birdlike

Um, then your answer should be, "No, it doesn't work." See above. Once again, repeat after me: "NO, it doesn't work." Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

What the fuck would he care? He gets Secret Service protection. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

How can anyone answer "The Chicago gun ban is working great" in light of the incontrovertible FACT that there are gun-related murders there, and guns are acquired on the street there and used within the city? That'd be like trying to leap to the moon, coming back down to earth after getting 15 inches up, and calling your leap to the moon a success. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

The shock of this murder in Egypt by a wealthy businessman is not that he did it, but that he was actually arrested. Yeah, but keep bitching about how horrible it is in the U.S. Every time you do, you make some of us laugh good and hearty. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

By that, do you simply mean "the right one for the evidence that was presented," and that the prosecution simply did not prove the case? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Yet you say that you don't support the destruction of Israel. Just what do you think would happen to the funding of Israel's enemies if word got out that it had lost the funding and backing of the United States? Do you think that countries in the Middle East would not dig deep into their pockets to buy terrorists or Hamas all kinds of goodies to lob into Israel? While you're at it, spend some time imagining what Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills would look like if the police announced that they would not respond to emergency calls about robbers or smash-and-grab thieves. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

I'm not fully decided about Israel, since I think that I like it but also don't like the idea that the whole problem seems to have arisen when the nations of the world said, "Here, we'll dump the Jews that survived the Holocaust on land already occupied by someone; and we'll take it away from the people who are there in order to do it." Think of the many many billions of dollars that the U.S. has spent as a result of that boneheaded, wrongful decision. But as for "throwing the first punch," why not bring up the way Palestinians fire rockets into Israel all the time? Into civilian areas and targets. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Well, firing a rifle does cause it to shake... Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

For me, they probably cross-reference the list with my Life NRA membership, and won't seat me on a jury because they know I'm the "throw-the-book-at-'em" type. The more of 'em we throw the book at, the fewer trials we'd end up having because more criminals would be put away for longer; and fewer judges, defense attorneys and prosecutors would make money. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

But I'll bet you'd piss and moan if a bunch of fucking MORONS showed up to jury duty if YOU were on trial. If you ever want to complain about the quality of the people who make jury decisions like in the OJ Simpson or Robert Blake trials, remind yourself that you like it when smart people can get out of jury duty, and that you think jury duty is beneath you and people should be able to say "fuck you" to doing this civic duty. Trial by a jury of your peers is one of the blessings of a democracy, and you are taking a big shit on it. Nice. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Yes, those stabbing sprees - read about them all the time. 32 people killed in stabbing spree... Get real, Ron. AH, so you respond to the comment about STABBING, but the BOMB idea... you didn't feel like taking that one on. Well, at least we know why. YOU DON'T HAVE A FUCKING THING THAT CAN REFUTE IT. Here, chew on this for a while. I guess no one's dangerous unless he has a gun, right? If that doesn't thrill you, maybe you just need to read about something even more devastating. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Honestly, I don't think I've ever met someone more willing than you to ignore statements that refute his thesis. Did you miss the part where the NRA actually SUPPORTED taking care of the "loophole" that enabled Cho to get his gun? Takes the wind right the fuck out of your bullshit-sail, there. But it won't surprise me if you ignore that I said this, the same way you ignored having it pointed out to you that the NRA worked to close the "Cho loophole." Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

You don't have a constitutional right to fly. Let us know when you're ready to take your physical/psychological exam to get your VOTING LICENSE, Kallend. And if your medical doctor happens to be a member of the AMA, which already is on record avowing that guns are a "public health menace" and that guns are just too dangerous to keep in any home with children, and increase your likelihood of getting shot to death... then I guess your gun- and voting-rights are fucked. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Careful who you bet against around here. Kallend is liable to demand that you make your loss payable to the ACLU! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

How should the background check be implemented then? More thoroughly. Yes, by all means. Everybody, cough up your private medical and mental health records. We're giving them to the GOVERNMENT for SAFE-KEEPING. (The same government that has run Fannie Mae, the Iraq War, Social Security, the FDA, the FAA, and FEMA so very very well... Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

So useless that HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of prohibited would-be buyers were stopped from buying guns under Clinton's administration. All of about THREE of them ever faced prosecution for the federal felony of attempting to purchase a firearm as a prohibited felon. Don't talk to us about how "useless" the background check supposedly is when it proved itself "useful" and then the CRIMINALS it ferreted out got LET GO. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

