ivan

a free press will do more to keep your goverment in line than a closet full of glocks i know you were kinda joking, but what element of the press do you think so deleterious? i could deal w/ every publication in the checkout isle of safeway getting the censor's jackboot

You are more likely to get laid if you aren't an asshole, can carry on a decent conversation, and you take care of yourself. hmm...so you're saying no kinda climbers got much chance of getting a slice of the shush? Ab-so-f*cking-loot-lee so are sport climbers just having a lot of sex w/ each other then? 'cuz they act like a well-laid bunch - mega-american.

makes sense - you don't hear much about bowlers drowning in the stank neither

You are more likely to get laid if you aren't an asshole, can carry on a decent conversation, and you take care of yourself. hmm...so you're saying no kinda climbers got much chance of getting a slice of the shush?

ain't no sense in paying good money to go to a circus - plenty of freaky shit going on 'round you fo' free

so were you just not able to convince the others on the jury or did you not vote w/ your gut? i'm pretty much fine w/ jurists ruling on their instincts, even if it's a mono y mono kinda thing.

seems like you're more likely to get laid if your a badass rock climber versus a badass mountaineer - chix don't dig the ratty polypro

if i was sitting on a jury, i'd appreciate some evidence indicating the defendant was guilty beyond 1 person's testimony - call me a free-thinker - the justice system's got the baseball rule: tie goes to the runner. if it's just 1 person's word against another, i'd go w/ the defendant. not saying, btw, that was the case here - the article hinted at the existence of evidence beyond the girls testimony, that's why i was curious what it was, 'cuz the guy looks guilty as fawk.

descents - blah!

the guy admitted to banging the 12 year olds. it was just "consensual". He's a sick fuck who should die. period. i have no problem w/ killing child molestors or at least locking them up for life - and there'd be plenty of space for them if we decriminalized drugs

perhaps he wore the wrong color spandex while styling chain reaction and the locals ate his liver and throw his corpse in the crooked?

you're not george bush I and i'm not dukakis, beyotch, so answer the goddamn question - why spend all the time, money and energy on the judicial branch if we're not going to accept it's work? and to answer your question - sure, i'd kill the asshole who defiled my daughter - but i wouldn't bitch about going to jail for it either. we can not live in fucking afghanistan where all justice is private and blood-fueds last centuries - the state must be the impartial and fair arbiter and it must strictly enforce it's monopoly on force and murder or we'll all be extras on a large scale reproduction of "deadwood"

i try to be a realist - so realistically there's no way to take away a right that's so ingrained into our national ethos - at least not without seriously thinning the herd of the republican party and radicalizing the hell out of the democrats in the process - i'm certainly not signing up for the gun collection job in such an eventuality i still think the 500 foot statue of charlton heston made out of melted-down glocks would be cool but you are fooling yourself if you think the usa is a better place for having all these guns in it - you are no safer, you just feel that way - i suppose illusions are more powerful than realities, and trying to wake up crazy people who are asleep is stupid-dangerous (good scene in "band of brothers" about that sorta thing) red dawn was a sweet movie - i recall distinctly the way they became such a badass guerilla group was by using the primitive weapons they had (bows n' arrows) to kill those cheez-photograph-taking-godfersaken-commies and then use their more sophisticated weapons to uncage the soul, wolverine-style, on larger supply columns - i.e., you don't have to legalize rpgs and ak-47s or even semi-automatics in order to eventually defeat a more well armed opponent

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?