New York Mayor Bans Smoking On Beach

[JamesHunt]

Have you ever heard anything so stupid?

[onmyknees]

[QUOTE=JamesHunt;902266]Have you ever heard anything so stupid?[/QUOTE

No..I haven't. And when people like me tell people like them them that government is seeping into every facet of thier lives they call me a right wing nazi. Look at the fiasco with the new light bulbs ...you need the EPA if you drop one on the floor, and now certain municipalities will not allow them in the trash. These people are fucking crazy....no..they really are. They need government to tell them when to wipe thier ass.

[Ineeda SM]

[QUOTE=JamesHunt;902266]Have you ever heard anything so stupid?[/QUOTE

No..I haven't. And when people like me tell people like them them that government is seeping into every facet of thier lives they call me a right wing nazi. Look at the fiasco with the new light bulbs ...you need the EPA if you drop one on the floor, and now certain municipalities will not allow them in the trash. These people are fucking crazy....no..they really are. They need government to tell them when to wipe thier ass.

Just like a good little republican, you are blowing things way out of proportion. The new light bulbs do not have enough of anything dangerous in them to worry or even think about. If one breaks, you sweep it up and throw it in the trash just like you would a regular bulb. Who is going to stop you from throwing a little light bulb in the trash? The NY Light Bulb Police?

As for the No smoking on a public beach, it is going way too far. I guess a few assholes complained that, "...some bad man near me was blowing his smoke in my direction and I almost choked to death." as she inhales the worse air pollution on the east coast, and swims in the hospital waste. Some people just need to be smacked silly.

[Ben]

[QUOTE=JamesHunt;902266]Have you ever heard anything so stupid?[/QUOTE

No..I haven't. And when people like me tell people like them them that government is seeping into every facet of thier lives they call me a right wing nazi. Look at the fiasco with the new light bulbs ...you need the EPA if you drop one on the floor, and now certain municipalities will not allow them in the trash. These people are fucking crazy....no..they really are. They need government to tell them when to wipe thier ass.

YouTube - Ron Paul Opposes Tobacco Tyranny on House Floor 6/12/09 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2v9SXhLvwUQ)

[Ben]

We know that tobacco is certainly bad for us. As is red meat. As is, well, coffee. So, we focus on education, prevention and treatment. Pretty simple stuff.

[trish]

I agree. Public beaches should be free of public strictures.

[onmyknees]

[quote=onmyknees;902280]

Just like a good little republican, you are blowing things way out of proportion. The new light bulbs do not have enough of anything dangerous in them to worry or even think about. If one breaks, you sweep it up and throw it in the trash just like you would a regular bulb. Who is going to stop you from throwing a little light bulb in the trash? The NY Light Bulb Police?

As for the No smoking on a public beach, it is going way too far. I guess a few assholes complained that, "...some bad man near me was blowing his smoke in my direction and I almost choked to death." as she inhales the worse air pollution on the east coast, and swims in the hospital waste. Some people just need to be smacked silly.

You're an idiot who doesn't think for himself and just swallows what your told as gospel. Read this moron......and next time before you open your mouth....do your research. Morons like you help pass these laws then have no idea of the unintended consequences. And I'm not good, and I'm not a Republican, but you're obviously a lemming.

http://www.jsonline.com/business/29356444.html

[onmyknees]

[quote=onmyknees;902280]

Just like a good little republican, you are blowing things way out of proportion. The new light bulbs do not have enough of anything dangerous in them to worry or even think about. If one breaks, you sweep it up and throw it in the trash just like you would a regular bulb. Who is going to stop you from throwing a little light bulb in the trash? The NY Light Bulb Police?

As for the No smoking on a public beach, it is going way too far. I guess a few assholes complained that, "...some bad man near me was blowing his smoke in my direction and I almost choked to death." as she inhales the worse air pollution on the east coast, and swims in the hospital waste. Some people just need to be smacked silly.








CBS Touts FDA Taking On 'Caloric Catastrophe' of Movie Theater Popcorn


By Kyle Drennen (http://www.newsbusters.org/bios/kyle-drennen.html) | March 24, 2011 | 17:53


In a report for Thursday's CBS Early Show, contributor Taryn Winter Brill fretted over the impact of movie theater popcorn on Americans' waistlines: "Have you ever wondered how many calories you're actually consuming in that large popcorn with butter? You probably don't want to know. Pretty soon, though, you may not have a choice."


Moments later, nutritionist Katherine Brooking declared the popular concession treat to be "a calorie bomb waiting to explode." Brill then touted a government solution to the problem: "Hoping to defuse this high caloric catastrophe, the FDA is working on a provision in the health care law requiring chain establishments which serve food to list the calorie count of their menu items." She added that Brooking and others "applaud the move."
http://www.newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/2011-03-24-CBS-TES-Popcorn.jpgNear the end of her report, Brill explained that "Movie theater chains are pushing back, though, arguing the original health care bill was never intended to include them." She cheered how "Undeterred, the FDA is looking to sound the alarm on hidden calories. And ultimately shift Americans toward a healthier lifestyle."


Co-host Chris Wragge asked Brill about the movie theater industry's opposition to the new regulations: "Why are they so resistant?" Brill replied: "Well, it's all about money. Believe it or not these concession stand items, they generate one-third of the total revenue. So this is a significant number. Specifically popcorn.... they're thinking you put those calorie numbers up, those profits of popcorn sales, way down."


On March 15 (http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2011/03/15/cbs-food-police-go-after-cereal-offenders-fret-over-cartoon-characters), Brill did a similar food police segment on breakfast cereal, claiming that cartoon "cereal offenders" on the boxes were "targeting" kids.



Just let me know what you think the FDA should be looking into next !!!!!!!!!!! LMFAO

[onmyknees]

I agree. Public beaches should be free of public strictures.


Trish....obviously not a beach used by Tea Partiers .....they clean up after themselves !!!!!!! LMAO :)

[trish]

They don't need to clean up, they wear adult diapers. But of course you miss the point: if everybody can do what they please on the commons, then there's no stricture against banning together to protect the commons from the selfish and the greedy.

[onmyknees]

They don't need to clean up, they wear adult diapers. But of course you miss the point: if everybody can do what they please on the commons, then there's no stricture against banning together to protect the commons from the selfish and the greedy.

I didn't miss the point Trish...you're flattering your self again...I was actually yawning during your point...same old...same old...

And pick up that beach after your pubic sector union goon friends...will ya? It's beginning to look like Madison. LOL

[Faldur]

About time to blame it on Manbearpig again..

[trish]

Oh-hum

[Ineeda SM]

You're an idiot who doesn't think for himself and just swallows what your told as gospel. Read this moron......and next time before you open your mouth....do your research. Morons like you help pass these laws then have no idea of the unintended consequences. And I'm not good, and I'm not a Republican, but you're obviously a lemming.

http://www.jsonline.com/business/29356444.html

WOW Ms Palin, you are one angry misinformed person. You're an idiot who falls for any bull shit the right wing throws at you like the article in the link you thought was so clever to post.

We have had fluorescent light bulbs around since before you were born. They contain FAR FAR more of the chemicals that your link claims to be harmful, than any of the new small fluorescent bulbs. Those long 4 foot fluorescent tube lights have the same exact chemicals that are in today's small screw-in fluorescent bulbs. Yet we have never had any problem disposing of the tube type bulbs in trash cans that we set out on the curb. Everyone always smashed them into tiny little pieces, and throw them in the trash. Nobody has ever been harmed or died form doing this.

Maybe it is YOU Ms. Palin, that is the moron believing and repeating whatever your right wing asshole thought programmers have brainwashed you to say. As usual, you make pathetic comments on subjects you know nothing about. You prove your lack of thought processing with every post you make. And the funniest part about that is, you don't even realize it. You actually think you are making clever quips and remarks that have intelligence. You have GOT to be Sarah Palin in disguise. You say the most stupid things just like she does.

Those bulbs are NOT harmful to you, me, or anyone. They haven't been for 75 years, and they aren't today. Get a clue and get over yourself Sarah.

[ezed]

F'em I'm smoking on public beaches. Christ! if I can't smoke outdoors, I may as well die.

[Stavros]

What happens if someone is on a smoke-free public beach and a group of people are smoking on the private beach next to it and the smoke is blown onto the public area?

[ezed]

What happens if someone is on a smoke-free public beach and a group of people are smoking on the private beach next to it and the smoke is blown onto the public area?

Stavros, if this happens ... and it will, we must pull our suits up over our nose and mouth and run to safety and call 911! Sure, we risk serious wedgees, but think of the children!

[trish]

Prior types of compact fluorescents contain 3–5 mg of mercury per bulb. The newest contain about 1 mg of Hg. [/URL] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp#cite_note-45) Even these small amounts are a concern. It only takes one thousand to yield a gram of Hg. The National Electrical Manufacturers Association voluntarily capped the amount of mercury used in compact fluorescents.


Because of the reduction in energy demand, compact fluorescents save on Hg emissions in areas with coal-fired power stations.

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/opinion/31collins.html

[onmyknees]

It continues....the governmental creep of The Nanny State.......

Government No Fry Zone: NYC Health Dept. Bans Fried Food at Work Meals


Posted on April 5, 2011 at 10:56am by http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/userphoto/jseidl.thumbnail.jpg Jonathon M. Seidl (http://www.theblaze.com/blog/author/jseidl/)
No French fries. Or freedom fries for that matter.
The New York City Health Department has issued new guidelines banning fried foods from its work-sponsored meals, telling employees to cut bagels and muffins in half, and saying that if cakes are served for a celebration, they can’t be coupled with cookies. According to the Health Department, it’s about being consistent.
The Daily News explains (http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/04/04/2011-04-04_health_depts_new_guide_focuses_more_on_donts_th an_dos.html):

Employees also got a bright-colored brochure stipulating what can and can’t be served at meetings and parties.
Tap water is a menu must when food or drinks are served. Other beverages must be less than 25 calories per 8 ounces.
“Cut muffins and bagels into halves or quarters, or order mini sizes. Offer thinly-sliced, whole-grain bread,” the brochure states.

Deep-fried foods are an absolute no-no and “cannot be served.”
For celebrations, cake and air-popped popcorn – “popped at the party and served in brown paper lunch bags” – are allowed.
But when a “celebration cake” is served, cookies can’t be offered.
“These standards are mandatory for meetings and events sponsored by the Health Department,” the brochure states.
“The Health Department is leading by example by updating its guidelines for food and beverages served at agency meetings and events,” spokeswoman Erin Brady told the News.
Still, others see it as encroachment, especially considering the guidelines go beyond food. Workers were also told to refrain from wearing perfumes or colognes with “noticeable odors,” told not to eavesdrop, and advised to be careful not to post anything in their cubicles that others might consider offensive.
One worker summed up the guidelines by simply saying, “This seems like micromanaging.”



http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/04/04/2011-04-04_health_depts_new_guide_focuses_more_on_donts_th an_dos.html

[trish]

"They're more whatchya might call ... guidelines ... than an actual code." ___Captain Barbossa from Pirates of the Caribbean.

[onmyknees]

More Adult Supervision....Feel like a carbonated beverage on a warm day? Not gonna happen if you're on city property in Boston...Funny....Mayor Menino is for freedom of choice with respect to abortion, but don't reach for that can of Mountain Dew !!!

Pass me a Coke Trish...but let me cross the stret so I can enjoy it !!!!!!!!

http://backbay.patch.com/articles/no-more-sugary-drinks-on-city-owned-properties-says-mayor-2

[trish]

Phasing out the sale and advertising of sugary drinks isn't banning them from public property. Is it a nanny state that doesn't allow sales of pornography on public grounds? We ought to ban firearms from public parks as well. But at least we don't sell them in the parks...yet.

[Faldur]

You can have my gun Trish, I'm sure you've heard it before... When you pry it from my cold dead hand.

[Ineeda SM]

You can have my gun Trish, I'm sure you've heard it before... When you pry it from my cold dead hand.

"Your proposal is acceptable"...
....Men In Black: Movie, as the alien kills him and takes his gun. Moral of the story, never make an offer you can't back up. LOL! My favorite line in the movie.

[trish]

Why the fuck would I want your gun??? You probably masturbate with it. eeeuw! Keep that sticky little toy in the closet. Especially keep out of public parks. Little kids don't need to see that thing.

[TJ347]

We ought to ban firearms from public parks as well.

Yeah, so criminals can have the comfort of knowing that they can rob people without threat of being shot and potentially killed by the law abiding citizens they target. Of course, given the difficulty in getting a permit to carry in New York, criminals already have free reign in such encounters, in parks or anywhere else.

[trish]

Yeah, every gun nut's wet dream fantasy, they're going whip out their penis compensator, show everyone in sight what a man they are and shoot those nasty hoodlums in the act of committing heinous crimes. You rock batman...not.

[onmyknees]

More Nanny . I have a little advice for the Chicago public school system....less trying to be the parents, and more trying to be
educators. Our public school kids rank 15th amoung industrial nations in reading, math and the sciences. No money for books...but money for the snack of thier choice .

http://www.hungangels.com/images/header-logo.gif (http://www.chicagotribune.com)

Chicago school bans some lunches brought from home


To encourage healthful eating, Chicago school doesn't allow kids to bring lunches or certain snacks from home — and some parents, and many students, aren't fans of the policy



April 11, 2011|By Monica Eng and Joel Hood, Tribune reporters

http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2011-04/60805905.jpg
Monica Eng, Chicago Tribune

Fernando Dominguez cut the figure of a young revolutionary leader during a recent lunch period at his elementary school.
"Who thinks the lunch is not good enough?" the seventh-grader shouted to his lunch mates in Spanish and English.
Dozens of hands flew in the air and fellow students shouted along: "We should bring our own lunch! We should bring our own lunch! We should bring our own lunch!"
Fernando waved his hand over the crowd and asked a visiting reporter: "Do you see the situation?"
At his public school, Little Village Academy on Chicago's West Side, students are not allowed to pack lunches from home. Unless they have a medical excuse, they must eat the food served in the cafeteria.
Principal Elsa Carmona said her intention is to protect students from their own unhealthful food choices.
"Nutrition wise, it is better for the children to eat at the school," Carmona said. "It's about the nutrition and the excellent quality food that they are able to serve (in the lunchroom). It's milk versus a Coke. But with allergies and any medical issue, of course, we would make an exception."

[Ineeda SM]

More Nanny . I have a little advice for the Chicago public school system....less trying to be the parents, and more trying to be
educators. Our public school kids rank 15th amoung industrial nations in reading, math and the sciences. No money for books...but money for the snack of thier choice .

http://www.hungangels.com/images/header-logo.gif (http://www.chicagotribune.com)

Chicago school bans some lunches brought from home


To encourage healthful eating, Chicago school doesn't allow kids to bring lunches or certain snacks from home — and some parents, and many students, aren't fans of the policy



April 11, 2011|By Monica Eng and Joel Hood, Tribune reporters

http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2011-04/60805905.jpg
Monica Eng, Chicago Tribune

Fernando Dominguez cut the figure of a young revolutionary leader during a recent lunch period at his elementary school.
"Who thinks the lunch is not good enough?" the seventh-grader shouted to his lunch mates in Spanish and English.
Dozens of hands flew in the air and fellow students shouted along: "We should bring our own lunch! We should bring our own lunch! We should bring our own lunch!"
Fernando waved his hand over the crowd and asked a visiting reporter: "Do you see the situation?"
At his public school, Little Village Academy on Chicago's West Side, students are not allowed to pack lunches from home. Unless they have a medical excuse, they must eat the food served in the cafeteria.
Principal Elsa Carmona said her intention is to protect students from their own unhealthful food choices.
"Nutrition wise, it is better for the children to eat at the school," Carmona said. "It's about the nutrition and the excellent quality food that they are able to serve (in the lunchroom). It's milk versus a Coke. But with allergies and any medical issue, of course, we would make an exception."

Not sure, but it looks like pasta with a meat sauce. It looks like the same amount that is found in a can of spaghetti or Campbell's soups, which have always been considered a good healthy lunch portion. If any kid's mom served that at home, the kid would smile and enjoy it then go back out and play. I also see milk and chocolate milk in the photo. I wish I had had that kind of lunch in elementary school.

Damn! 15 ounces of pasta and chocolate milk. What is the bad part again? I guess we should go back to greasy burgers and fries with brownies for desert. That was sooooo much more healthier. Have you seen the fat ass kids in schools these days? They will grow up fat and die with diabetes and heart attacks. But I guess that's a better idea too.

[robertlouis]

Not sure, but it looks like pasta with a meat sauce. It looks like the same amount that is found in a can of spaghetti or Campbell's soups, which have always been considered a good healthy lunch portion. If any kid's mom served that at home, the kid would smile and enjoy it then go back out and play. I also see milk and chocolate milk in the photo. I wish I had had that kind of lunch in elementary school.

Damn! 15 ounces of pasta and chocolate milk. What is the bad part again? I guess we should go back to greasy burgers and fries with brownies for desert. That was sooooo much more healthier. Have you seen the fat ass kids in schools these days? They will grow up fat and die with diabetes and heart attacks. But I guess that's a better idea too.


Poor Jamie Oliver had a tough enough struggle with his campaign to improve school food in the UK. It's even worse in the US, where for some people the freedoms to give their kids early onset diabetes, obesity, heart problems and a shortened lifespan are obviously worth fighting for..... :(

[TJ347]

I guess we should go back to greasy burgers and fries with brownies for desert. That was sooooo much more healthier. Have you seen the fat ass kids in schools these days? They will grow up fat and die with diabetes and heart attacks. But I guess that's a better idea too.

So now that you're out of school, you're fine with substituting tofu or whatever the hell for the burgers and whatnot you enjoyed, huh? What a surprise.

Did you ever stop to think that maybe it's not the food, but the fact that kids don't play outside anymore that's the problem? Remember riding your bike and playing dodgeball or hide-and-go-seek? When's the last time you saw today's kids doing that? Yet you run straight to blame food, like we had tons of fat ass kids running around in 1983 when going outside wasn't something parents had to tell their kids to do. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Something liberals never advocate.

[TJ347]

Yeah, every gun nut's wet dream fantasy, they're going whip out their penis compensator, show everyone in sight what a man they are and shoot those nasty hoodlums in the act of committing heinous crimes. You rock batman...not.

Ah, but you forget that without "penis compensators" there'd be not LGBT community today. There'd also be no Jews, blacks, gypsies...
Short-sighted much?

Why not just say you don't like guns and leave it at that, as opposed to going into pseudo-intellectual babbling as to why? Guns have been used to murder innocents, yes, but guns have also been used to bring down tyrants. One-sided arguments against guns will not change those facts, particularly when they are so pitiful as to be based on comparing guns to phallic extensions. I should like to hear from some members in the UK as to how the gun ban is working for citizens there...

[hippifried]

Ah, but you forget that without "penis compensators" there'd be not LGBT community today. There'd also be no Jews, blacks, gypsies...
Short-sighted much?

But then again: There wouldn't have been those problems in the first place.

The reality is that guns have never solved a single problem that they didn't create. They don't prevent crime or lower the rate either. The sad truth is that the wimps who feel the need to be armed all the time are too scared to interfere in any crime unless it's being perpetrated against them personally. Even then, they're more likely to end up dead or shooting some innocent during the low percentage of times that they would even try to deter a crime where they're the victim. Best chance is that their gun will just get taken & end up in the hands of criminals. Most gun crimes are domestic disputes that get out of hand. Lions share of the rest are committed with stolen guns. Only a pussy needs to be armed to feel safe, & that doesn't work either. They just get more paranoid.

Now don't get me wrong. I don't have a problem with guns. I own guns. I grew up with guns in the house, & the latest copy of American Rifleman on the coffee table. I took all the NRA classes as a kid. (Do they even do that anymore?) I'm just sick & tired of the lame rhetorical mythology that constantly gets bandied about these days. I don't give a shit what anybody's posirion is on anything, really, but I don't want to hear any more lies.

[TJ347]

Actually, there would have been those same problems, they just would have been dealt with using crossbows and swords. Human history shows that we never had a problem finding means to kill each other, even before guns were commonplace. Oddly, people seemingly forget that when voicing their anti-gun stance.

The reality is that the "wimps" may be afraid they'll find themselves in prison if they interfere in a crime that isn't being perpetrated against them personally. My grandfather shot and killed a man breaking into his home in 1987 and was arrested, though no charges were ever filed. This is one of countless examples of a crime being prevented (absent the breaking and entering) because a law abiding citizen had a gun, whereas you claim guns don't do that. I thus posit a story I know to be true against your claim for the consideration of whomever cares to ponder either position.

You are right about rhetoric bandied about these days regarding guns, but it comes from both sides. As to not wanting to hear anymore lies... You mention the low percentage of times armed "wimps" would even try to deter a crime where they're the victim, while page 10 of the American Rifleman has stories proving that statement to be a lie every single month of the year. Now, while I respect your position on the issue and don't have an issue with people who are indifferent to or anti guns, like you, I don't want to hear lies to support whatever position people take, pro, anti or otherwise. And yes, they still do the NRA classes.

[hippifried]

The rhetoric is all based on a bunch of mythological memes. I don't care what any magazine article says about anything anymore. Pundits either. I bailed out of fthe NRA back in the '70s, like so many others, when Wayne laPierre took over & turned it into "just another right wing splinter group".

To hear y'all tell it, one would think the crime rate drops in corelation to any increase in gun ownership. It's crap. Americans are armed to the teeth, yet we have the highest per-capita violent crime rate in the world. Hasn't worked so far.

On the other hand, to hear the left tell it, you'd think guns are demon possessed & talk to mental patients (or those who should be) as they pass pawn shops or gun shows. Also crap.

Nobody's even trying to discuss the gun issue from any kind of realistic point of reference. The media's selling soap, & everybody else is selling bullshit. There's no "wings" here. This isn't & never has been a partisan right/left issue, despite all the attempts to make it one. Politicians are just panderers, & the media reports it as legitimate partisan positions, & y'all buy it with the soap. Don't try & feed this poisoned shit to me. I know better.

[trish]

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000

[Faldur]

, yet we have the highest per-capita violent crime rate in the world.

You the one poster I tend to ignore on this forum Hippi, you spout lie after lie. I think you live so far out in la-la land you even believe your own bullshit.

America is ranked 90th in total intentional homicides per capita, years 2000 - 2009. (Only missed that one by 89 places) And 8th when ranking total "Crimes" per capita. (Far cry from "highest" per capita)

Go smoke another doobie and leave the thinking to the big boys.

[Silcc69]

You the one poster I tend to ignore on this forum Hippi, you spout lie after lie. I think you live so far out in la-la land you even believe your own bullshit.

America is ranked 90th in total intentional homicides per capita, years 2000 - 2009. (Only missed that one by 89 places) And 8th when ranking total "Crimes" per capita. (Far cry from "highest" per capita)

Go smoke another doobie and leave the thinking to the big boys.

Neither one of you provided any links to confirm the data so you are no better than hippi.

[trish]

According to a 2002 article in the American Journal of Public Heath, "The United States has higher rates of firearm ownership than do other developed nations, and higher rates of homicide." Moreover, "At the regional level, we found a positive and statistically significant relationship between rates of household gun ownership and homicide victimization for the entire population, for victims aged 5 to 14 years, and for victims 35 years and older..."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447364/

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri...te-per-100-000 (http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/interactives/guns/ownership.html

[Faldur]

Neither one of you provided any links to confirm the data so you are no better than hippi.

Its called google, I would be happy to fact check your reading. I charge $85 an hour.

[onmyknees]

Ah, but you forget that without "penis compensators" there'd be not LGBT community today. There'd also be no Jews, blacks, gypsies...
Short-sighted much?

Why not just say you don't like guns and leave it at that, as opposed to going into pseudo-intellectual babbling as to why? Guns have been used to murder innocents, yes, but guns have also been used to bring down tyrants. One-sided arguments against guns will not change those facts, particularly when they are so pitiful as to be based on comparing guns to phallic extensions. I should like to hear from some members in the UK as to how the gun ban is working for citizens there...

:Bowdown::Bowdown::Bowdown::Bowdown::Bowdown::Bowd own::Bowdown:

[Faldur]

According to a 2002 article in the American Journal of Public Heath, "The United States has higher rates of firearm ownership than do other developed nations, and higher rates of homicide." Moreover, "At the regional level, we found a positive and statistically significant relationship between rates of household gun ownership and homicide victimization for the entire population, for victims aged 5 to 14 years, and for victims 35 years and older..."

World wide, years 2000 - 2009, USA intentional homicides, ranked 90th. World wide average in 2004, 7.6 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants. America's average in 2004, 5.5. 26% below the international average. Gun packing rednecks saving the world one dead criminal at a time.

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Homicide-world.png" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/44/Homicide-world.png/400px-Homicide-world.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/4/44/Homicide-world.png/400px-Homicide-world.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate)

Silca, my invoice is in the mail..

[onmyknees]

Why the fuck would I want your gun??? You probably masturbate with it. eeeuw! Keep that sticky little toy in the closet. Especially keep out of public parks. Little kids don't need to see that thing.


Come Get You some of this Trish !

[TJ347]

Thanks for that, Faldur, as I can't be bothered with providing sources on this issue to the more vocal slacktivists on this forum who would only immediately list contrarian sources thereafter.

That said, I agree with Hippie on a thing or two, but overall he's ignoring contrarian indicators such as those I provided. I mentioned page 10 of the American Rifleman because each month it lists citizens who defended their homes or those of neighbors and so forth against criminals, also providing the newspapers that this information was published in for those who might want to fact check. This was dismissed out of hand as NRA bunk, and we wonder why politicians can't engage in civil discourse when we ourselves can't present our positions without lying to maintain them in light of contrary evidence.

[trish]

There are no tyrants in US public parks to bring down, unless you're still hung up on being bullied by the smarter kids in fourth grade.

[trish]

Come Get You some of this Trish !Your dick is too fucking tiny; you need far more compensation.

[trish]

You guys who keep complaining about the "nanny" state have tip your hands. You don't even think we should keep guns out of public parks, universities, churches and schools where there are children. You're against any reasonable measures at providing for the safety of our citizens, even children, whether those measures be regulations or just suggested guidelines. That's what's known as an extreme position.

[TJ347]

There are no tyrants in US public parks to bring down, unless you're still hung up on being bullied by the smarter kids in fourth grade.

I have a feeling plenty of New Yorkers would tell you they'd have to be packing to walk through Central Park after 6PM for any reason, as though there may not be tyrants there, you'll probably find several would-be rapists and/or muggers.

Now say we passed a law banning people from carrying to an event where, for example, an elected official was going to be speaking... Do you think Jared Loughtner would have been put off? This is what people who advocate restrictions on where you can carry miss the boat. People who knew this man had mental problems did not notify the proper authorities, which meant he was able to purchase a gun legally. That this happened doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to carry, unless you're so opposed to firearms that you don't think any private citizen should be able to own one, in which case you'd have a friend in Chairman Mao, Stalin and Hitler.

[trish]

Do you think there were only two guys packin heat in that crowd at Tuscon Arizona? If you do you're naive. But who stopped Loughner from putting in a new magazine. Two unarmed people, one a victim. We don't need more guns, we need fewer bullets.

[TJ347]

There is no logical link between Loughtner being stopped by two unarmed people and your call for restricting the number of places where people can carry, nor is there any link between his rampage and current efforts to restrict the capacity of magazines.

If anything, what people should be railing against is the failure of administrators at his college (who themselves refused to readmit him until he had received a psychological evaluation) to forward their concerns to authorities, as this would have prevented him from buying the gun he used. I said this before. However, despite claims to the contrary, this isn't about "saving innocent lives", it's about increasingly restricting access until private ownership of guns is effectively prohibited, which some anti-gun organizations have openly acknowledged. I'm not saying that every citizen should carry a pistol, but I am for everyone legally entitled to do so having the right to do so in defense of his or her life and those of their loved ones. If anyone chooses not to carry a gun, that's their decision, but don't take away my right because you don't value it. That's like me favoring banning lipstick because I don't wear it... Patently ridiculous.

[trish]

People don't regularly kill people with lipsticks, deliberately or accidentally. If they did we should consider regulating the use and carry of lipstick.

[onmyknees]

There is no logical link between Loughtner being stopped by two unarmed people and your call for restricting the number of places where people can carry, nor is there any link between his rampage and current efforts to restrict the capacity of magazines.

If anything, what people should be railing against is the failure of administrators at his college (who themselves refused to readmit him until he had received a psychological evaluation) to forward their concerns to authorities, as this would have prevented him from buying the gun he used. I said this before. However, despite claims to the contrary, this isn't about "saving innocent lives", it's about increasingly restricting access until private ownership of guns is effectively prohibited, which some anti-gun organizations have openly acknowledged. I'm not saying that every citizen should carry a pistol, but I am for everyone legally entitled to do so having the right to do so in defense of his or her life and those of their loved ones. If anyone chooses not to carry a gun, that's their decision, but don't take away my right because you don't value it. That's like me favoring banning lipstick because I don't wear it... Patently ridiculous.


TJ...I crossed swords with Trish on this Tuscon episode for well over a month. If it's not the guns, it's the clips...if it's not the clips it's Palin taking in coded language at the dog whistle decible as a call to arms to Loughner. Now she wants clips banned, or bans in parks, etc. Liberals love bans...smoking bans, gun bans, fried chicken bans, Big Mac bans, ....It's not that I'm opposed to that necessarily, ( ban on clips) it's that it's one more law that liberal politicians like Chuck Schumer will pull the podium out of the back seat of the limo, hold a press conference to congradulate himself, and never review the efficacy of the law 3 years down the road and we wind up with yet another gun law that more than likely will have little effect. What's my proof of that? A law abiding citizen can't get a gun in DC no matter how much money or how many connections or how many backround checks. Yet my brother lives in Columbia Heights and there's a gun battle nearly every night there. Suffice to say somebody's got guns despite the ban!!!!!!

[Ineeda SM]

So now that you're out of school, you're fine with substituting tofu or whatever the hell for the burgers and whatnot you enjoyed, huh? What a surprise.

Did you ever stop to think that maybe it's not the food, but the fact that kids don't play outside anymore that's the problem? Remember riding your bike and playing dodgeball or hide-and-go-seek? When's the last time you saw today's kids doing that? Yet you run straight to blame food, like we had tons of fat ass kids running around in 1983 when going outside wasn't something parents had to tell their kids to do. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Something liberals never advocate.

If they gave away awards for republican asshole of the year, you would be near the top of the list of winners.

Once AGAIN you put words in my mouth like republicans always do. Show me the line from my reply that says, that I am fine with TOFU as a substitute. You really have to stop making up shit so you can argue your lost causes with people.

The last time I saw kids running around outside playing was 2 days ago. We had an 80 degree day and the kids had fun outside. And once again you do not check your facts before you puke out your right wing bull shit. The democrats promote more exercise and healthier foods for kids every day. Michell Obama heads the "Let's Move" campaign to do just that. Your GOP boys have cut funding Phys Ed, and after school sports programs for kids 5 times over the past 11 years. The dems constantly support and fund them. So cut the bull shit about liberals never advocating personal responsibility for kids. You need to check your facts before you talk.

[Faldur]

:mad:
You guys who keep complaining about the "nanny" state have tip your hands. You don't even think we should keep guns out of public parks, universities, churches and schools where there are children. You're against any reasonable measures at providing for the safety of our citizens, even children, whether those measures be regulations or just suggested guidelines. That's what's known as an extreme position.

You are spot on Trish. We need more steady handed lads in parks with weapons. Then our parks which now belong to the drug dealers and child molesters will once again be safe. You can count on my weapon being there on the side of the law. And I am one hell of a good shot.

And in case you haven't noticed the nanny state is terminally I'll. Send it your regards, it's going bye bye..

[onmyknees]

Your dick is too fucking tiny; you need far more compensation.

Typically you'd be the one to correlate gun size to dick size....LMAO...but i'll tell ya this...the brain is by far the most powerful sexual organ, and in that regard...you're a distant second in size and capacity to yours truly. :dancing::dancing:

[onmyknees]

If they gave away awards for republican asshole of the year, you would be near the top of the list of winners.

Once AGAIN you put words in my mouth like republicans always do. Show me the line from my reply that says, that I am fine with TOFU as a substitute. You really have to stop making up shit so you can argue with people.

The last time I saw kids running around outside playing was 2 days ago. We had an 80 degree day and the kids had fun outside. And once again you do not check your facts before you puke out your right wing bull shit. The democrats promote more excersize and healthier foods for kids every day. Michell Obama heads the "Let's Move" campaign to do just that. Your GOP boys have cut funding Phys Ed, and after school sports programs for kids 5 times over the past 11 years. The dems constantly support and fund them. So cut the bull shit about liberals never advocating personal responsability for kids. You need to check your facts before you talk.

Meathead....What you and your nanny staters really want is for the government to take the place of the parents. Feed them, cloth them, wipe thier asses...how about TEACHING THEM? How about these slackers get off thier lazy fucking ass and take thier kids to a public playground after they help them with thier homework? How come parochial school kids are smarter, thiner, better adjusted and more likely to suceed than public school kids? There's no government programs helping them. And don't cry me a river about rich parents...There's as many poor and working class kids in these schools.
And maybe Michelle should spend more time in her organic garden and less time telling us what to eat....? I don't have near the level of unhealthy hate for her as you have for Palin but I mean really....do you think she has a clue on how to tend to a vegetable garden? LMAO...It's all aesthetics.

[Ineeda SM]

There is no logical link between Loughtner being stopped by two unarmed people and your call for restricting the number of places where people can carry, nor is there any link between his rampage and current efforts to restrict the capacity of magazines.



That line alone proves you are an asshole who has no clue as to what you are saying. You talk like some teen asshole on crack.

It proves 1) you don't need armed people to stop an idiot with a gun. Armed people probably would have shot or killed more innocent people as it has always happened that way where armed citizens tried to stop a crime.

And 2) if the Clinton assault weapons ban had not been lifted by the fucked up- republicans, Loughner would have only had 10 bullets to kill with and not 31. Five more people including a 9 year old girl would still be alive today, if the ban had still been in effect. The 9 year old girl was killed by the 18th bullet.

Get a fucking clue before you post your asinine remarks.

[trish]

If you have toot your own horn, you don't have one worth tooting. LOL

[onmyknees]

That line alone proves you are an asshole who has no clue as to what you are saying. You talk like some teen asshole on crack.

