100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
Topic:
I tried to go asleep...
|
|
Turning off the computer and hiding the mouse and keyboard from yourself might be a good start.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Funs with Guns
|
|
lol jist...are you saying I should have gotten clarification on what he was teaching me to shoot? I don't really know what I was trying to say. Although I am trained and skilled in the use of firearms.. I don't have any idea what 'teching' is as it pertains to firearms. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Funs with Guns
Edited by
Jistme
on
Mon 04/21/08 11:53 AM
|
|
I am relieved to see you are a guy.... no competition! 
You are making the assumptions that he is not another one of the guys thinking I am you, since we posted these pictures, he is not gay... and I have not turned gay overnight. The later being a pretty reasonable assumption. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Funs with Guns
|
|
btw...who were you calling OLE yeller lol. you sure you want to call me that then offer to teach me how to shoot lol Well teachnically, he offered to tech you how to shoot. Sorry rambill.. I couldn't help myself. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
what's wrong with a prenup?
|
|
Not sure I'd marry again....after being through a divorce I understand, like it or not, there are financial implications when splitting up....now I have too much I've worked hard for to let that slip away....I would have us both sign a prenuptial agreement....Its smart financial & asset planning, that is all.... I was engaged to a woman who merited that kind of thinking. She most likely would have taken everything I had.. Based on the fact that she was in the process of taking everything I had while in a courting relationship. I came to my senses. That was all the prenuptial agreement I needed. To agree with my instinct, that I should not marry that woman. There are women in my past.. and one in my present that are worth any material thing I have. If it means they and theirs live a better quality of life. My Ex-wife included. I have lost and regained my possessions a few times in my lifetime.. It comes and goes. The material has no kind feelings for me. Honest love of a genuine and good woman? Not so much. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Funs with Guns
|
|
Wow... I am humbled by your remarks.
I do not see myself or writings as extrordinary in any way. After all.. It is not rocket science to have a desire to be on point and research what you say, what you quote and the validity, applicability to the subject at hand. It just makes sense. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
How many?
|
|
At times.. But not as a regular part of my diet.
I think the last time I had chocolate might have been with lilith... Nope.. That Cheesecake we fed eachother was strawberry.. Not chocolate. But I do believe that was the last desert of any sort I had. I was a pastry chef as a teenager. I think I ate my lifetimes share of chocolate during that time, just testing my cooking and recipes I developed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
what's wrong with a prenup?
|
|
Well... you did not address the 'propose' part...
Yup.. Like you would follow me to Africa and live in a tent under fire. I think I'm gonna have to trick you just to get you to go to a semi primitive campground.. Hide the tent and backpacks under luggage in the trunk... Show you a pamphlet of a resort.... Then don't stop for anything till we get to our destination. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ In regards to the prenup.. Why would I ask or someone accept a marraige proposal if there is a suspicion and need to prevent financial harm? Unless the marriage is for other reasons, such as naturalization or other business reasons. Personally? I refuse to live my life around an effort to protect myself...and in fear of things that have not happened yet. In times that I have lived my life that way? I was a complete @ss.. Often being offensive in anticipation of someone offending me... Such as a few in these forums continually demonstrate. My previous marriage ended amicably. She got what she wanted from the material aspect of the marriage. Left me what I came in with and some of the communal property. When we decided to split? We were done arguing. We did plenty of that as a married couple. Niether of us saw any reason to continue it as a divorced couple. If that was what we wanted? We probably would have stayed married. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Funs with Guns
|
|
In regards to Lordlings previous post.
Thank-you. I also enjoy reading your posts. They are very well thought out and challenging. Generally staying away from the rhetoric, on point, informative and clear. Regarding militias, this is the best article I've ever read on the subject. Don't denigrate it just because it's hosted on a "pro-gun" sight. Read it.
