shellshock

The border patrol thing really happened. Border patrol cop shot at the van that he thought was trying to hit him after he pulled them over, he shot at the tire, and a woman (immigrants were packed in) was packed in the van just above the rear wheelwell. Bullet fragment busted through her jaw. They imprisoned the border patrol (in this case I think this one was actually a sheriff's deputy) for 9 months or so. The border patrol thing, two of them have been imprisoned for YEARS for trying to do their jobs. I saw the story during a segment on America's Most Wanted, but I'm too lazy to get you links.

i think that if USA was a new country, and we were deciding from the start about whether or not to allow gun ownership, we could legitimately control guns and gun ownership and they would be reasonably hard to obtain by the criminal set, BUT, given the number of guns already in USA, gun control will mainly keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens...

this subject is one of the main things that won the election for Bush... Many hunters and gun-rights supporters voted for him, even though they may have disagreed with much of his policy, because he supported citizens' rights to bear firearms. In the US, this issue is as big as abortion rights, the war in iraq, etc etc etc... LEGAL gunowners passionately defend their right to own firearms. I agree with earlier posts that stated that if guns were outlawed, or made much harder to legally purchase, criminals would still find them. People will find tons of statistics to support either side, but I support the stance that more restrictions on gun ownership will only restrict LAW ABIDING citizens. Criminals are CRIMINALS, they aren't worried about the laws. And, before you say that less guns will make it harder to find guns, you need to understand the AMOUNT of guns that are in existence. Unless the government is going to confiscate and destroy 100's of MILLIONS of firearms, there will still be PLENTY of weapons available to those who really want them and to those who are willing to break laws to obtain them. Personally, I own two firearms. I own a 12 guage shotgun that I use when I bird hunt, and I own a 9mm Ruger pistol that I use for target shooting. I also deer hunt, but I borrow a rifle from my dad, because I don't have the cash right now to get my own. I enjoy both hunting, and the physical act of firing a weapon. There IS a lot of power in your hands when you fire it, and it is FUN to control it for many people. You can say its a power trip, compensation for penis size, many arguments, but I don't care, I still enjoy it. My dad owns somewhere in the neighborhood of 12 firearms. Out of those, one is a pistol, the rest are long-guns used for hunting. His weapons are kept in a safe. And monte, the gun cabinets you spoke of earlier, are being replaced all over by safes that will take considerable effort to break into. In my highschool, (and yes, I'm out of high school, and have a university degree, but still live in the local area I grew up in), the majority of families that I knew owned multiple firearms. I've known NO-ONE that has been harmed by a firearm, and my parents only know of few cases, which were either caused by mishandling of a loaded firearm, or were suicides. I understand that the situation is different in many urban areas, and that occasionally an unstable youth obtains firearms and harms many (Columbine), but that isn't a TYPICAL situation that affects firearms owners. There is also a major difference is legislation prohibiting the purchase of assault weapons, and legislation controlling all purchases of firearms. The major fear amongst law abiding gun owners is that anti-gun activists will try to use ANY anti-firearms legislation as a stepping stone to remove ALL guns from law abiding citizens. Personally, I'd like to own an assault weapon, to use on targets. When I visited Vietnam a few years ago, I had the chance to fire some older machine guns at a firing range, and I enjoyed it. But, I understand why lawmakers would want to limit access to those weapons to law enforcement agencies and to military personnel. I would be willing to give up legal access to those weapons, IF and ONLY IF, they guaranteed our right to continue to possess other firearms which are currently legal. I don't believe this would happen though. Just after the Brady Bill was passed, anti-gun activists claimed that they would use that victory as a stepping stone towards their longterm goal of getting rid of all firearms. I'm not ok with that, and will vote for people who will fight that type of legislation, and will support lobbying groups like the N.R.A. in order to have my views pushed on Capitol Hill. Huntingwise.... I eat every animal I kill. Everyone I know who hunts, eats every animal they kill, or gives it to someone who wants it for food. Most anti-hunters don't realize that most hunters are conservationists themselves, who WANT to see thriving numbers of animals in the wild, healthy, because it BENEFITS hunters. Legal hunting is also controlled, with major studies done to monitor wild animal populations, and to set limits that control the population without hurting it. Over the course of my lifetime, I've personally seen local populations of whitetail deer and turkeys, begin to thrive. I can now enjoy to hunt these animals, AND I can enjoy seeing these animals in the wild. This year, I've been deer hunting probably 20 times, of these times, I've seen deer on all but 2 occasions. I've yet to fire a shot. I am waiting to see if I can find a large buck, which I can shoot and eat, as WELL as mount as a 'trophy'. If I don't see one, I will shoot a doe solely for meat. I don't want to shoot more than I will eat, and I enjoy watching the wildlife as much if not more than shooting it. Most anti-hunters don't understand how hunters feel, or have only seen examples of 'bad' hunters who shoot anything that moves, who overkill, who tresp!@#$%^&*, who waste the animals they kill, etc, etc, etc... A good example of a positive group of hunters, who not only enjoy hunting but do things to help wildlife with habitats to thrive is Ducks Unlimited. Back to guns, Guns are one of the few issues that I will get 'up in arms' about (no pun intended). I will adamantly stand up for my right to own them, and to use them legally. As far as the handgun I own, it IS for personal protection. Is this a sad commentary on the state of affairs in our country? Probably. As an aspect of my career, I frequently have to enter abandoned houses, to secure them for lenders, and I also have to go to homes to evict people. When I enter these abandoned/vacant homes, I am alone 99% of the time. Occasionally, you will encounter vandals or druggies in these homes. I feel that this firearm gives me a chance against a drug crazed person, who may not realize that I'm not there to harm them, and who could attack me without being provoked. If they come at me with a baseball bat, or piece of broken glass I DO feel safer with a gun by my side. No, I've never had to use it, and no, I've never been attacked. There HAVE been local people in the same field as me who have been though, with one fatality in a nearby city.

