I'm an "extreme" social liberal and an "extreme" fiscal conservative. I consider myself to be quite open-minded.
I believe that the gamut of "credible" candidates are equally "closed-minded" in the sense that none of them believe in anything, "centrist" candidates most of all.
-Peter
Re:Some of the changes (possible spoilers)
on
Star Wars on DVD
·
· Score: 1
This little monkey could be the fuckin' damn dirty ape responsible for the fall of the human race. In this world gone mad, we won't spank the monkey- the monkey will spank us. And after the fall of man, these monkey fucks'll start wearing our clothes and rebuilding the world in their image. OH and only those as super smart as me will be left alive to bitterly cry - DAMN YOUS. Goddamn yous all to hell.
I'm no fan of Bush, either. I can't tell the difference between him and a Democrat. I guess the bluster is a little different, but in practice they are indistinguishable.
The first Congress passed the Militia Act of 1792, which said, in part:
[. ..]That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia[. ..]
So you see, militia was only meant to restrict who possessed firearms on a basis of race and sex, not based on military service.
-Peter
PS: This is scraped off a website, but it happens to be my website;-)
The response to this has been a call from Katie Tarbox's lawyer, which Katie Jones describes as "very unpleasant". The lawyer "tried to convince me that I should donate the domain name to them," Katie told us.
We can only control ourselves. Give me a magic wand that can disarm criminals and I'll gladly use it.
But as long as we are constrained by reality our choices are to live somewhere where only people with criminal intent carry firearms, or somewhere where there is some parity between criminals and concerned citizens.
I wouldn't want to have a similar experience to Suxanne Hupp's.
Incidentally, very few firearms are carried "cocked and locked." The only reasonably common carry guns that fall into this category are the 1911, and derivatives, and the Glock. The Glock uses and internal hammer and has several integral safeties. It emulates the revolver's "inherently safe" design. The 1911 has a manual safety and in integral backstrap safety. I think this is poor design (but give old Browning a break), but I don't think that it is unreasonably unsafe.
I would only carry a revolver (and I do only use revolvers for home defense) for both safety and (mostly) reliability reasons. I have a buddy that routinely carries a 1911 (yes, he's a big dude) and I feel perfectly safe around him.
Look up the word attorney. It's still Katie T's fault. Her response is, apparently, to pretend that her part in this never happened. Even if we fall back on Occam it still shows a distinct lack of character.
Yes, she must be trained. Yes, she must be willing to shoot. No question. Any person that does not commit to these two requirements should not carry a firearm.
I think, however, that your ideas about the amount of training necessary* and the likely outcome are skewed.
The simple method is for her to carry a specially made purse, that is actually two compartments wrapped around a holster. She can discretely slide her hand inside and hold the gun, ready to fire, any time she is uncomfortable. If she decides it is necessary she can just push her purse into her assailant's chest and "pull the fucking trigger 'til it goes 'click.'"
We seem to agree that the optimal reaction to having a gun pointed at you is to take it away, but I am doubtful that a "typical" rapist would take that approach. (If you are trying to victimize someone, wouldn't you reconsider if that person immediately responded with superior force?)
-Peter
*Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of firearms training. I don't think that a person has to be a Ranger with a black-belt to effectively employ a firearm in his or her own defense. (Which seems to be alexo's position. Or, maybe, he thinks that I think that firearms are a panacea. I don't.)
Slashdot Mirror
-Peter
PS: That's correct American punctuation above. I believe it would be
in the UK.
-P
"Kit" means "ass" in Amharic. I'm so disturbed by this.
-Peter
So now Slashdot is outsourcing its dupes to India?
-Peter
Not just stuff, stuff that matters.
-Peter
You don't think it would be easier to for a person that already has some degree of technical competence to overcome the social difficulties?
-Peter
Perhaps you aren't familiar with Ted's sordid past.
-Peter
Two of the cases cited involve a person going to jail for how a map was drawn.
This article certainly illuminated what backward-thinkers Americans are.
Huh?