http://www.guncite.com/journals/tmvarc.html I did read the paper you linked... and it does make a compelling argument. However.. I do question the overall intent... The author, no matter how well spoken seems to be a party to special interest. *by Thomas M. Moncure, Jr. Member, Virginia State Bar. Assistant General Counsel for the National Rifle Association of America. Major, Military Police Corps, U.S. Army Reserves. The author is also a former member of the General Assembly of Virginia, where he served on the House Courts of Justice (Judiciary) Committee. The views expressed herein are solely those of the author. The assistance of Gina Abdo in the preparation of the manuscript is gratefully acknowledged. Not that it is wrong to write a manuscript on your opinion about a national concern.. Or it is wrong for you to cite said manuscript... My issue with it is, In my opinion... It leaves out some of the history and aspects of the overall debate. While bringing up the stark difference between then and now. All the possible incursions we could have and were subjected to then...By Indians, The French, The Spanish...etc... Compared to our social climate today. It somehow lost a few momentous occasions of domestic insurrection. It offers the war of 1812 as the first major conflict..Which is true, but there is no mention of the previous use of the militias in domestic rebellion, and how those occurrences shaped the social and political landscape of the day. It also makes no mention of the Articles of the Confederation and it's influence on the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Given that the authors of both documents were the same men, says much. There is much in it that has not been introduced to this debate in JSH though. For instance the mention of 'United States v. Cruikshank' Where it was decided in the mid 1870's that 'The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.' and the enforcement acts of the early 70's... Which many construed to be in breach of both the first and second amendment. Then the case of... Presser v. Illinois. Where the Court claimed the 2nd amendment was intended only to limit the powers of Congress and not the State. While also saying that the State was unable to disarm it's citizens because they were part of the Federal Militia. So.. Even then, the 2nd amendment was judged to be a whole..dealing with the militia, which is to be governed. So.. I am concerned with the conclusion of the manuscript. Which seems to be more seated in tradition then actual real world law. Relying on the Constitution to answer fine details of arms regulation is inappropriate and futile. In this area (among others), it is only a baseline, recognizing unalienable rights, ensuring the maximum freedoms possible, without crippling the effectiveness of the government, or recklessly endangering it's citizens. I agree.. it is futile. I disagree with your use of the word unalienable (or inalienable). The only inalienable rights we have are human not civil. "The law of the Creator, which invests every human being with an inalienable title to freedom, cannot be repealed by any interior law which asserts that man is property." The Constitution, by way of the 2nd Amendment, sets a restriction on the government (as does the entire Bill of Rights). It does not grant the right to bear arms (it does not possess the authority to do so). This is what must be understood by any who support a ban on guns (or any other weapon), or such restrictions and regulations creating an inconvenience or burden to the exercise of this right.
For the sake of debate..Lets assume this to be true.
How this right is guaranteed in practice, should be left to the individual states, with NO interference by the federal government. Even then, they too would be prohibited from passing any legislation which would nullify or circumvent the declaratory statement made by the 2nd Amendment. It also makes no difference what is stated in the first part of the 2nd Amendment; it could have just as easily been left off entirely. It was put there as a conciliatory gesture - a justification to those advocates against the amendment, because they could/would not disagree with the need for a well-equipped militia.
I suspect this to be an opinion. I doubt the men in charge would have ratified a 'conciliatory gesture' in the document in question. It is not difficult to determine to whom the right applies:
1. The People (all citizens of the United States of America). a. Excepted: Anyone who has proven by their actions to be lacking in the fundamental, necessary moral or mental judgment to properly exercise said right in society. This is to be determined by the judiciary of the individual states - NOT by the federal government. The reasoning is thus: By their actions, they have forfeited said right within society. Unfortunately.. If gun laws are found to be unconstitutional? The entirety of US Code Chapter 44, Firearms.. would be null and void. We would also be hard pressed to make any sort of law for the sake of public safety when it concerns firearms. So... any free man or woman regardless of behavior, illness or action will be able to possess and carry a weapon, loaded with the ammunition of their choice. The arguments brought up, time and time again, regarding being armed while traveling, etc., etc. are also pointless. The moment you choose to travel by means of a commercial carrier, you voluntarily, temporarily, surrender certain rights to help ensure the safety and well being of all others utilizing that service. It ceases to be an issue of individual rights, and becomes one of societal safety. If you were the only one on the airplane, then the reasoning behind the regulations would be less likely to apply, but not necessarily baseless; the airplane, after all, is not yours. It belongs to a private business, which is perfectly within it's rights to establish such rules or regulations as they deem necessary, or to comply with state or federal safety directives. That being said, there should exist no prohibition against being armed as you see fit, while utilizing personally owned transportation.
Again...any free man or woman regardless of behavior, illness or action will be able to possess and carry a weapon, loaded with the ammunition of their choice. Sure! The airline, railway or other conveyance can deny you service if you attempt to carry a weapon onto their vehicle.. But they cannot jail you for it. Addressing the issue of mandatory gun safety training or pretesting before acquiring firearms (or any other deadly weapon), I would have to vote "no" on these, as they impose a preclusion on unalienable right, and therefore constitute infringement. Again.. I see a confusion as to what is an unalienable right and a civil right. However..it is a lost point.. To make anything a condition to owning and carrying a firearm would be unconstitutional.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
what's wrong with a prenup?
|
|
Now if only Jist won the lottery... no wait he'd have to play it first, and propose...... I'm betting you wouldn't be having any of that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
what's wrong with a prenup?
|
|
I'm not against prenups in general.. I'm just against them personally.
Should I decide to ask someone to join me in union... and feel a need to protect myself from them... Then I have problems that a prenup will not protect me or my marriage from. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Funs with Guns
|
|
anyone else think it's strange that the bad guys can pick up guns anywhere but the good guys almost have to sell their first born for one???? and why does everyone get scared when i ask them to teach me to shoot one???? things that make you go hmmmmmmmm Even this article, rob cited.. gives credit where credit is due.... in regards to illegal weapons. While trying to make a case for the pro gun movement. http://www.crimefilenews.com/2008/04/bloody-17-hours-in-chicago-32-shot-6.html 'The gunrunning networks are simple. Criminals are supplied by burglary proceeds, stolen police and military weapons. Drug dealers often accept payment in guns as well as cash later selling the guns at a profit. Despite the heavy-handed federal, state and local gun law enforcement criminals in Chicago will never be disarmed.' The amount of legal weapons we have in this country will always be a supplier of illegal weapons to the black market. The last time I looked? It is hard to steal what you do not have. Darn near impossible! Somehow.. I have a feeling it is easier to steal a weapon from a home in suburbia then it is to steal a weapon from a military armory. Most here who keep fire arms say that they keep them safely... Maybe so. But statistically? If it wasn't for the private gun owner? We would have a drastically reduced amount of available firearms available to the criminal. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Funs with Guns
|
|
I never meant to say there was no need for a jail system, not everyone who commits a crime should be executed, only those involving violence. People were executed for violent crimes quite regularly in the us till the 20th century took hold. No you didn't say that.. You said: OUr judicial system has been so perverted by liberalism that there are now people walking the streets for crimes that 200 years ago they would have lost their lives for.
This subject is way off topic...and only really seems to serve a purpose of once again, blaming them damn liberals for all the worlds troubles... But... Since you brought it up. A brief history lesson might be in order here. The death penalty has not been a constant in American history. It has undergone numerous changes and reforms in the past two centuries, falling in and out of public favor. Immediately after the American Revolution, some legislators removed the death penalty as punishment for many crimes. In the genteel nineteenth century, government officials went even further, ending public hangings that once entertained large crowds of curious onlookers. Officials deemed it more seemly to conduct executions in prisons, away from public scrutiny.
In the 1840s reformers called for the elimination of the death penalty. In 1846, the Michigan legislature made that state the first government in the world to remove the death penalty altogether. Historian Louis Masur has argued in Rites of Execution : Capital Punishment and theTtransformation of American Culture, 1776–1865 that the death penalty might well have ended in the whole nation if the Civil War, and the brutalizing of society that it engendered, had been averted. The Federalists (Or Republicans) were in power of both the House and Senate until 1798. The Death penalty was eliminated as a punishment for many crimes, including arson, piracy, sodomy, burglary, robbery, rape, horse-stealing, slave rebellion, and often counterfeiting... and a few other crimes.. Leaving only murder in the 1st degree and treason in many of the States, with exception to the south. Thomas Jefferson lead the reform. Jefferson was a Fedralist. The next reform happened between 1833 and 1853.. At which time public executions were banned. During that time.. some States eliminated capital punishment in its entirety as well. Later that century.. States that had manditory death sentence went to descretionary death sentances. Between the Civil War and World War I the abolitionist movement was quite strong throughout the States. After World War I? Well... Capital punishment reached an all time high of 167 per year in the 30's. Yup.. Those damn 20th century liberals {note sarcasm}. Also.. In reference to the claim that D.C.'s ban on handguns increasing crime... This information from the New England Journal of Medicine... which one would think is probably a reputable publication... says different. In 1976, Washington, D.C., took action that was consistent with such evidence. Having previously required that guns be registered, the District prohibited further registration of handguns, outlawed the carrying of concealed guns, and required that guns kept at home be unloaded and either disassembled or locked.
