archenemy

Told you they were a problem.

Although I am not a fan of .38 Specials, I had one expressly for the purpose of carrying it concealed. B/C I tend to carry in my pocket, I figured if the emergency ever came up, I might be forced to actually shoot it from inside my pocket. Therefore, I chose a S&W snub-nosed .38 with an enclosed hammer so that the hammer would not get caught on the cloth of my clothing. The aim on these suck, but that doesn't matter if you are carrying with the intent of self protection at close range. (I am a fan of the Springfield 1911A for accuracy and pure pleasure of shooting; but they are not suitable for close range work in my opinion.) I don't know if you have worked with an ankle holster before, but I find that they are very cumbersome. Your pants go over them, so you have to lift up your pant leg to get to it. Not only is this a pain in the ass, but your movements are obvious to interpret. Furthermore, you put your body in a vulnerable position while doing this. And if you wear boots, you are unable to wear your holster. That's my $0.02 in general. If you are interested on more input on specific handguns, feel free to PM me and I can blather away til you are bored to tears. Good luck to you.

You can't see the important clips in this picture.

Destroying other people's property is wrong and is already prosecuted under our current laws. I am not sure I understand why one group needs to be singled out and told they are not allowed to fuck with other people's stuff. I don't think animal activists are all so extreme. In the group you list, they talk about goals like not wanting the animal maternal deprivation studies to continue. I think this is reasonable, as I think a lot of the things they want to see stopped are reasonable. Their tactics may not be acceptable, but their hearts are in the right place.

This is already done. All pickers receive minimum wage at least (of course, farm min wage) and SS taxes are paid on each of them. Their individual buckets are tracked everyday, and they are paid per bucket. Thus, most pickers actually make over min wage b/c they pick more buckets per hour (at about $3 a bucket)than min. wage would cover. Of course, these are pickers who can produce a Social Security number (approximately 20-30% turn out to be fake each year). Thus, the illegals who are able to successfully make it here and get a job (farmers and orchardists don't hire people who can't produce social security cards; farms are checked with great regularity. I am not including the occasional dishonest farmer or orchardist in this discussion). The reason I know the percentage of fakes is that after every harvest season, all the pickers' SS #'s are run against the federal database, just like in every other company.

And its the liberals who get punished for pushing the whole PC thing. Comical.

Exactly.

Remeber also that in WA, if you consider something an emergency, it is legally an emergency and your insurance must cover it to whatever degree is outlined in your Summary Plan Description.

Like we need more proof after the bestiality thing.

Good to make the distinction about groups who use violence. In each of these three groups history, they had violence brought upon them. In each of these three cases, it was our government who orchestrated that violence. And I am not sure what your second point is: that dumb girls, stupid niggas, and lazy workers (or, gasp, middle easterners) would have never thought that all people were created equal and should have equal say in how they are governed if they hadn't read that shit that these brilliant white guys wrote? Come on.

And slaves, and native Americans, and Japanese Americans, and drinkers, for that matter. No doubt there is an ugly historical disconnect between our behavior and the full potential of the constitution. The supreme court has typically gone along with the 'tyranny of the majority' rather than enforcing the rights supposedly guaranteed by that document. And that is the salient point. The policies of slavery, male only voting, and Jim Crow laws survived because a majority of voters at the time supported them. When voters changed their attitudes, those policies went by the wayside. It's not 'those in power' that maintain unjust policies...it's us. We get the government we deserve. Guantanamo Bay, torture, and gay marriage bans are just the latest versions of this tyranny of the majority. These policies survive only because we continue to support them. But...we've made enormous progress towards realizing the full potential of that document. This was not tyranny of the majority as white men were not in the majority at these times, nor are they now. This is about power, not numbers. This same bunch of white men defined the legal and moral framework through which all subsequent groups recognized and asserted their rights. Is it just a coincidenc that the drive to end slavery and grant women the right to vote happened to originate within the societies in which the same dreaded white men established and enforced the rules? The said changes were brought about by appealling to the moral sensibilities of those in power, rather than any kind of recognition amongst the powerful that they no longer had the capacity to enforce the status quo. Generally I agree with your viewpoints. But not here. Blacks and women fought and still fight for their rights. When appealing to sensibilities failed, both of these groups (as well as labor unions for that matter) had to resort to fighting on many fronts. Each of these groups faced physical assaults, active resistance, and frightening campaigns against them. The resulting change in laws were a direct outcome of the ruling class no longer able to enforce their laws (or their exclusion of) these groups. I guess that we'll just have to disagree on this one. Yes, the suffragettes were courageous and faced resistance and intimidation and no small amount of derision - but they were inspired by and appealing to a moral framework encoded within the nation's founding documents that explicitly recognized and gave formal legal standing to a grand abstraction known as "inalienable rights." Since you are so familiar with history you'll no doubt recall that Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Mary Wollenscraft all couched their arguments within a framework established by the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The existence of this framework, and the power of the ideas contained within it, rather than their posession any kind of menacing physical power that left the men of their time cowering in fear, is what ultimately lead to the recognition of their rights. Exhibit A is the "Declaration of Sentiments" from the 1848 Women's Right's Convention in Sececca Falls: "When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one portion of the family of man to assume among the people of the earth a position different from that which they have hitherto occupied, but one to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes that impel them to such a course.We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. " I'm sorry - but had Wollenscraft et. al been transported to Mecca or Jeddah and made the same arguments "You know....inalienable rights....granted by the Creator.... the, uh, self evident ones...." They would have been met with mute incomprehension at best, and its fair to say that the outcome would have been rather different. I'm sorry, but it was ultimately the moral power that their arguments has in the western context of individual rights, and nothing else, that lead to women's liberation. If it were otherwise, then women never would have been subject to male domination in the first place, and women's status in the rest of the world would differ quite substantially from what we observe today. Actually, Anthony et al worked on states rights. Paul, Burns etc later worked on federalizing these rights. It was here that this movement faced its biggest challenge--which includes an ugly incident of wrongful imprisonment of these women (very timely discussion when folks are talking about the new law changes around habeas corpus). Read a little more about the 1900's and you'll see things in a different light. It was far more than a simple "come to Jesus" meeting of morals. It was a fight--one that degraded into physical altercation just the same as it did for blacks and for labor unions.