state's rights issue, not cons!@#$%^&*utional issue also, church vs state issue Churches, completely up to them to decide if they agree with gay marriage or not. I believe that some churches are becoming very 'open minded' with this. State's should be able to decide whether or not they agree with gay marriages/unions. I, for example, live in the bible belt. My state would probably leave the union again before it let the federal government tell us that we had to allow gay marriages/unions. M!@#$%^&* is welcome to allow gay marriages/unions, but don't tell us we HAVE to accept them. Now, where it becomes a Federal issue is taxes and interstate laws. For example, if a gay couple legally bound in Boston moves to Georgia, does Georgia have to accept them as a 'couple' and do companies there have to give them spousal benefits? Or, can Georgia say they are just living together, they don't recognize the marriage, and their employer is allowed to deny them spousal benefits? Also, does the Federal government recognize them as married for the purposes of filing taxes? I personally don't believe that homosexuality is natural, genetic, or something you are born with (not comparing it to a disease, just stating I don't think people are homosexual from birth). I think it is a choice, resulting from conditioning and external factors throughout childhood/early adulthood. I don't care if people choose to like the same sex, I'm just concerned with ramifications if the Federal government decides to force states EITHER WAY. Personally, I'm for gay 'unions' outside of the church. My reason is that there is a lot of responsibility with marriage, and a lot of risk. For some reason a news report sticks in my memory about Hawaii, in which they don't actually have gay marriage, but companies have to give rights to gay partners. Gay marriage would at least force homosexuals to be legally bound, before receiving those rights. Now, I'm in agreement with Monte (what's the world coming to???) about gay adoption. The problem with it ISN'T that the child won't be loved, it's that they grow up without the influence of BOTH sexes. (Insert joke about which man wears the pants here) This is mostly theoretical since there are VERY few adults that were raised by gay parents right now. Now, the same can be said for children with deadbeat dads, or who have a parent leave the home. But, can't we all agree that children growing up in a split home isn't ideal? And that it would be better (in the case of heterosexual families) for a child to grow up with both parents, as long as one parent wasn't abusive or something? Ok That being said, I think that a stable heterosexual family is more ideal for a child being adopted than a stable homosexual couple. NOW, if there isn't a heterosexaul couple that wants to adopt a child, I have no problem with a gay couple being able to adopt them. I DO think that having homosexual parents that care about you is better than being bounced between foster homes.

speaking of women's rights, what about the male's rights.... the woman is the one to decide whether or not (in the end) to keep or abort a child. her decision affects her partner for the rest of his life as well. in some ways, with current laws, the male has less rights than the female, because when it comes to adoption or abortion, the male can't make a final decision to give it up. if the female chooses to keep the child, the male is legally obligated to support the child for the next 18years (akai, i'm all about the responsibility thing too, but accidents and stupidity happen) speaking of rights, why should a person on government aid (welfare) be allowed to continue having children? why should taxpayers be forced to support her when she keeps having children she can't afford?

On all SSCX zones, I'm getting HORRIBLE packetloss. I've run countless traces, and 95% of the time it's coming from one router, now another one is kicking in and making it worse. Both problem routers are through ATDN network. Anyway to get these issues resolved? Anyone to complain to? I went to the atdn site, and their was nothing there i could find to help. ANY suggestion would be appreciated. Ok, So I know this isn't a continuum problem, hoping someone can help me find out what to do though.

monte, i don't think the us CAN educate anymore about safe sex and make people more aware. from the time I was 10 years old, it was taught every year of public school, but we still had girls getting pregnant. Guys are too lazy to buy condoms, don't wanna use them, girls let them continue with their lame excuses, oops they got pregnant, BAM want an abortion. Except maybe in private schools, where they can teach what they want, I don't know ANYONE who wasn't taught all about safe sex, making wise decisions, and the risks of unsafe sex, including STD's and pregnancy. I personally would rather see someone have an abortion than raise a child they don't want. It's not fair to bring a kid into the world who has parent's that don't care for him. Adoption is a great option, but has it's own set of problems. I understand having the limits on how far into a pregnancy an abortion can be performed, and yes, I DO believe the government should control that. If a person is having unprotected sex, and feels that they could be pregnant (whether or not they've missed a cycle) they can always go to a doctor and find out. I think a woman should have the right to choose always in those first three months (or however long the actual limit is) but not after. If they can't do that, they shouldn't be having unprotected sex in the first place. As far as handicaps go bacchus. that's a whole SEPERATE discussion about human engineering/quality of life. Who is to decide when a child's handicap is severe enough to warrant a late abortion? Many handicapped people (some with severe handicaps) are happy in life (even if we don't understand why). I don't know where I stand on that, other than I want to have children who are handicap free (but I don't know whether or not my wife and I (future) would abort to try for handicap free children). That was a long rambling paragraph, my apologies