-Peter
As I was reading the two articles all I could think was "Does 'energy' mean something different in Canadian English?"
-Peter
I think he meant punching Chad clean out.
-Peter
Horse shit.
I'm an "extreme" social liberal and an "extreme" fiscal conservative. I consider myself to be quite open-minded.
I believe that the gamut of "credible" candidates are equally "closed-minded" in the sense that none of them believe in anything, "centrist" candidates most of all.
-Peter
Best Lucas parody ever is on the Clerks cartoon.
On that, at least, we couldn't agree more.
-Peter
Kevin Smith is a genius.
-Peter
I wouldn't have any trouble remembering which finger I used . . .
-Peter
They work harder, but lose the ability to learn.
Might explain why I know so much, but never do a damn thing.
-Peter
I'm no fan of Bush, either. I can't tell the difference between him and a Democrat. I guess the bluster is a little different, but in practice they are indistinguishable.
I'll be voting for Michael Badnarik.
-Peter
Coincidentially enough, today is my 29th birthday. Thirty is really begining to loom. If only I were 17 again . . .
-Peter
Dear Moderator,
Thank you for moderating my post as off topic. Only with your help can we maintain any semblance of order around here.
But . . . where the fuck were you for the last 450,000 off topic Bush bashing posts? You know, the ones that were modded "insightful" or "funny?"
Thank you for your ongoing efforts.
-Peter
So you see, militia was only meant to restrict who possessed firearms on a basis of race and sex, not based on military service.
-Peter
PS: This is scraped off a website, but it happens to be my website
-P
You ever reloaded a pistol one-handed?
-Peter
Said the original story on The Register.
Oh, you don't recall that, so I must be a SlashBot supporting a Slashdot conspiracy to assasinate Katie Tarbox's character.
Fuck off.
-Peter
We can only control ourselves. Give me a magic wand that can disarm criminals and I'll gladly use it.
But as long as we are constrained by reality our choices are to live somewhere where only people with criminal intent carry firearms, or somewhere where there is some parity between criminals and concerned citizens.
I wouldn't want to have a similar experience to Suxanne Hupp's.
Incidentally, very few firearms are carried "cocked and locked." The only reasonably common carry guns that fall into this category are the 1911, and derivatives, and the Glock. The Glock uses and internal hammer and has several integral safeties. It emulates the revolver's "inherently safe" design. The 1911 has a manual safety and in integral backstrap safety. I think this is poor design (but give old Browning a break), but I don't think that it is unreasonably unsafe.
I would only carry a revolver (and I do only use revolvers for home defense) for both safety and (mostly) reliability reasons. I have a buddy that routinely carries a 1911 (yes, he's a big dude) and I feel perfectly safe around him.
-Peter
Look up the word attorney. It's still Katie T's fault. Her response is, apparently, to pretend that her part in this never happened. Even if we fall back on Occam it still shows a distinct lack of character.
-Peter
So was it mis-reported that Katie Tarbox's personal lawyer was trying to get Katie Jones to give up the domain?
-Peter
Yes, she must be trained. Yes, she must be willing to shoot. No question. Any person that does not commit to these two requirements should not carry a firearm.
I think, however, that your ideas about the amount of training necessary* and the likely outcome are skewed.
The simple method is for her to carry a specially made purse, that is actually two compartments wrapped around a holster. She can discretely slide her hand inside and hold the gun, ready to fire, any time she is uncomfortable. If she decides it is necessary she can just push her purse into her assailant's chest and "pull the fucking trigger 'til it goes 'click.'"
We seem to agree that the optimal reaction to having a gun pointed at you is to take it away, but I am doubtful that a "typical" rapist would take that approach. (If you are trying to victimize someone, wouldn't you reconsider if that person immediately responded with superior force?)
-Peter
*Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of firearms training. I don't think that a person has to be a Ranger with a black-belt to effectively employ a firearm in his or her own defense. (Which seems to be alexo's position. Or, maybe, he thinks that I think that firearms are a panacea. I don't.)