Ah, to be young again...

Hang in there buddy!

What document is that? The bill of rights? I believe that IS part of the Constitution of the United States. Do you mean the Declaration of Independence? It does proclaim certain rights, but it's not an acting legal document. what a strong reaction to an innocuous statement. I draw attention to the distintion because most people have read the Bill of Rights and most have not read the Constitution. To forget that these two things happened at different times (especially when we are discussing Amendments that occurred later in time such as we are) is to forget the incredible amount of social change that happened during this time. The outcome of this simple exclusion is often an opinion that the authors just came to their senses over a couple of little items they left out in the first draft and added in the appendix. This is not the case.

I am JayB. Do I look fat in this avatar? That is fucking funny!

Since when are they the only ones to get pot and chicks? And home delivery?

Is the sign up for that here?

Good to hear--see you tomorrow!

And slaves, and native Americans, and Japanese Americans, and drinkers, for that matter. No doubt there is an ugly historical disconnect between our behavior and the full potential of the constitution. The supreme court has typically gone along with the 'tyranny of the majority' rather than enforcing the rights supposedly guaranteed by that document. And that is the salient point. The policies of slavery, male only voting, and Jim Crow laws survived because a majority of voters at the time supported them. When voters changed their attitudes, those policies went by the wayside. It's not 'those in power' that maintain unjust policies...it's us. We get the government we deserve. Guantanamo Bay, torture, and gay marriage bans are just the latest versions of this tyranny of the majority. These policies survive only because we continue to support them. But...we've made enormous progress towards realizing the full potential of that document. This was not tyranny of the majority as white men were not in the majority at these times, nor are they now. This is about power, not numbers. This same bunch of white men defined the legal and moral framework through which all subsequent groups recognized and asserted their rights. Is it just a coincidenc that the drive to end slavery and grant women the right to vote happened to originate within the societies in which the same dreaded white men established and enforced the rules? The said changes were brought about by appealling to the moral sensibilities of those in power, rather than any kind of recognition amongst the powerful that they no longer had the capacity to enforce the status quo. Generally I agree with your viewpoints. But not here. Blacks and women fought and still fight for their rights. When appealing to sensibilities failed, both of these groups (as well as labor unions for that matter) had to resort to fighting on many fronts. Each of these groups faced physical assaults, active resistance, and frightening campaigns against them. The resulting change in laws were a direct outcome of the ruling class no longer able to enforce their laws (or their exclusion of) these groups.

this sounds a bit cyclical to me. Of course the majority of voters support not allowing blacks or women to vote when the majority of voters (all the voters as a matter of fact) are neither black nor female. It is not "us" when the "us" pool was that limited. Are you saying that blacks and women deserved to remain in servitude because they didn't have the right attitude? Of course not. None of these policies went by the wayside, they were battled out for years. Rights are never granted, they are only taken. Slavery ended because most voters (in the North) supported its abolition. Women got the vote when most voters (men and women) supported it. The Equal Rights Amendment passed because most voters (black and white) supported it. Yes, there were long struggles before the public adopted these positions. My point is that voters often don't realize how much power they wield...if they choose to. Voters also do not realize that most of the wounds against civil liberties are self inflicted...they were popular among voters until voters changed their minds. Welcome to the USA. Oh I see, so people just kinda came around to their senses and then just sorta "supported it". Hmmm, all those history books I read must have been wrong.

but you have time and desire to spray?! Not only that, but I have the time and desire to award you with the supreme self-righteous, judgemental asshole of the year trophy. Congratulations.

I see that you got a pic of Kurt and Kay's house there. Are both their dogs okay?

Someone's agreeing with me? I'm framing this post... Did I spell agreeing right? I would be embarrassed if you framed this and I spelled it wrong.

this sounds a bit cyclical to me. Of course the majority of voters support not allowing blacks or women to vote when the majority of voters (all the voters as a matter of fact) are neither black nor female. It is not "us" when the "us" pool was that limited. Are you saying that blacks and women deserved to remain in servitude because they didn't have the right attitude? Of course not. None of these policies went by the wayside, they were battled out for years. Rights are never granted, they are only taken.

Yes, and the discussion keeps bringing up rights and Constitution. I am agreeing with you. I just think it's easy for folks (not you personally) to forget the their rights are outlined in a different document.