birdlike

"Oh no you DIH-INT! Oh no you DIH-INT jus' say dat to me, beeyoch!" Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Well, the funny thing is, I don't think it was said all that heinously. It even had a after it. And it was not to someone I've picked on mercilessly--or ever. I'd have thunk that a fairer exchange would have been a chide back! But wishing death? To a fellow skydiver? (Presumed fellow skydiver, that is. I have no knowledge or proof that this person even jumps.) That's pretty damned fucked-up, if ya ask me. Certainly tells me something about the state of this person's mind, you bet. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Are you asking whether the rich get an easier time in civil court versus criminl court? Or are you asking whether the entire legal system gives them "a break"? Your subject line does not appear to be asking the same thing as your body message. In any case, no, I don't think they get a break from the system. Can they afford better, more practiced lawyers who have learned the law, and learned how to present a case more effectively, sure. Just like the rich can afford to drive more reliable, safer, better-performing cars. EVERYONE gets his chance to get defended in court, though. Even the pisspot who shoves a knife into someone to get money for his next hit of meth. (By the way, YOU pay for HIS lawyers. And his appeals. And his meals, and place to sleep. Probably for some high school or college courses, too. Have fun!) Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

I'm blown away by this. Who'd have thunk that a grammar chide would net "I hope you go in, you miserable piece of fuck"?! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

And their there are many who's whose ultimate goal is a c Christian theocracy. I'd settle for a decent public school system! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

I'm curious to hear what you don't like about buddhism. Just curious.

there is a difference between dissent america bashing. many on the left have gone beyond dissent into the realm of claiming america is a bad and evil country. as with anything, you can go too far. Well said. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

CHINA is an open book?? NORTH KOREA is an open book?? CUBA too?? How about that. I didn't know. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

I have no idea what explains what you allege, but I would remind you that there are plenty of unflattering questionnaires from Obama, like the ones where he admits support for gun bans. But oh, he "supports" the 2nd Amendment! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

I tend to vote for Republicans over Democrats because I can't stand what the Democrats tend to support, ideologically. So I guess that qualifies me to answer the question as a "Republican supporter." My answer is, I can't stand the "Religious Right." I dislike all religion very strongly, and I just don't get with people who fall for it. When I vote for Republicans (when I do), I usually am holding my nose about their ties to religion. It just so happens that about a bunch of other issues, they see things far closer to my way than the Democrats do. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

I'm having a pleasant evening. How does that bear on your unwillingness to discuss this subject and answer questions instead of just misdirecting and evading? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

If the ability to get the gun depends on a federally mandated background check, what difference would it make if the permit system was more lenient than the gun-check system? They'd have permits but no guns. But the fact is, you still have to be a non-felon and a non-crazy to get a license to carry, so your attempt at a point is moot, Kallend. Has it occurred to you that the mandated check can be done thoroughly - or not? No, I don't suppose it has. I wonder why Texas takes up to 60 days to complete the check for the CCW? Nice how you subtly shifted the discussion from how easy it was for Cho to GET A GUN to how long it takes to get a LICENSE TO CARRY. Why the switch, Kallend? When cornered, you change tracks. It's a waste of our time to discuss this with you, because when the failures of the system you advocate are pointed out to you, you ignore that, and start pretending that you were arguing something else all along. This is ridiculous. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

*Applause* for yet another insightful, finely crafted response by chrastelsibene. Wonderful job! So much contributed! Why so many words? Just admit that you're incapable to understand. Easy as that. edited for typo You've never even come forward with a viable argument in this discussion, much less bested any of us in the debate. Why would I concede anything to you? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

If the ability to get the gun depends on a federally mandated background check, what difference would it make if the permit system was more lenient than the gun-check system? They'd have permits but no guns. But the fact is, you still have to be a non-felon and a non-crazy to get a license to carry, so your attempt at a point is moot, Kallend. Has it occurred to you that the mandated check can be done thoroughly - or not? No, I don't suppose it has. I wonder why Texas takes up to 60 days to complete the check for the CCW? So, please tell us what it is that causes Texas to take up to 60 days to get a CCW license processed. I can virtually guarantee you it often doesn't take nearly that long. I have heard from people in various states who have received their license in something like 2 or 3 weeks. Are you suggesting that you have knowledge of what takes Texas 60 days? You certainly are implying like you have this knowledge. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