As far as I know, Cho obtained his guns from licensed dealers, NOT from private sellers, so he did NOT "slip through a loophole," at least, not the so-called "gun show loophole." That term applies to the lack of a requirement that private sales pass a background check. Cho passed background check-adge because his mental impairments were not such that they got him put on any no-buy list. . Thank you for making my point in such a proofread way. A homicidal maniac PASSED the current background check, because it is USELESS as currently implemented. Thanks again for making the point. He did not pass through the LOOPHOLE that you anti-gunners are always talking about, i.e. he did not "get around" background checks -- he didn't have the information that might have precluded him from buying a gun from a dealer included in the stuff that the NICS check sends back. He didn't go and buy from an "unlicensed dealer" (itself an oxymoron that antis use all the time). If you have a problem with the fact that his mental health records were not put into the database to keep him from getting a gun legally, you must answer two questions: 1) Do you really support everyone's private mental health records going on file as soon as their doctor (or anyone qualified to make a determination) decides whether they're "sane" or not? (Wouldn't that be a BIT worse than "warrantless wiretapping" that will probably never in your life eavesdrop on you, anyway?!) 2) Was Cho adjudicated mentally defective, and/or involuntarily committed in his past? That would made the difference in whether he was made ineligible or not. Then there's always the question of whether he would or could have then gotten a gun by theft, or black market. Let's see, do you honestly believe that any black market can ever be eradicated? And if he could not get any gun, who says he wouldn't have gone down to the local mall-ninja store, or online to Museum Replicas, and gotten himself a sword? Could he not kill 5, 10, 20 people if he just walked into a busy food court at the mall and started hacking with a Katana or a broadsword? What about a few bottles of gasoline and some matches? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Nice job, there, screwup. You went and posted a picture of John Lithgow! When do we get the picture of MEP Eva-Britt Svensson? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

You're complaining about late-night food ads, and then you go and talk about basted lamb?! You fucking hypocrite!! Now I'm the one who's hungry!! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

A comment like that ought to be banned as SEXIST! You're perpetuating a sexist stereotype, that women are just always supposed to be beautiful! In fact, BEAUTY, as a concept, is sexist and demeaning and should be banned. Fuck, it's Europe, the only things that are not subject to being banned are tyranny and oppression!! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

The funny thing is, I have the album, and there's scant few other songs on there that really do a damned thing for me. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Actually, though the post was not aimed at me (and thanks for not muzzle-sweeping me with it , I agree fully with your views here. It is much the same (to me) as the way I trust people who are not religious more than I trust people who are religious. The non-religious people, if they are doing right, are doing right because they have been taught, and agree that doing right is the right thing to do -- the thing that makes the most people safest and happiest. They do it because they believe in doing right. The religious people, on the other hand, I have no reason to believe are doing right for any reason other than that they fervently believe that if they break the rules and do wrong, punishment awaits them. Whom do you trust more, the guy who does right even when doing wrong would bring no punishment? Or the guy who does not do wrong because he's terribly afraid of the consequences that the invisible man in the sky will dish out? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

And yet as your example shows, no amount of blind rules will prevent dumb people from doing dumb things. A rule at a shooting range that you may not walk around with guns in a certain condition, or touch them at certain times, give the RSO the authority to step in and prevent a disaster by allowing him to pre-emptively lock down certain scenarios that are known to lead later to accidents. For example, if an RSO sees someone carrying a gun with the slide or bolt in battery, he can stop them right then, with the authority and call to do so (because just doing that is against the rules) and may find that the gun was (properly) empty, or may find that it was loaded and an accident waiting to happen. This is not about not trusting people. We have trust in them in the appropriate time and place. In other times and places, we "trust but verify." (We trust them to have and use guns, but verify that they're doing it safely.) WTF?! Did I not just cover this?! The gun carried into Walmart is HOLSTERED, and NO ONE IS FUCKING AROUND WITH IT. The gun at the range COULD be LOADED at a time when it is not holstered or encased, and various things could actuate the trigger while it is not pointed in an appropriate and safe direction. As we've already said, NO double standard. What you actually should be comparing this range rule to would be if a concealed weapon licensee took out his CCW and began pawing it needlessly. He would be stopped, just like the guy at the range would be--hopefully in time to prevent a negligent discharge, just like at the range. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

As far as I know, Cho obtained his guns from licensed dealers, NOT from private sellers, so he did NOT "slip through a loophole," at least, not the so-called "gun show loophole." That term applies to the lack of a requirement that private sales pass a background check. Cho passed background check-adge because his mental impairments were not such that they got him put on any no-buy list. Check your facts, Prof. You're throwing terms and accusations around so fast and loose, you aren't making sure you really understand them. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Maybe he'd have forced them to smoke cigarettes until they died. Why wait so long? He could have used [/url "http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/09/world/fg-stab9"]a vehicle and a knife[/url] Let's see. 6 shot and killed. 2 wounded. 7 run down, stabbed and killed. 10 wounded. Hey, let's ban those guns! Did someone suggest banning guns or is this another one of your strawmen? People suggest gun bans of one type or another, from total to only certain models, all the time. But it doesn't have to be about a ban, either, because even if the goal is only to keep them from a certain segment of the population, everything generally fails, from the most draconian ban to the most innocuous reporting requirement. So fine, if I say, "OK, no one suggested a ban," I still can show that even if there were just "tight controls" on who gets guns, even if those targeted people didn't get guns, they'd still do major carnage, as we saw here. It's so ironic that you (was it you?) raised the issue of the 6 killed and 2 wounded recently when the guy with "only" a knife and a truck killed 7 and wounded 10! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire