state, even if his job is to "defend you," has a conflict of interest. But that reason for opposing state-provided legal defense goes back to the defense of the concept that those who have money to pay for a highly qualified attorney should be able to purchase for themselves the best defense their money can buy. You cannot force them to accept inadequate legal representation just to keep them equal with the indigent, particularly not when their public defender walks into court under the cloud of a conflict of interest. Let's remember that The State is trying to prove him guilty, and The State is paying for his attorney. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Jeez - you need examples?? You really know nothing about third-world countries. That just shows how illiterate you are. Scary, such a nescience. So, how many warnings do they allow you on the personal attacks? I wasn't even addressing you. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

You're mighty proud of that "I-won't-listen-to-anyone's-points" attitude. You might want to think about how it appears to others besides me when they see me ask you reasonable questions and you plug your ears and say, "Have a nice day" as cynically and sarcastically as you do. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

And if you listened to the "experts" on home defense, you would know that they typically advocate against using a shotgun for home defense. It is unwieldy to keep at the ready when rounding corners, presenting significant weapon-retention difficulties if a confrontation enters a struggle (i.e. someone can grab the barrel or forend and take you off-target); it is unlikely to be kept nearby in a ready state in case of a home invasion; the concept that "you really don't even have to aim it" is just so much bullshit; handling the shotgun may present difficulties to small or weaker members of the household if they need to use it. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

You have no way of checking? You couldn't just ASK him, "Say, you claim that Texas does a nice thorough job of vetting the mental health of CCW applicants. What, may I ask, DO they do to vet the applicants?" See, here you come, telling us, with an appeal to authority, that someone you claim is "usually reliable," that he knows some unspecified trick that Texas uses that would satisfy you that the loonies aren't going to get a gun license. (I assume you want that applied to the sale of an actual gun.) So you are essentially asking us to trust a third-hand source who didn't even give you any details. Are you able to see why we might be skeptical? That's not an unreasonable thing to want. We'd be hypocrites if we said we didn't want the law enforced. But you haven't shown us why we should support the mandatory surrender of our sensitive medical/mental health records to the same government you don't want listening to terrorists on the phone. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

If gun control supposedly works, why should it not work in third-world countries? basic things like rule of law, basic import/export /border controls, prevalence of bribery and corruption, desperation of the populace, low value of human life. These are all things that exist in our inner cities. You've cited nothing unique to third-world nations. Perhaps this is why in our inner cities, gun control is about as effective as it is in those third-world countries... Ya think?! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

But it's very often those "innocent people caught in the crossfire" that the gun bans are touted as being passed in an effort to prevent. And we are clearly seeing that the Chicago gun ban does not keep guns out of the hands of the criminals who are the people we should most want to see disarmed. If the Chicago gun ban is working so well, why did the Rev. Michael Pfleger (or is it "Phlegmer"?) have to picket outside a Chicago gun shop and say that he was going to "snuff out" a legal gun seller whose every sale is subject to BATFE scrutiny (and yet he had not been shut down for cause)? But it hasn't gone up, either--despite the presence of a gun ban. And I don't see how it really could have gone down, anyway. Then why oppose rescindingthe gun ban? You just said that addition of guns wouldn't change anything (i.e., it wouldn't make it better or worse). If it wouldn't make it worse, why not let people have their right to keep and bear arms back? You're right, I have never lived in Chicago or its environs. But I do know that every state that has gone shall-issue has seen a drop in violent crime. Has Chicago seen a drop in violent crime? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire