NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/07/border.crossing.ap/index.html

Love that picture.

Lovely story. Really makes you feel good on the inside. Knowing that the U.S. is safe from those that want to kill Americans.

I swear I've said it a thousand times - never trust a French-Canadian.. some people never learn.

From the article

"In state court the next day, Despres told a judge that he is affiliated with NASA and was on his way to a Marine Corps base in Kansas at the time of his arrest."

Great guy for the army!

Rather freaky looking, if you ask me.

The system seemed to work. They flagged a weirdo but didn't stop him just because he's weird and where able to find him right off the bat when they needed to. And they didn't let him in with all that nonsense.

I'm more shocked that a dude with a homemade sword and chainsaw hitchhiked. Christ, Canadians-I know you're nice people, but geez...

Maybe the Canadians thought he was a lumberjack.

I swear I've said it a thousand times - never trust a French-Canadian.. some people never learn.
Maybe I've missed something, but I don't see where it says he's French.

Being a US citizen in addition to being Canadian, I would assume he speaks english first, french second if at all.

I swear I've said it a thousand times - never trust a French-Canadian.. some people never learn.
Ouch! My girlfriend is Quebecois! I'd better keep an eye on her, just in case though, eh? I called her one night, and she has personalised ringtones on her phone, with mine being "O' Canada". Well, turns out I called her in the middle of a discussion with other French Canadians about the pros and cons of seperating from the "Rest of Canada" and O' Canada blares out in the middle of a seperatist meeting, which got her booed by some of the others. I couldn't stop laughing when she told me!

Maybe I've missed something, but I don't see where it says he's French.

Being a US citizen in addition to being Canadian, I would assume he speaks english first, french second if at all.

I think it's "never trust a lumberjack unless his name is Pierre".

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/07/border.crossing.ap/index.html

Love that picture.

Lovely story. Really makes you feel good on the inside. Knowing that the U.S. is safe from those that want to kill Americans.



Bill Anthony, a spokesman for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, said the Canada-born Despres could not be detained because he is a naturalized U.S. citizen and was not wanted on any criminal charges on the day in question


Damn that due process and equality under the law.... what the hell were those moron founding father's thinking? Hey, you guys were stupid enough to grant him citizenship at some point. Don't blame Canada that your laws require you to actually afford legal rights to your own citizens!


Besides where the hell did you come up with "want to kill Americans" crap? He's clearly a nutbar who killed his (Canadian) neighbors over a personal dispute - not out of any sort of political mindset.


Oh no - he was carrying a chainsaw!!!!


So what? Compared to the carry laws in many states that's a pretty dumb-assed weapon of choice.


Besides - I thought that idiots like this were why all the paranoid Americans kept masturbating with their guns for? The thought of some poorly armed nutbar coming by so they can finally give themselves their orgasm and blow the guys head-of in a moment of exquisite self-righteousness to validate all their fears?

Besides - I thought that idiots like this were why all the paranoid Americans kept masturbating with their guns for? The thought of some poorly armed nutbar coming by so they can finally give themselves their orgasm and blow the guys head-of in a moment of exquisite self-righteousness to validate all their fears?

By your estimation, I've had at least three orgasms that way, unless you also want to count the ones I got in combat.

Just because I'm careful and armed doesn't mean I'm paranoid and wrong. I've been right too many times now to be called wrong.

Maybe I've missed something, but I don't see where it says he's French.

Being a US citizen in addition to being Canadian, I would assume he speaks english first, french second if at all.

Well, I wasn't being serious of course, but the guy does have a French name. I'm not sure which citizenship he was given first, but the t.v. news said he lived in a trailer in Canada, and had previously lived in a boat in Massachusettes or someplace.. they left that up in the air.

Damn that due process and equality under the law.... what the hell were those moron founding father's thinking? Hey, you guys were stupid enough to grant him citizenship at some point. Don't blame Canada that your laws require you to actually afford legal rights to your own citizens!


Besides where the hell did you come up with "want to kill Americans" crap? He's clearly a nutbar who killed his (Canadian) neighbors over a personal dispute - not out of any sort of political mindset.


Oh no - he was carrying a chainsaw!!!!


So what? Compared to the carry laws in many states that's a pretty dumb-assed weapon of choice.


Besides - I thought that idiots like this were why all the paranoid Americans kept masturbating with their guns for? The thought of some poorly armed nutbar coming by so they can finally give themselves their orgasm and blow the guys head-of in a moment of exquisite self-righteousness to validate all their fears?

There was already a warrant out for his arrest in Canada for the double murder.. the border police should've checked. He had blood spatter on him and his chainsaw, plus the swords and everything. They had plenty of reason for suspision, and had the right to detain him until they had verified things.

By your estimation, I've had at least three orgasms that way, unless you also want to count the ones I got in combat.

Just because I'm careful and armed doesn't mean I'm paranoid and wrong. I've been right too many times now to be called wrong.

So how many right do you have to get before we have to stop saying you're wrong?

Do they have to be in the same field of study, or can I be right five times in predicting the outcome of a football game and then can't be called wrong in my law interpretation?

Well, I wasn't being serious of course, but the guy does have a French name. I'm not sure which citizenship he was given first, but the t.v. news said he lived in a trailer in Canada, and had previously lived in a boat in Massachusettes or someplace.. they left that up in the air.
Actually, in New-Brunswick and Quebec, there's a lot of anglophone with a french sounding name. But hey, a nutter is a nutter no matter which language he uses.

There was already a warrant out for his arrest in Canada for the double murder.. the border police should've checked. He had blood spatter on him and his chainsaw, plus the swords and everything. They had plenty of reason for suspision, and had the right to detain him until they had verified things.
Actually, the warrant was isuued later. The corpses were discovered after he had crossed the border.

And they did detain him for two hours, questionning him and making all kinds of check.

I wasn't able to see the article because of my f/w, but look at our security! :eek:

And I'd be suspicious of anyone who says "aboot" ;) :p

So how many right do you have to get before we have to stop saying you're wrong?

Do they have to be in the same field of study, or can I be right five times in predicting the outcome of a football game and then can't be called wrong in my law interpretation?

I, and other people I know, have definitely beaten the odds and have survived attacks or knowingly prevented attacks - solely because we were armed.

And we've done nothing to violate the laws here.

That's me, my wife, and 104 other women. I'm just talking about a sample of people I know personally.

I, and other people I know, have definitely beaten the odds and have survived attacks or knowingly prevented attacks - solely because we were armed.

And we've done nothing to violate the laws here.

That's me, my wife, and 104 other women. I'm just talking about a sample of people I know personally.
So you're telling me that you can't EVER be wrong, EVER because you have survived so far?

What a load of rubbish. Read what you posted. I disagree that you HAVE to be right because you have been right many times before. That's not how it works, sorry.

By your estimation, I've had at least three orgasms that way, unless you also want to count the ones I got in combat.

Just because I'm careful and armed doesn't mean I'm paranoid and wrong. I've been right too many times now to be called wrong.

I must say, while most people would look on the need to take a life as a regretable situation, it is refreshing to find people who take such pride in their work as you obviously do. Such a rare commodity these days.

That being said, I find it rather odd. If you were to poll most police officers - even those working in some of the worst areas - you would find that it is a small percentage who have ever needed to resort to lethal force on more than one occasion over the course of an entire career. And these people are paid to seek out the dangerous members of society.

And then here is a private citizen who claims to have needed to resort to such on three occassions despite "being careful"

That represents quite a statistical anamoly that it raises certain possibilities to mind:

1) You are the unluckiest sonovabitch around.
2) You and veracity aren't close companions.
3) You aren't 'careful', but rather are reckless and murderous...
or
4) There is something about you or your personality that instils in others a violent reaction that you must then deal with.


Frankly, I couldn't caree less which is the fact, save to say that I hope you cleaned your gun carefully after each orgasm..... because protein can make a mess of the works....

So you're telling me that you can't EVER be wrong, EVER because you have survived so far?

What a load of rubbish. Read what you posted. I disagree that you HAVE to be right because you have been right many times before. That's not how it works, sorry.
Being alive beats being dead any day.
Being unassaulted beats being beaten senseless into a hospital bed.
Being unviolated beats being raped.

So, being alive, unassaulted, and unviolated is a load of rubbish.

I must say, while most people would look on the need to take a life as a regretable situation, it is refreshing to find people who take such pride in their work as you obviously do. Such a rare commodity these days.

That being said, I find it rather odd. If you were to poll most police officers - even those working in some of the worst areas - you would find that it is a small percentage who have ever needed to resort to lethal force on more than one occasion over the course of an entire career. And these people are paid to seek out the dangerous members of society.

And then here is a private citizen who claims to have needed to resort to such on three occassions despite "being careful"

That represents quite a statistical anamoly that it raises certain possibilities to mind:

1) You are the unluckiest sonovabitch around.
2) You and veracity aren't close companions.
3) You aren't 'careful', but rather are reckless and murderous...
or
4) There is something about you or your personality that instils in others a violent reaction that you must then deal with.


Frankly, I couldn't caree less which is the fact, save to say that I hope you cleaned your gun carefully after each orgasm..... because protein can make a mess of the works....

You're under the mistaken assumption, that so many non-gun owners make, that you actually have to shoot someone to stop them from committing a crime.

No, I've drawn three times. And each time, I got immediate compliance. My wife has drawn before. And all of the 104 women I've trained have drawn.

No one was killed.

But better yet, the incipient offense of robbery, rape, or being killed by an abusive spouse was 100 percent prevented.

Most uses of the gun in the US to stop crime follow this pattern.

Being alive beats being dead any day.
Being unassaulted beats being beaten senseless into a hospital bed.
Being unviolated beats being raped.

So, being alive, unassaulted, and unviolated is a load of rubbish.
That is completely besides the point.

Here, let me explain it to you:

You said I was right a few times.
Therefore I can't be wrong.

To which I said, FALSE. Logical fallacy!

To which you replied, Well I am alive, so nyah!

And I say, now, that it is completely besides the point. You made a statement, I say that that statement is erronerous. Care to prove me wrong?

That is completely besides the point.

Here, let me explain it to you:

You said I was right a few times.
Therefore I can't be wrong.

To which I said, FALSE. Logical fallacy!

To which you replied, Well I am alive, so nyah!

And I say, now, that it is completely besides the point. You made a statement, I say that that statement is erronerous. Care to prove me wrong?

I'm not saying I can't be wrong - I'm saying with the evidence at hand so far, I can't be proven wrong in the present.

And the trend so far says I'm likely to be right. Not absolutely, but it's there.

If, for example, I had taken your advice, I would have been robbed and beaten three times already. And that would have been wrong, don't you think?

You're under the mistaken assumption, that so many non-gun owners make, that you actually have to shoot someone to stop them from committing a crime.

No, I've drawn three times. And each time, I got immediate compliance. My wife has drawn before. And all of the 104 women I've trained have drawn.

No one was killed.

But better yet, the incipient offense of robbery, rape, or being killed by an abusive spouse was 100 percent prevented.

Most uses of the gun in the US to stop crime follow this pattern.


Oh, I was under a mistaken assumption all right. That assumption being that you could read and comprehend the words of others. Clearly I overestimated you abilities in that regard.

You see - my post was VERY specific when I stated:

"finally give themselves their orgasm and blow the guys head-of in a moment of exquisite self-righteousness to validate all their fears?"

This sentance clearly equated the orgasm with the affirmative use of lethal force.

To which you replied that you had attained orgasm on at least three occasions which in the context of my post had no other possible interpretation besides a statement that you had blown three people's heads off.




See how that worked?



(BTW, if you are going to be complaining about people making assumptions - don't you think you should at least ASK before assuming the gun-ownership status of others? Or do you just like giving advice that you don't care to follow?)

Well, I have to admit that when I did draw, the look on the incipient offender's face was priceless, and more rewarding than most orgasms.

And no, I'm not paranoid. The world CAN be a dangerous place, no matter what precautions you take.

I also believe that my freedom and liberty should not suffer just because someone says, "oh, that's a bad neighborhood" or "don't go out after dark".

Screw that. I live here and I have every right to remain unharmed and untouched.

I'm not saying I can't be wrong - I'm saying with the evidence at hand so far, I can't be proven wrong in the present.

And the trend so far says I'm likely to be right. Not absolutely, but it's there.

If, for example, I had taken your advice, I would have been robbed and beaten three times already. And that would have been wrong, don't you think?

Here is the relevant post:

By your estimation, I've had at least three orgasms that way, unless you also want to count the ones I got in combat.

Just because I'm careful and armed doesn't mean I'm paranoid and wrong. I've been right too many times now to be called wrong.

Now where is those small little details you added after the fact in your original statement?

Here is the relevant post:

Now where is those small little details you added after the fact in your original statement?

I believe that "using" a gun counts as the orgasm.

I was working on his ridiculous assumption which was that "using" a gun implies blowing someone's brains out.

I believe that "using" a gun counts as the orgasm.

I was working on his ridiculous assumption which was that "using" a gun implies blowing someone's brains out.
and how does that makes you right? And how does that stops you from being wrong? And how is that statement relating in any way to your affirmation that you can't be wrong?

and how does that makes you right? And how does that stops you from being wrong? And how is that statement relating in any way to your affirmation that you can't be wrong?

1. I am "right" because I am alive and well.
2. I am "right" because I have broken no laws.
3. I am "right" because I stopped someone from committing one or more felonies.
4. The women who follow my advice have done the same. Unlike women who have not followed my advice, 100 percent of them are still alive after 2 years, and 100 percent of them have not been assaulted in 2 years. Women who follow the advice of people who say, "don't resist" and "rely on the police" are ending up dead, beaten, and raped.

And fundamentally, I have to stand up for my self-worth, my self-determination, and my personal value within the confines of the law and the social contract. Which I have done in a commendable manner.

Our society has reached a pinnacle of self-expression and respect for individuality rare or unmatched in history. Our entire popular culture -- from fashion magazines to the cinema -- positively screams the matchless worth of the individual, and glories in eccentricity, nonconformity, independent judgment, and self-determination. This enthusiasm is reflected in the prevalent notion that helping someone entails increasing that person's "self-esteem"; that if a person properly values himself, he will naturally be a happy, productive, and, in some inexplicable fashion, responsible member of society.

And yet, while people are encouraged to revel in their individuality and incalculable self-worth, the media and the law enforcement establishment continually advise us that, when confronted with the threat of lethal violence, we should not resist, but simply give the attacker what he wants. If the crime under consideration is rape, there is some notable waffling on this point, and the discussion quickly moves to how the woman can change her behavior to minimize the risk of rape, and the various ridiculous, non-lethal weapons she may acceptably carry, such as whistles, keys, mace or, that weapon which really sends shivers down a rapist's spine, the portable cellular phone.

Now how can this be? How can a person who values himself so highly calmly accept the indignity of a criminal assault? How can one who believes that the essence of his dignity lies in his self-determination passively accept the forcible deprivation of that self-determination? How can he, quietly, with great dignity and poise, simply hand over the goods?

The assumption, of course, is that there is no inconsistency. The advice not to resist a criminal assault and simply hand over the goods is founded on the notion that one's life is of incalculable value, and that no amount of property is worth it. Put aside, for a moment, the outrageousness of the suggestion that a criminal who proffers lethal violence should be treated as if he has instituted a new social contract: "I will not hurt or kill you if you give me what I want." For years, feminists have labored to educate people that rape is not about sex, but about domination, degradation, and control. Evidently, someone needs to inform the law enforcement establishment and the media that kidnapping, robbery, carjacking, and assault are not about property.

Crime is not only a complete disavowal of the social contract, but also a commandeering of the victim's person and liberty. If the individual's dignity lies in the fact that he is a moral agent engaging in actions of his own will, in free exchange with others, then crime always violates the victim's dignity. It is, in fact, an act of enslavement. Your wallet, your purse, or your car may not be worth your life, but your dignity is; and if it is not worth fighting for, it can hardly be said to exist.

1. I am "right" because I am alive and well.
2. I am "right" because I have broken no laws.
3. I am "right" because I stopped someone from committing one or more felonies.
4. The women who follow my advice have done the same. Unlike women who have not followed my advice, 100 percent of them are still alive after 2 years, and 100 percent of them have not been assaulted in 2 years. Women who follow the advice of people who say, "don't resist" and "rely on the police" are ending up dead, beaten, and raped.

And fundamentally, I have to stand up for my self-worth, my self-determination, and my personal value within the confines of the law and the social contract. Which I have done in a commendable manner.

Our society has reached a pinnacle of self-expression and respect for individuality rare or unmatched in history. Our entire popular culture -- from fashion magazines to the cinema -- positively screams the matchless worth of the individual, and glories in eccentricity, nonconformity, independent judgment, and self-determination. This enthusiasm is reflected in the prevalent notion that helping someone entails increasing that person's "self-esteem"; that if a person properly values himself, he will naturally be a happy, productive, and, in some inexplicable fashion, responsible member of society.

And yet, while people are encouraged to revel in their individuality and incalculable self-worth, the media and the law enforcement establishment continually advise us that, when confronted with the threat of lethal violence, we should not resist, but simply give the attacker what he wants. If the crime under consideration is rape, there is some notable waffling on this point, and the discussion quickly moves to how the woman can change her behavior to minimize the risk of rape, and the various ridiculous, non-lethal weapons she may acceptably carry, such as whistles, keys, mace or, that weapon which really sends shivers down a rapist's spine, the portable cellular phone.

Now how can this be? How can a person who values himself so highly calmly accept the indignity of a criminal assault? How can one who believes that the essence of his dignity lies in his self-determination passively accept the forcible deprivation of that self-determination? How can he, quietly, with great dignity and poise, simply hand over the goods?

The assumption, of course, is that there is no inconsistency. The advice not to resist a criminal assault and simply hand over the goods is founded on the notion that one's life is of incalculable value, and that no amount of property is worth it. Put aside, for a moment, the outrageousness of the suggestion that a criminal who proffers lethal violence should be treated as if he has instituted a new social contract: "I will not hurt or kill you if you give me what I want." For years, feminists have labored to educate people that rape is not about sex, but about domination, degradation, and control. Evidently, someone needs to inform the law enforcement establishment and the media that kidnapping, robbery, carjacking, and assault are not about property.

Crime is not only a complete disavowal of the social contract, but also a commandeering of the victim's person and liberty. If the individual's dignity lies in the fact that he is a moral agent engaging in actions of his own will, in free exchange with others, then crime always violates the victim's dignity. It is, in fact, an act of enslavement. Your wallet, your purse, or your car may not be worth your life, but your dignity is; and if it is not worth fighting for, it can hardly be said to exist.

All I got from that is that you want to let everybody know that you did stuff. It seems also that you can't be wrong, that your definition of right and wrong are THE definitions of right and wrong and that no matter how many times we ask to justify your affirmations, you repeat the same things that have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

I knew I put you on my ignore list for something. Why did I remove your name? I don't know. Rest assured that's not a mistake I will make a second time.

All I got from that is that you want to let everybody know that you did stuff. It seems also that you can't be wrong, that your definition of right and wrong are THE definitions of right and wrong and that no matter how many times we ask to justify your affirmations, you repeat the same things that have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

I knew I put you on my ignore list for something. Why did I remove your name? I don't know. Rest assured that's not a mistake I will make a second time.

You, on the other hand, have offered absolutely NO argument and NO proof that I'm wrong.

Dead criminals are a good thing. When someone plans to incapacitate or kill someone for their selfish gain there is nothing wrong with incapacitating or killing them. The world would be a lot better off with dead thugs. Thugs surrender their rights when they attempt to injure/kill another for their own purpose.

Whispering Legs, I and others aren't for hunting them down in their house and burning it down (like Democrat Sen Robert Byrd advocated about blacks in the 50's and 60's when he was running the Ku Klux Klan in West Virginia) but responding to aberrant desires to injure/kill with violence upon the immediate perpetrator only.

...About Border Security...
It's a sad joke. We are no safer today than when the Towers fell. I saw a news doc on the US/Canadian border. Both are to blame.

1. Anglo crossed Canada to US in a boat
2. Anglo crossed Canada to US with a fake rifle in case
3. Anglo dressed as Taliban crossed Canada to US in a boat
no calls to police, no response because no law enforcement were in the area, from either country.

We have checkpoints on highways going into Canada, on other roads we have automated documentation. You park, get out of your car and voluntarily register. My jaw hit the floor watching that.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/07/border.crossing.ap/index.html

Love that picture.

Lovely story. Really makes you feel good on the inside. Knowing that the U.S. is safe from those that want to kill Americans.

Jeez. Anybody THAT creepy looking shows up on MY doorstep gets shot just for general purposes... His whole face screams Psycho-with-an-axe. :eek: