Free Republic

Now, I'm not trying to be smart-a**ed here, but why the fascination with Glocks? Lord knows I'm no expert, but when I'm at the range, I consistently outshoot any Glock with just about any demo gun the range happens to have on hand.

It's the action. In self protection, such as police work, they generally want an action that is ready to fire but also safe when holstered. A double-action revolver has historically been that weapon. A Glock acts like a double action revolver and requires no safety AND the second pull is very similiar to the first.

In contrast, a Beretta 92FS cannot be safely carried with the hammer back and the second pull is significantly different than the first. First double action shot is a long trigger pull, subsequent single action is a short pull. (I like the 92FS and have one myself). This difference affects the accuracy between first and second shots.

The 1911 is typically carried "locked and cocked" which means it is ready for single action mode with equivalent pulls for each shot but the safety must be disengaged for the first shot. Some police departments (actually most now) see this as a distraction in an emergency situation and don't want to deal with the safety. Most competition shooter prefer 1911's because of it's precise single action trigger and the safety is handled through training and repitition.

So basically Glock and the similiar variants from Sig and Kahr have an action that has similiar trigger pulls for the first and subsequent shots and can be carried safely in a "ready to shoot" mode without a manual safety. That's my understanding anyway.

Have you not read the Old Testament?

And this is not about the religion, it's about the individual. The left loves to bash fundamentalist Christians and if they had their way, none would have jobs because of their beliefs. Leave the wholesale religious bashing to leftists or Christians may be next. "No religious test" is one of our fundamental founding principles and if you compromise it for religions you don't like, it will be compromised for yours. The left hates ALL religions. Please don't give them ammunition.

It's the individual who should be barred, not the religion. Fact is we really don't have the whole story and I can't imagine an interviewer giving a reason of turn down as religion or national origin. There is more to this.

I totally agree. I was upset at the posts here, not the actions of JetBlue (unless JetBlue really did something stupid like base his emplyoment on his religion). It's disgusting to hear people condemn someone for their religious views and question his patriotism because of his religion.

The left is plenty intolerant of religion for the whole country. We don't need to add to their fire.

The fundamental aspect of being an American citizen is that your primary loyalty is to the United States rather than to any foreign power.

How many Christians do you know that would put their country above the bible? Muslims have the same attitude about their religion. They have their own personal values. Normally, they don't conflict with politics. Only a small number of radical nutjobs become terrorists. Some political organizations with Islamic countries court young people as recruits.

But this single individual needs to be judged on his individual actions, not hte actions of a number of terrorists.

It scary that so-called conservatives are willing to 1) condemn someone for their religious beliefs and 2) disregard the fundamental principle of individualism. Each person should be judged on their own deed's, not the deeds of others.

OUr enemies are Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas and others of their ilk. Islam is not our enemy and conservatives, especially, should know the dangers of bainning religions and religious views. Think about that when the left uses your arguments to ban Christians from public school teaching jobs.

I think I know what his interview answer was to this question:

Do you hate America more than you love your children? Why do you think he hates america?

"No reason"?

Why are you so eager to flirt with disaster?

I'm not, but the left is salivating at the opportunity to use religion as a way to ban participation in any number of occupations. Any thoughts when they try to ban Christian teachers in public schools simply because they are Christian? Don't think this isn't precedent if it stands.

This person needs to stand on his individual choices. If he is associated with terrorist organizations, no way should he ever get a job. In fact, he should be arrested and tried.

But if the whole basis of denying him employment is that he is Muslim, that is wrong. It's evil and despicable and it is better left to the anti-religious nuts on the left. It doesn't need to be defended by Christians. He is an individual and should be judged as such.

Based on my understanding of Islam, being Muslim should not only be disqualifying for any position that could easily be used to cause a mass casualty incident, but it also raises the unavoidable question of loyalty.

How? Unless this person is affiliated with a terrorist organization which is verfifiable through a background check, it is no different than if he were Jewish or Baptist or Hindu.

The terrorist threat is overwhelmingly muslim but Muslim's are not overwhelmingly terorrists.

The left would like nothing more than to disqualify any religious affiliation. The abortion clinic bomber was fundamentalist Christian so should there be restrictions on Christians? Timothy McVeigh was a veteran so should we have extra scrutiny on veterans and preclude them from certain positions? This is what the left wants. This is what the right should be fighting.

It's the individual who should be barred, not the religion.

This is an American citizen. That statement used to mean something. Then the Bill of Rights is dead. I was born here. I never took a loyalty oath.

And I defy you to name one Christian that would place his country above his religion.

Honor, God, Country, Family is said in that order for a reason. Being a Muslim is not a crime. If the right doesn't fight for free religion, you can bet the Left will plan on outlawing it. The left hates Chrisianity. Never forget that the freedom to practice Christianity is only as tentative as the freedom to practice Islam.

As there have already several cases of Muslim pilots taking their planes into a free fall landing [one confirmed several suspected] I would rather not be on a plane piloted by a member of that particular fraternity known as the Religion of Peace.

Were they Americans? Were they employed by U.S. airlines? This is the bigotry that the right needs to fight. It's already our enemy when the left fights Christianity

The terrorists are overwhelmingly Muslims but Muslims are not overwhelmingly terrorists. Even less so when they are American citizens. America is the Melting Pot. We can abosrb Muslim culture and they can take American values. Denying them the basic trust you would afford any other American is a shame.

If he failed a background check so be it. If it was only because he was Muslim, for shame. Think about that as the Left wingers try to outlaw Christianity as they trust Christians as much as you trust Muslims.

This is an American citizen. If what he says is true, he should prevail in his lawsuit. There is no reason why an American citizen whould be denied a job regardless of national origin or religion.

Every major company knows this. I suspect there is something else in his background that stopped his employment. It will be interesting to hear what that is.

And BTW, I think it is pretty despicable that people here dismiss all Muslims as terrorists. If he passes the security background check and is a U.S. citizen he can have any job including "pilot." Simply being Muslim or of Pakistani descent is not disqualifying. It makes me sick to read those posts that don't seem to get this. It's un-American.

Typical ultra-left politics of denial. Want to look for vote suppression and information suppression? It's right there, folks.

we sort of do. Iraq Civil War would do this. Perhaps the recent murmurings by generals that Civil War is coming is actually forecasting new policy. Could be brilliant.

Hezbos vs. Al Qaeda. Baghdad 2006.

I believe it was an accident.

And with no knowledge of whether this was done, Israel should tell UNIFIL to leave. UNIFIL failed. Only harm can come to them now. Israel will now do the job that UNIFIL was supposed to do: disarm Hezbollah.

I wish it worked that way. The DUmmies will have another pet scare tactic.

20 years ago they were touting the next ice age. We don't even have time to ridicule that theory because they moved so quickly from cooling to warming catastrophes. People have short memories and leftists have no shame. There will be another kooky theory when this one peters out.

Doesn't matter how they cot a copy of the book. Making a digital copy for commercial purposes violates the copyright. Check out the iThenticate website and you will see it is definitely a commercial enterprise. If you read the book into a cassette recorder, would that be for commercial purposes because the cassette maker is a commercial enterprise? Answer: No.

iThenticate may have received a copy but they are not making any money off of the copy. They are charging for a service that is unrelated to the book. They are not selling the ideas or works of Ann Coulter. The are not using the copy to avoid paying for the book themselves. In fact, they may have purchased the book (or received the paid for book from WaPo).

Copyright is not what's being broken. If they made a false accusation with malice, then there is libel/slander. But not copyright.

Really? Could one argue they are using it to destroy Coulter's reputation and thus hurt sales? Is not restriction of sales also a commercial purpose?

Certainly if Ford was caught trying to defame Chevy, in an effort to prevent sales, that would be illegal.

You could try to argue that but you would lose. People create book reviews all the time. WaPo does not profit from lowering her book sales through a negative review. They might be guilty of libel/slander but not copyright. Changing the form of the book you are reading/reviewing is not a copyright violation. They are provding a review. As long as they don't offer the copy for sale and profit from it (or use the copy to avoid paying for books for other people), they are pretty much okay. It appears they are only using it for analysis. That would not be a copyright violation.

Let's put it this way: If you buy a book and read it into a computer and then burn it to CD so you can play it in your car, that is not a copyright violation. Even if the book is available on CD, you have purchased the content of the book. You can even give your copies away as long as you don't retain a copy for yourself.

If they defame her falsely and with malicious intent, the paper might be subject to libel/slander laws but that will be difficult to prove.

Hmmmmmm, isn't making an unauthorized digital copy of a book a copyright infringement?

Not if you bought it. They aren't using the digitized version for commercial purposes.

It's the same as if they were reading the book out loud and recording themselves so they could analyze it.

This is actually a left wing attack on tax cuts. Don't fall for it.

The "solution" is to increase taxes.

Question: How do you survive an abortion. I mean if at first you don't succeed try again.

I believe the procedure induces contractions to expell the fetus. You have to understand it's nature. At it's core, abortion is a very selfish act, not a political act or act of conscience. Success is to not be pregnant so in that way it "succeeded." Once the baby passes into the world alive, it would be murder in all 50 states to continue the procedure. No abortionist would risk his freedom (or livelihood) so they call 911.

Pay raises only take effect after an election and the new congress is seated. Anything passed in Nov 05 shouldn't take effect until Jan 07.

So for an annual raise they do two votes for one raise, I believe. The Constitutional ammendment requires an intervening election before any raises take place.