ivan

what's the point of having laws or courts or juries if we're just going to administer our own private justice?

just saw this one when rereading terray's chapter on annapurna, perhaps my new favorite: "with the massive use of drugs we were able to pass the night tolerably"

the article didn't have many details - were the girls found bound-up? how was there no physical evidence of rape? i'd like to assume the jury wasn't filled w/ lunatics or fools (though, having lived there for years, i realize i might be going out on a limb there) and so if they couldn't be convinced, the case must have been weak (it's not like homeboy had cochrane and the "chewbacca defense" on his side). sure looks like he's from the mother-of-all-secesh-states though, eh?

note to self: go climb in france some day

fawking sux - far from an ideal world we're living in...why the fuck would you shoot somebody who's giving you no problem?

and don't forget to tune your radio to a warm-springs station!

does it count as 2 climbs if you do two tr's on it?

wtf? have i gone into the twilight zone? didn't this tr have a different title and a random post by me or did i imagine it all during one of my "episodes?"

...usually by accepting arms from an outside party with an agenda of its own, and adopting the most brutal tactics imaginable. outside parties will get involved regardless as revolutions create vacoums - initially well-armed or not, revolutionaries look for help

allright bill, whatever you say - sounds damned archaic to me, but then you are old as dirt doesn't make much sense though, since, as fairweather points out, it's not like even the guns that are currently legal give you negotiating power over the SWAT boys under what conditions exactly are you going to feel compelled to use your guns to enact political change, bill? you exemplify the "let's talk it out" approach crucial to democratic government - i can't imagine what it would take to turn you into charles bronson. when the shit hits the fan, folks will find a way to arm themselves if that's what it takes - remember what bastille day celebrates? poor pissed off people deciding to take the state's weapons.

how essential is gun ownership in 2007 compared to 1797? at our countries founding we were in close contact with hostile indian tribes and nation-states far more powerful than us - most americans lived on the frontiers or in the sticks and needed their weapons for home defense and obtaining meat - the police were quite primitive, could not be called quickly, and could not be counted on at all for protection, certainly not rapidly- our armies were equally unreliable and a strong militia of self-equipped citizens was essential to repel attacks for which we would have virtually no warning which of those conditions is still so pressing today? and what were the negative consequences of the 2nd amendment in 1797? hardly any! the destructive cauldron of the industrial revolution was still years away - therefore there was little reason to restrict the gun right b/c it wasn't costing us a damn thing. and today? who gives a shit what the exact statistics are - the bottom line is a fuckload of people die because they have access to really powerful weapons.

hardy, har-har! how'd DT madness look?

christ! there's a downer to a fun upbeat-thread! what were the details of the robbery? murderer ever get caught? he used a gun i assume?

Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security. --Benjamin Franklin very well, but what of locke, hobbes, rousseau and every other philosopher of government who confess that humans, born in an anarchic world with total freedom, must sacrifice some of those freedoms to a government or else suffer becuase of the excess of others exercising theirs? i don't concieve of gun-ownership (at least modern guns - like i said earlier, i think restricitng everybody to 18th century style weapons is fine) as an inalienable right - self defense certainly is, but that doesn't give me the right to an uzi, a flamethrower, an mx-missile, or even a semi-automatic pistol. As I've said before, Ivan; you don't seem interested in applying the same standard of antiquity to our first amendment vis a vis "the press" - as it now encompasses television, radio, the internet. I would also point out that euro-enlightenmentees Locke, Rosseau, and Hobbes (English, Swiss, English) weren't among the 55 delegates that met in Philladelphia during the summer of 1787. Benjamin Franklin was. Unfortunately, your willingness to sacrifice your constitutional freedoms would also have you force those sacrifices on me - and that's not acceptable. Big Ben had no part in crafting the right you so cherish (guns) - as you no doubt know, the bill of rights wasn't created in philly. and to say locke or montesquie or the others weren't present at the drafting of the american goverment is pretty goddamn daft - clearly they weren't there physically, but the ideas they articulated resound throughout the constitution and declaration (jefferson's "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" a near total plagariasm from locke, the seperation of powers from the frenchie, etc) "essential" in "essential liberties" is a most ambigious adjective - what's essential to me is not going to be the same for you - you clearly care about guns, where i'd be happier seeing them a whole hell of a lot harder to come by - i think the right to get fawked up 4 ways to sunday is pretty damn essential, but you don't and that's not acceptable to me either. i guess you at least sorta have it in writing in the 2nd amendment, but you know as well as i that it can be read to mean merely that the people in the form of their state militias have the right to bear arms. we have no absolutely unrestricted freedoms - we must accept limitations to them all - again, the question is the balance - to what degree will we part with specific rights? i think folks oughta be able to have guns, but nothing more than single shot, slow to reload ones - you can hunt and defend yourself just fine w/ those, but yes, they will be inadequate if you choose to iniate hostilities against a larger force (say a french class at 9 AM). its a compromise - you can still plug bambi or the uppity-negro crawling through the bedroom window for your daughter. now watch me compromise - legalize pot and you can keep the freak'n blow illegal. or legalize it but only sell it in packages w/ a big american flag on it and a picture of jesus crying

in other words, security can only be had by trading some liberty - the trick lies in the balance, and as we're all retards, therefore we'll constantly be swinging past the equilibrium point and bitching about it...

Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security. --Benjamin Franklin very well, but what of locke, hobbes, rousseau and every other philosopher of government who confess that humans, born in an anarchic world with total freedom, must sacrifice some of those freedoms to a government or else suffer becuase of the excess of others exercising theirs? i don't concieve of gun-ownership (at least modern guns - like i said earlier, i think restricitng everybody to 18th century style weapons is fine) as an inalienable right - self defense certainly is, but that doesn't give me the right to an uzi, a flamethrower, an mx-missile, or even a semi-automatic pistol.

From "The Eiger Sanction" starring Clint Eastwood. As true in 1975 as it is today. Now I'll have to go and re-watch it tonight. "Jonathan Hemlock: I can't believe that you're a stewardess. Jemima Brown: Actually I'm not, I'm a skyjacker in a drag. Jonathan Hemlock: Oh, that's reassuring, just give your name and I report you to the proper authorities when we land. Jemima Brown: Jemima Jonathan Hemlock: And I'm Uncle Ben... Jemima Brown: I'm serious, that's really my name... Jemima Brown, my mother was hooked on being ethnic. Jonathan Hemlock: Or else turned on by a pancake. As long as we both agree that it's to much for a black chick to have the name of Jemima. " I Jemima Brown She was totally hot !!!! 8D Still, wonder how she looks today, 37 years later. inspired me to look her up - she's 67 now. hasn't done any film in almost 2 decades - she was in Repo Man!

wish it were - about 50% of my kids are gone 2day - course, i'm sure it has nothign to do w/ the beautiful day outside

we should all live in an anarcho-syndicist commune

actually i said i was willing to sacrifice the former (gun rights) to protect the later (privacy) - ergo i'm with you. i don't need guns - i do need my johnson though, and no doubt The Man would want it if he kept the Big Hairy Eye-Ball on it all the time

just to be sure everyone understands, as a couple of folks pm'ed me confused, i did turn over the offending ipod as soon as i got it - wether or not the parents give a shit is immaterial, they must be informed, legally and morally in this case. having dealt w/ them before, i'd wager they won't be too angry.

maybe it's helpful to think of the 32 dead at VT as soldiers? after all, most folks say the troops in iraq are "dying for our freedoms" - that's pretty much true for the VT-folk, though that classic platitude might be better rendered in this case, "they died because of our freedoms" you can't make an omlette w/o breaking eggs, no? nor can you have a right to bear arms and a right to a privacy w/o shit like this happening. i'm willing to sacrifice the former to preserve the later, for what it's worth...

hmm - sounds like everyone in "trainspotting"

thanks for the link - i'd heard of this case before but didn't remember the specific details

You sure it wasn't 'the best climber is the one quoting a quote that another climber has already quoted?' this gives me the hershey squirts