If gun control supposedly works, why should it not work in third-world countries? I'm sure you have the intelligence to answer that for yourself. For some strange reason, vaunted intelligence and all, you are unwilling to disseminate your own ostensibly superior knowledge. You've been dropping these pathetic teasing hints, and offering this really lame attempt at Socratic reasoning. NOTHING coming from you has been of any value. You answer questions with questions, and shamelessly evade giving any clear answers. I think your real purpose here is to just keep us running in circles. Not a lot of point in discussing anything with a person who is insultingly aggressive and angry all the time. Have a nice evening. Yet another bullshit evasion. Even if you consider my inquires "insultingly aggressive," there are others here who have been asking questions sans the "insulting aggression" and you haven't given straight answers to them, either. Perhaps you feel they haven't been aggressive enough to warrant answering. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

If gun control supposedly works, why should it not work in third-world countries? Oh my. *Applause* for yet another insightful, finely crafted response by chrastelsibene. Wonderful job! So much contributed! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

If gun control supposedly works, why should it not work in third-world countries? I'm sure you have the intelligence to answer that for yourself. For some strange reason, vaunted intelligence and all, you are unwilling to disseminate your own ostensibly superior knowledge. You've been dropping these pathetic teasing hints, and offering this really lame attempt at Socratic reasoning. NOTHING coming from you has been of any value. You answer questions with questions, and shamelessly evade giving any clear answers. I think your real purpose here is to just keep us running in circles. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

If the ability to get the gun depends on a federally mandated background check, what difference would it make if the permit system was more lenient than the gun-check system? They'd have permits but no guns. But the fact is, you still have to be a non-felon and a non-crazy to get a license to carry, so your attempt at a point is moot, Kallend. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

WHAT?! How can it be the "obstructive gun lobby" when people aren't even allowed to HAVE HANDGUNS in Chicago?! Before we can see if this Texas-style background check works in Chicago, maybe the obstructionist anti-gunners would have to decriminalize guns first, yah?! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

If gun control supposedly works, why should it not work in third-world countries? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Let me ask you this - do you HONESTLY believe that the system in place right now is the best that can possibly be implemented to prevent inappropriate people from easily obtaining guns? Can YOU not think of a single way in which it could be improved? It sounds clearly as though YOUR way to improve it would be to give the government access to people's private mental health records. And yet, you won't just own up and SAY that. Instead you answer questions with bullshit evasive questions! Plus, even if we do go with your plan of giving the mental health records to the government, and even if they do manage to not lose them on laptops that get stolen or databases that get hacked, your plan will not stop those people who appear normal and didn't have a disqualifying mental health record before the get their guns. You might stop a guy who has gone crazy before trying to buy a gun, but not the guy who goes crazy AFTERWARD. You always qualify that with "first world," which I guess serves two purposes; (1) it helps you eliminate the ones that are not first-world, that have more gun homicides, in order to make the U.S. look as bad as you can; (2) it lets us know how very much you are concerned for the well-being of those third-worlders whom you casually write off (presumably as un-helpable by gun control schemes because they're such savages). Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

The fun goes where I go. Besides, seven rants for seven posts. It helps keep it organized. Are you offended or something? Nice, substantive post, by the way. Really cut to the heart of my argument that absent guns, people can still kill quite a number of others. Gee, you sure did a job on that one. Wow, I'm reeling from your onslaught of logic! ...Oh, wait a minute. All you did was shoot back some wit-less one-liner. Nevermind. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

That is, until the next one. The fact is, if your criminals and gangs are getting guns, as you say, then the only thing keeping them from doing a Port Arthur is the simple fact that it's not their desire to do so. Our press, amazingly, is not that enlightened yet. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

The VA Tech massacre certainly also showed that "Gun-Free Zones" don't work; and underscored the good that could have been accomplished if one of those classrooms held a person carrying a legal firearm carried concealed. No one is saying he/she would be a Dirty Harry, roaming the halls looking to find and shoot Cho. But he could remain in the classroom like so many did (remember that older professor who sacrificed himself trying to hold the door closed?) and when Cho came in, he could be hiding behind the door as he entered, and POP him just as he comes in. Massacre over. As opposed to the same group of people is huddled in that classroom without a gun, and they are just waiting to be slaughtered. There is no respect-worthy reason for anyone to oppose this anymore. We have TRIED it the "gun-free" way, and it has been FAILURE AFTER FAILURE AFTER FAILURE. Ted Nugent got on the television after VA Tech and said so, in so many words, and he was 100% correct in everything he said... and then he was ignored. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Even MORE interesting will be seeing what kallend has to say about this Gang war, battling over turf. With guns that -- if we were to believe gun-banners -- they shouldn't be able to be getting, because no one gets a gun legally in Chicago, and the public is kept soooo much safer because of it! That fact is strangely absent from your reply. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire