Scoe,

Can I call you Scoe?

I have made a lot of anonymous donations of all types. I do it all the time. From something as small as allowing an organization to use my copier or fax free of charge to purchasing a piece of equipment. Sometimes I provid on behalf of others so they get the credit. I also provide a lot to charities that the recipients never know about. In addition I support a lot of organizations that many do know about because I want people to know I support the work that the organization is doing. Don't get me wrong I am not Bill Gates and don't have tens of millions of dollars to donate but I donate a large parentage of my income and time far above what others do.

and you?

"His type of jaded thinking can be very contagious." Dude come on. It works both ways. Go take a look in the mirror. You don't think he has some right to be jaded? He works a job that is thankless and from what I gather many of the people in the neighborhoods he is trying to protect look at him as the enemy not the peopel he is trying to protect them from. He's no different from you in that respect. His life experiences have made him jaded and you are just as jaded. You don't think some of what you said was just as inflammatory to Silverwhaletail or many of the rest of us as his words or our words were to you? words like "your type" "bring you all down" and the like?

As far as consideration is concerned after you clarified which definition was appropriate for your statement what should I conclude? By the definition you refered to and your statements that is what you feel. Do you disagree?

Hey... have you been smoking confiscated weed?... It must be some good ****...

drcoastline,honestly I really don't and if my words were taken that way it was not my intention. On the other hand, we have men like silverwhaletail who talk about how stereotyping and prejudice serves them well?(even if it does in some morbid way keep it to yourself) I think even a jaded policeman would be wise NOT to talk this way on a public forum. Its like momma always said,"some people have book sense and some people have common sense but to have both is best"...

Mr Pot, let me introduce you to Mr Kettle

Lets just say I keep my charity close to home.

?...

So you are trying to equate the words "these types" and "stereotyping and prejudice serves me well"? HOW?... The difference is his words cannot be put into ANY type of context that would excuse their use...

I disagree ...I am nothing like him. He tries to put good and bad into percentages saying "99% of people are good and 1% are bad". The truth is we all have the capacity for both good and evil... you cannot quantify these things. Of course you can try until you have random acts like...HEY...BOT...;)

Quote scoe911 "Lets just say I keep my charity close to home."

So you are all talk and a hipposcrite to boot. Another Liberal Democrat trait. Everyone else should give but not you.

As I was typing a response to you I had to go back and review some of your comments as well as mine to ensure i wasnt taking anything out of context or misquoting you. I came across this post #132 Which is mine and is what apparently set you off.

Quote by DRcoastline "Esel Mann, You should read all my posts don't take one out of context and imply that I think a law should replace personal responsibility. I do think people should be responsible for their own security. If you read my other posts on this thread you will see that on several occasions I have said I have no problem with people carrying and going into a store. I think overall it would curtail crime. The bad guy may think twice before holding up a store, mugging a person or car jacking someone at a light. Not to take this thread off topic but I think people should should be responsible for themselves in many other areas as well. I don't want to subsidies food stamps, unemployment or housing. NOTHING. I have my family and I am responsible for them. Not someone Else's unless I feel compelled to help.

Now back on topic. In addition to being responsible for their own security I think there are certain instances that people should be able to expect a certain level of security over and above what they do for themselves. Especially in cases where their are compelled to be somewhere by law or in places where a higher propensity for violence may exists.

My suggestion is an alternative to placing more laws on the public and on gun owners. The last thing I think our country needs are more laws to criminalize law abiding citizens which are the far majority in this country.

No law is going to stop a person who isn't in their right mind. Whether it be from drugs, alcohol, schizophrenia you name it. What may work is trying to set up a line of defense so a person like this can not gain access to people in certain situations that could cause mass injuries while possessing a weapon."

From that post widefifteen posted #156 and you posted #157

Quote widefifteen "Originally Posted by drcoastline
I don't want to subsidies food stamps, unemployment or housing. NOTHING. I have my family and I am responsible for them. Not someone Else's unless I feel compelled to help.

A lot of people feel that way. "Screw you, I've got mine."
I'm not wired that way. I think we are better than animals (though even some animals take care of each other). I think our capacity for empathy and to help others, both through government and individually, is part of what makes us human. But God did choose humans, of all His creation, to have consciousness of good an evil - so you can make the decision you've made and I can make the one I've made."


Quote scoe911 "
Originally Posted by wdfifteen
A lot of people feel that way. "Screw you, I've got mine."


Yep... until they fall down..."

Hey scoe,

Do you know who Kermit Alexander is?

Ah... my liberal democrat friend.

I have defeated you at every turn in our discourse and now you have sought the remedy of tyrants. Silence those whom you cannot defeat in word and debate.

SCOE911 shouts, "Beware lowly civil servant policeman! Us liberals are offended that you would dare to ever speak your mind, even here, anonymously, in a "public forum. Therefore I will seek to curb your freedom of expression through a chilling reminder that you work for me and as such had better keep your thoughts to yourself."

The First Amendment exists only for you (SCOE911) and those who think like you, isn't that right comrade? But the First Amendment is NOT for the rest of us, we the narrow minded, right leaning heathen... All animals are created equal, comrade. Some animals are more equal than others. :)

You sir, are pitiful.

Enclosed for your viewing pleasure is a picture of me on the short straight between turns 4 and 5 at Laguna Seca. Maybe you can enlarge it and then send it to every internal affairs division at every law enforcement agency in Southern California. Get me fired. That would certainly shut me up, wouldn't it?





http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1295149609.jpg

Interesting debate, but I would like to steer the discussion back towards a fallout issue from the shooting, if I may.
What do those here think about upping the background check process to try to weed out those with questionable psycological profile or mental health history? This suspect is a good example of the type of history I am thinking about. I know this would require more communication between agencies to make access to this kind of information available.

Thoughts?

I think the guy was lucid enough to pass a cursory psych eval for purchasing a gun. How much psych eval would you think is reasonable? 1 minute, 5, 60? What criteria is adequate? Background checks look to see if you have a criminal history, and for the most part, they work. If you're a nut case, it's probably come out in the past, one way or another. I have no problem with background checks or reasonable waiting periods. I remember about 20 years ago in Texas if you had a Texas driver's license you could go to a 24 hour bait & tackle shop and at the drive in buy a fifth of Jack Daniels and a 357 at 2AM without ever getting out of your pickup truck. That to me is a little too loose.

How dare you try and put this thread back on its original topic. We've got an interesting and non-derogatory conversation going on.......:eek:

Here we go again. This is what I wrote. you are free to say whatever nonsense you want. Just as I am free to speak out against it...

Defeated me how?...when?...did I miss something? As far as your job you might consider resigning on your own as your concepts of right and wrong are way out of wack...

No, I do not... do you want to tell me?

Well this guy had been refused reentry to his school WO. a psycological evaluation, plus had been rejected by the army in the resent past. These red flags could been the reason to refuse a sale to him, if they had been known. This is the stepped up inter agency communication I referred to.
I know the pro gun folks cringe at the thought of any more restrictions in their enjoyment of their sport/ activities. How ever weeding out this type of problem buyer seems to be in the interest of all.
I am curious, if once a buyer goes thru the background check, if it has to be repeated for each purchase?

Scoe,

How come you only engage the the argumentative or inflammatory comments? Why don't you engage in the substantive commentary?

You are supposed to be a half century old with all sorts of knowledge and know how on how to deal with types like me". "Come on lets dance".

In post 245 you stated to Silverwhaletail he reminded you of a character in a movie.

It just dawned on me you know you remind me of a character also. That community organizer guy from Chicago. You know the one who speaks a lot but doesn't say or do much. Just blames everybody else.

google his name and look for the ESPN story called Kermits Song. I think you will enjoy it. You will know who he is once you start reading the story. Seriously, I am not being sarcastic. It's a good read it should take about an hour or so.