These laws worked. Careful analysis linked them to reductions of 25% in gun homicide and 23% in gun suicide, with no parallel decrease (or compensatory increase) in homicide and suicide by other methods and no similar changes in nearby Maryland or Virginia. Homicides rebounded in the late 1980s with the advent of "crack" cocaine, but today the District's gun-suicide rate is lower than that of any state. In 2003, six District residents filed a federal lawsuit alleging that the statutes violated the Second Amendment of the Constitution, which reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The case was dismissed, but in March 2007, a divided panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal, finding "that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms," subject to "permissible form[s] of regulatory limitation," as are the freedoms of speech and of the press.5 The District appealed, and on March 18, 2008, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller. The Court is considering whether the statutes "violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other guns for private use in their homes." It will first need to decide whether such rights exist. The District argues, on the basis of the history of the Bill of Rights and judicial precedent, that the Amendment guarantees a right to bear arms only in the service of a well-regulated state militia (which was once considered a vital counterweight to a standing federal army). It argues secondarily that should the Court extend Second Amendment rights to include the possession of guns for private purposes, the statutes remain valid as reasonable limitations of those rights. No one predicts that a constitutionally protected right to use guns for private purposes, once it's been determined to exist, will remain confined to guns kept at home. Pro-gun organizations have worked effectively at the state level to expand the right to use guns in public, and all but three states generally prohibit local regulation. If people have broadly applicable gun rights under the Constitution, all laws limiting those rights — and criminal convictions based on those laws — will be subject to judicial review. Policymakers will avoid setting other limitations, knowing that court challenges will follow. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Sooo....
|
|
I sat in a room where two drunk men were yelling at a TV, Yelling at each other, Yelling at people on the phone who were probably drunk too... about a 200 dollar bet they had on a basketball game... Asking stupid questions and telling me how to do my job..Which was repairing one of their f@cked up computers. I shoulda charged them my idiot rate.. Which is 3 times my regular rate. But.. I probably won't be taking a drink anytime in the near future. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly 2013 miles due east of here. In a particular bed...with a purple comforter and matching sheets on it. Oh yea..and a particular tallish, redish brunette to the right of me. If I click my heels together? She's on your left, sweetie 
Nope.. I'm facing west right now.. So she is actually behind me. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
April 20th
|
|
http://www.concept420.com/what-is-420.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly 2013 miles due east of here. In a particular bed...with a purple comforter and matching sheets on it. Oh yea..and a particular tallish, redish brunette to the right of me.
If I click my heels together? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
but I noticed that you put your opening statement in quotes. Was that because they came from the Dept of Justice or a psychological study of somekind Sorry.. My Sources. The international epidemiology of child sexual abuse. Finkelhor, D. 1994. Studies by the state of Washington. BJS Survey of State Prison Inmates, 1991. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. Dr. Ann Burges, Dr. Nicholas Groth, et al. in a study of imprisoned offenders. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#sex how do they get the recidivism rates that they do?
It is relatively easy to compute the recidivism rate of those known... without tracking the unknown. However.. you do bring up a valid point that to truly study the habits and acquire a better understanding of the whole social dynamic... Better reporting could only help. Not to mention that it would help get them off the streets. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jistme
on
Sun 04/20/08 07:04 PM
|
|
now me, I do not \agree with the registration process, because simply put it is a punishment after the fact. They have served their time, according to definition they are rehabilitated (I know they arent in reality) and they are supposed to be free upon release. There are some holes in the logic of the registration process... Often people do get caught up in the system who may not actually need to be there. Sex offenders are less likely to re-offend then other violent offenders. Statistically 43% of sexual offenders recidivate... As opposed to 68 percent of non-sex offenders. However.. Sexual offenders are four times more likely to commit a sex crime upon release from prison then non-sex offenders. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
now me, I do not \agree with the registration process, because simply put it is a punishment after the fact. They have served their time, according to definition they are rehabilitated (I know they arent in reality) and they are supposed to be free upon release. register while on parole? Yes that would be fine, but once they arew completely off parole and out of jail, etc. we need to shut up and leave them alone as they have done their time and served their punishment. NOW... I believe the registration SHOULD be available for law enforcement to have, just not the general public. That way, law enforcement can know who is in the neighborhood, so to speak, if something happens. BUT, like my neighbor. He has to register for something like fourty years cause he is eighteen, his girlfriend was seventeen and her parents found out they were sexually active, thus pressed charges. As far as I am concerned he did nothing wrong (it WAS consentual and not date rape), but now he is branded for life, caus ehe and his girlfriend decided to have sex, and her parents did nto like him. Michigan § 750. 520b et seq. Third-degree criminal sexual conduct is sexual penetration with someone between age 13 and 16. Punishable by up to 15 years in prison. If she was 17 and he was 18? According to Michigan State law? He commited no crime. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