It proves 1) you don't need armed people to stop an idiot with a gun. Armed people probably would have shot or killed more innocent people as it has always happened that way where armed citizens tried to stop a crime.

And 2) if the Clinton assault weapons ban had not been lifted by the fucked up- republicans, Loughner would have only had 10 bullets to kill with and not 31. Five more people including a 9 year old girl would still be alive today, if the ban had still been in effect. The 9 year old girl was killed by the 18th bullet.

Get a fucking clue before you post your asinine remarks.

Meathead...if you're not going to arm yourself with a weapon...then arm yourself with some knowledge,...many tmes it's more powerful.. and stop basing every post on hysterical emotion.

[TJ347]

If they gave away awards for republican asshole of the year, you would be near the top of the list of winners.

Once AGAIN you put words in my mouth like republicans always do. Show me the line from my reply that says, that I am fine with TOFU as a substitute. You really have to stop making up shit so you can argue your lost causes with people.

The last time I saw kids running around outside playing was 2 days ago. We had an 80 degree day and the kids had fun outside. And once again you do not check your facts before you puke out your right wing bull shit. The democrats promote more exercise and healthier foods for kids every day. Michell Obama heads the "Let's Move" campaign to do just that. Your GOP boys have cut funding Phys Ed, and after school sports programs for kids 5 times over the past 11 years. The dems constantly support and fund them. So cut the bull shit about liberals never advocating personal responsibility for kids. You need to check your facts before you talk.

You are a professional fool, and continue to prove it with your every post. You saw kids outside two days ago? Great. Need I state explicitly that what I meant was that kids by and large do not get enough physical exercise these days? Apparently I do, because you are singularly too much of an imbecile to comprehend my meaning otherwise.

You state that Democrats promote more exercise and healthier foods (and have now, from what I'm hearing, gone so far in Chicago as to ban lunches brought from home) and with your pea brain manage to link that somehow with personal responsibility. Personal responsibility is personal, idiot. It isn't legislated by the government; it comes from individuals. If kids eat garbage, their parents need to take personal responsibility for the welfare of their kids and do something about it. No political party should have to step in and play parent to fat ass kids by trying to tax soda to reduce consumption.

Now that we have fully established that you are a completely mindless liberal moron with the comprehension skills of an amoeba, please do not direct further comments toward me. Identifying the logical flaws in your posts are too time consuming, your points too stupid, and your insults too juvenile for me to continue wasting words on. That you regularly go on tirades about "typical Republicans", particularly with regard to me, a thirty-two year old black man, is one of countless examples of your stupidity, in this case tied to your inability to define words... In this case, the word "typical".

You previously showed us that you can't differentiate communism from fascism, but of course that didn't stop you from going on a senseless tirade in support of Obama. You similarly couldn't stop yourself from speaking on the root cause of the Civil War, despite the fact that the root cause you identified was completely wrong. You do not have sufficient mental ability to engage a school age child riding the short bus in a debate, and you want to engage me? Please! Move your ass on, and take your award and shove it up our ass as you do. I have no problem with Dems, but you're a Dim, and that I have no patience for. I am a successful man, who will not be relegated to living on a fixed income as you have stated you presently do. Because you were not successful in life, you now advocate punishing those of us who are, instead of accepting your failure. That is the mark of a "typical" loser Dim, and goes back to an inability to accept personal responsibility... or understand what it means. Good day.

[Ineeda SM]

.......How about these slackers get off thier lazy fucking ass and take thier kids to a public playground after they help them with thier homework? How come parochial school kids are smarter, thiner, better adjusted and more likely to suceed than public school kids? There's no government programs helping them. And don't cry me a river about rich parents...There's as many poor and working class kids in these schools.

For once we agree on something TROLL-BOY. Why don't parents do their jobs? Because they are too busy being yuppies and assholes to give a shit for their kids, so unfortunately someone else has to do something for the kids. It's obvious the parents aren't going to do their fucking jobs as parents.


And maybe Michelle should spend more time in her organic garden and less time telling us what to eat....? I don't have near the level of unhealthy hate for her as you have for Palin but I mean really....do you think she has a clue on how to tend to a vegetable garden? LMAO...It's all aesthetics.

What makes you say she doesn't have a clue on how to tend a garden? For all any of us knows, she may be a fucking expert gardener. She's not telling US what to eat. She is trying to help kids be healthier through exercise and better foods. They are just guidelines, not laws.

And once again you put words in my mouth that I never said. I do NOT hate Palin at all. I have never said or implied that I hate her. I just know how stupid she is. She proves it herself without any help from me. You didn't say you do not have ANY hate, you said you do not have the LEVEL of unhealthy hate. Which means you have SOME level of hate, where I have no hate. Yep! Typical republican.

[TJ347]

Yet my brother lives in Columbia Heights and there's a gun battle nearly every night there. Suffice to say somebody's got guns despite the ban!!!!!!

Indeed! Anti-gun activist seem to think that criminals, who by definition don't abide by the law, will somehow magically do so with regard to imposing new gun laws despite all evidence to the contrary! It's mind boggling. That said, this is an internet forum full of half-assed activists trying to encourage other members to do what they themselves won't. The most they'll do is sign a petition, and fortunately for us that won't be sufficient to get that gun ban they want signed into law.

[TJ347]

Meathead....What you and your nanny staters really want is for the government to take the place of the parents. Feed them, cloth them, wipe thier asses...how about TEACHING THEM? How about these slackers get off thier lazy fucking ass and take thier kids to a public playground after they help them with thier homework? How come parochial school kids are smarter, thiner, better adjusted and more likely to suceed than public school kids? There's no government programs helping them. And don't cry me a river about rich parents...There's as many poor and working class kids in these schools.
And maybe Michelle should spend more time in her organic garden and less time telling us what to eat....? I don't have near the level of unhealthy hate for her as you have for Palin but I mean really....do you think she has a clue on how to tend to a vegetable garden? LMAO...It's all aesthetics.

And the moron responds by admitting that he believes since parents won't be parents, the government should step in and play the role. Now, when government interferes with your household to the point of usurping your parental role, what form of government is that? And so we see just what type of government this idiot is in really in favor of, yet because of his inability to define political ideologies, he can't. If he had to meet a minimal IQ requirement to continue getting that fixed income of his, he'd starve to death.

[Ineeda SM]

PLEASE DIE? That shows intelligence and responsabillity. Because I prove you wrong and you don't like it, you want me to die. Another typical republican response. If they are in our way, fuck them let them die.


You are a professional fool, and continue to prove it with your every post. You saw kids outside two days ago? Great. Need I state explicitly that what I meant was that kids by and large do not get enough physical exercise these days? Apparently I do, because you are singularly too much of an imbecile to comprehend my meaning otherwise.
You asked the stupid question, I gave an honest answer. I'm sorry if that is too deep for you. Say what you mean and mean what you say, or don't say anything at all


You state that Democrats promote more exercise and healthier foods (and have now, from what I'm hearing, gone so far in Chicago as to ban lunches brought from home) and with your pea brain manage to link that somehow with personal responsibility. Personal responsibility is personal, idiot. It isn't legislated by the government; it comes from individuals. If kids eat garbage, their parents need to take personal responsibility for the welfare of their kids and do something about it. No political party should have to step in and play parent to fat ass kids by trying to tax soda to reduce consumption.

Once again you are clueless and reply without checking your facts. Democrats did NOT ban lunches from home. That was a local school board decision. Yes parents need to take care of their kids. In your perfect little fantasy world, I guess that is how it works. Just tell the parents to be parents, and they will say OH OK! I will! Thank you! And everyone lives happy ever after. RIGHT? WRONG! In the REAL world, THEY DON'T TAKE CARE OF THEIR KIDS because they are assholes and don't care. So someone else has to. If not, then the kids will keep growing up like piglets with diabetes and have heart attacks at 40. Get a fucking clue on real life sonny boy.


Now that we have fully established that you are a completely mindless liberal moron with the comprehension skills of an amoeba, please do not direct further comments toward me. Identifying the logical flaws in your posts are too time consuming, your points too stupid, and your insults too juvenile for me to continue wasting words on. That you as a retired man on a pension regularly go on tirades about "typical Republicans", particularly with regard to me, a thirty-two year old black man, is one of countless examples of your stupidity, in this case tied to your inability to define words... In this case, the word "typical".

See now you are just making juvinile statements because your ego is hurt. Thus proving your being too young to understand how the real life world runs. What's next. You going to tell me that your dad can beat up my dad, or my mom wears army shoes, or that I have cooties and the other kids should stay away from me? Grow the fuck up.


You previously showed us that you can't differentiate communism from fascism, but of course that didn't stop you from going on a senseless tirade in support of Obama. You similarly couldn't stop yourself from speaking on the root cause of the Civil War, despite the fact that the root cause you identified was completely wrong. You do not have sufficient mental ability to engage a school age child riding the short bus in a debate, and you want to engage me? Please! Move your ass on, and take your award and shove it up our ass as you do. I have no problem with Dems, but you're a Dim, and that I have no patience for.

Get someone to help you read and explain a history book asshole. The civil war was 99% because of slavery. The Union didn't want it, but the south did. We went to war because of it. That is a fact like it or not. Look it up, Google it, ask a history teacher....whatever it takes to break through your thick clueless head. The rest of your words are just the juvinile drivel of a child or a young asshole on crack. If you wanna play with the big boys, you need to grow up and finish school first.

[TJ347]

:loser: The word is spelled "juvenile". Now we also see that among other shortcomings, you can't spell either.

[Silcc69]

Indeed! Anti-gun activist seem to think that criminals, who by definition don't abide by the law, will somehow magically do so with regard to imposing new gun laws despite all evidence to the contrary! It's mind boggling. That said, this is an internet forum full of half-assed activists trying to encourage other members to do what they themselves won't. The most they'll do is sign a petition, and fortunately for us that won't be sufficient to get that gun ban they want signed into law.

Who is trying to ban guns? The president hasn't said anything about banning guns other than assault rifles which I agree with.

[TJ347]

Who is trying to ban guns? The president hasn't said anything about banning guns other than assault rifles which I agree with.

Former Brady Campaign chairman Nelson Shields identified it as the organization's ultimate goal, and certainly the Brady Campaign isn't alone in those efforts. I include the statement I'm referring to, which can be found several places online including Wikipedia, which is where I grabbed this seeing as I can't post the literature I have where the statement is noted.

"We'll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily - given the political realities - very modest. We'll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down production and sales. Next is to get registration (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/#). The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal."

[trish]

Why stop with guns? Shoulder launched surface to air missiles are "arms" too and therefore protected by the Second Amendment. So to are tactical nuclear weapons. Let's just let everyone carry whatever "arms" they want where ever they want.

[Silcc69]

Former Brady Campaign chairman Nelson Shields identified it as the organization's ultimate goal, and certainly the Brady Campaign isn't alone in those efforts. I include the statement I'm referring to, which can be found several places online including Wikipedia, which is where I grabbed this seeing as I can't post the literature I have where the statement is noted.
"We'll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily - given the political realities - very modest. We'll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down production and sales. Next is to get registration (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/#). The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal."




Brady Report: Lack of Leadership Earns President Obama a Failing Grade

» Help Save Lives: Click here (http://www.bradynetwork.org/site/Advocacy?id=951)

The Brady Center has released a report on President Obama’s performance called President Obama’s First Year: Failed Leadership, Lost Lives.

The President’s concessions to the “guns anywhere” mentality of the gun lobby and lack of leadership for common-sense gun laws has earned him a grade of “F”.

President Obama signed legislation letting people carry concealed weapons in national parks and in checked luggage on Amtrak trains, adopted the gun lobby’s empty rhetoric about just “enforcing the laws on the books,” and muzzled Cabinet members who expressed support for stronger gun laws.

In addition, the White House voiced no objection to people carrying guns near Presidential events and his White House staff removed statements from the White House website that declared support for gun violence prevention laws.

[TJ347]

Trish, you're better than that. That said, I do own a fully automatic UZI, but don't worry, it's against the law to tote it around in public.

[trish]

Okay then, where's the flaw in my new found faith in the Second Amendment? What principle intervenes with the Second Amendment and prevents me from carrying a tactical nuclear arm in public, or a surface to air missile, or an automatic UZI? They are arms one and all.

[TJ347]

Please don't go down the INeedaBrain road, Trish... You've been one of the few on the left here who actually say anything I find worth responding to. I know you're being sarcastic, but to what end? Just jump to whatever point you're trying to make and we can go from there.

[trish]

Oh come on. What principle, if any, intervenes with the Second Amendment and prevents me from carrying a tactical nuclear arm, a surface to air missile or a fully automatic UZI? They're all arms.

[TJ347]

If it has a hunting or "sporting" purpose, the Second Amendment would protect you, so long as you don't live in the District of Columbia and a few other places. The weapons you mention (excluding the UZI) don't meet that definition, but the law doesn't allow me to carry an automatic rifle on my person publicly either. I know you know that.

[trish]

Are you suggesting the Second Amendment only applies to arms that could function as practical sporting weapons?

[TJ347]

I am saying that the Second Amendment, so far as I am personally aware, has never upheld the "right" of any private citizen to carry a rocket launcher on his or her person. Now, I may be wrong on that, but I kind of think it'd be mentioned by the anti-gun lobby incessantly if so. Surprise me with proof otherwise. I can take it.

[hippifried]

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita

My reference was to "violent crime", & we seem to be in the top 10 for all of them. Or at least the ones involving guns. Gee, I guess I really got caught exaggerating. Mea culpa. Of course my stretch doesn't come anywhere near the really big lie that guns deter crime. That's gotta be right up there with "tax cuts increase revenue & reduce deficits". You guys have really been brainwashed.

[TJ347]

People don't regularly kill people with lipsticks, deliberately or accidentally. If they did we should consider regulating the use and carry of lipstick.

You know my point here is that it's easy to support or be indifferent to banning or restricting access to something you don't care about to begin with. I get that you don't own, care to own, or want people to own guns. That's your position, and it's fine with me. I am of a different opinion, and it's not fine with you... But isn't liberalism about more "freedom"? Why then would you want to deny me the freedom to have the gun I like? Watch out! That has historically been a communist/fascist position.

[trish]

I am saying that the Second Amendment, so far as I am personally aware, has never upheld the "right" of any private citizen to carry a rocket launcher on his or her person.Okay. But I'm asking what principle intervenes to block the Second Amendment in the case of rocket launchers?

[TJ347]

That's a fair question... I'm thinking it's because it's neither a handgun or rifle suitable for hunting or sporting purposes but let me get back to you on that, as there may be other reasons.

[Ineeda SM]

We have a few people here from the U.K. were there is gun control so good that the police don't have to carry guns.

How about it you guys from the U.K. What do you think about gun control, and does it work in your country?

[TJ347]

Anyone know the story of Iain Harrison? If not, you should. Very interesting story, and with a happy ending that could only happen in America.

http://cheaperthandirt.com/blog/?p=3956

[Ineeda SM]

Here is the second amendment to the US Constitution....

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

All it says is "ARMS". It is not specific to any particular type of arms. Arms could also mean knives, swords, or a baseball bat. The founding fathers never made it clear what arms they were referring to. It is certain that when the Constitution was written, all they had then was musket rifles, single shot pistols, and cannons. So maybe that was the arms they were talking about.

Or were they speaking in general for the invention of future weapons or upgrades to existing weapons? If this is the case, then a nuclear warhead is considered "arms". So are rocket launchers, grenades, mortar launchers, AK-47's, Carbines, pee shooters, slingshots, throwing rocks......... I guess Trish was right about being able to carry any kind of arms.

Also the amendment says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" A well regulated militia means a disciplined army with a chain of command.

And being necessary to the security of a free state, means the necessity of that army to protect the country, it's people, and it's laws.

So did the founding fathers mean that the only people who have the right to bear arms was the government military and law enforcers? Maybe they didn't intend that every citizen be allowed to own a gun.

Unfortunately, the amendment was not very clear and could be interpreted in many very different ways. So which one is right, and how do we prove it? This is were we get so many arguments about guns. In a way, everyone is right, and everyone is wrong. The only way to make sure, would be for an act of congress to decide what the amendment actually means, and amend the amendment to be specific for all to understand. I would really enjoy that debate in congress. What a travesty it would be.

But that will never happen. I can not fathom a democrat and a republican coming to a mutual decision on what the 2nd amendment really means, or should mean.

[trish]

Of course the purpose of the courts is to interpret law. So another solution, the one our country has been pursuing, is to allow the courts to evolve an interpretation. Jurors will often argue interpretations based on various principles which are not laws but guidelines for interpreting laws. Precedence is one such principle we're all familiar with. But other principles come from various philosophies, ideologies etc. All these sort of principles are very tricky to apply and jurors often disagree in their application. But courts rarely willy-nilly decide something like, "okay the founders clearly meant individuals not associated with a militia to have the right to carry concealed sporting arms." So what principle have the courts applied, if any, that allows them to say prohibiting citizens from carrying rocket launchers is not contrary to the Second Amendment? How is that principle to be applied in other cases? How does one determine the extensions of that principle?

[Stavros]

In the UK you need a licence to purchase a weapon and give what the police believe is a valid reason to own it, which is why the largest gun-owning constituency in the UK is made up of farmers, professional gamekeepers and members of gun and rifle clubs. Guns as part of sport go back a long way, there is or was an annual event at Bisley and people from the UK have occasionally won Olympic medals in the sport.

However, amongst the majority of the people gun-ownership is simply not part of our culture, and although the average policeman doesn't carry a gun and is not licensed to or even trained to use one, it is now more common to see armed police in railway stations and airport concourses than it was, even during the 'Troubles' when we were more liable to bomb attacks by the Provisional IRA. Armed police are also on patrol if the Royals are around.

The difficulty in obtaining a legal firearm has meant that there is a bustling trade in illegal weapons, most of which seems to be linked to an area running from south-eastern Europe into Turkey, an area which was swimming in hardware in the 1990s after the violent break-up of Yugoslavia.

This may not apply to the long-established crime families of London, Liverpool and Manchester or their Scottish cousins, most of whom get their weapons (and indeed some of their 'soldiers') from the military, either knock-off in the UK or ex-Soviet hardware of which there was also at one time a lot to buy after 1991; however I might be wrong on this.

The difficulty in obtaining a weapon has given it some kind of social status -there were reports a year or so ago of young wannabee hoods barely concealing a pistol in their pants to impress the ladies at nightclubs, but the fact is that a lot of these weapons are shared rather than owned by one thug or another. Two lads on bicycles engaged in a turf war with a London gang sprayed a takeaway pizza joint in Hoxton and killed an innocent teenager -one of the killers was Afro-Caribbean the other Kurdish in origin -the area around Hoxton to the north has a lot of Turkish-Cypriot, Turkish and Kurdish immigrans who have resorted to violence to protect the drug trade, and so on and so on and so on. They shared the weapon with other members of the gang.

Finally there are the spectaculars, when someone goes berserk and shoots everyone he can see -a taxi driver in the Lake District called Derrick Bird, convinced he was going to prison for tax evasion and jealous of his richer brother shot him, the solicitor, another taxi driver he had a grudge with, and then anyone else he saw -before shooting himself; he had owned a firearm since the age of 16 and had not had his license revoked even after being found guilty of theft for which he received a suspended 6-month prison sentence.

Guns like knives have a bad press here, they are used to intimidate, injure and kill, but I have to accept the USA has both a Constitution that is the foundation of your political rights, and that 'bearing arms' is one of them -you cannot legislate for someone who for 25 years has been a model citizen, whose life falls apart in the space of 6 months leading to 'family annihilation' or some spectacular expression of despair, but you can make it harder for people to buy weapons in the first place; after all, many if not most of the weapons being used in the Mexican drug wars are bought north of the border.

[TJ347]

Guns like knives have a bad press here, they are used to intimidate, injure and kill, but I have to accept the USA has both a Constitution that is the foundation of your political rights, and that 'bearing arms' is one of them -you cannot legislate for someone who for 25 years has been a model citizen, whose life falls apart in the space of 6 months leading to 'family annihilation' or some spectacular expression of despair, but you can make it harder for people to buy weapons in the first place; after all, many if not most of the weapons being used in the Mexican drug wars are bought north of the border.

Actually, the difficulty you encounter trying to buy a firearm depends on the state you live in here in the US. We don't need to make it "harder" to buy a gun (and what would that entail exactly?); what we need is to determine a nationwide standard for gun purchases.

For example, in New Jersey, a background check, finger printing and a wait of several weeks is common in order to purchase a single handgun, and must be repeated for each subsequent handgun purchase, assuming you are permitted by the state to purchase a handgun to begin with. Next door in Pennsylvania, a background check is run and if you pass, you're out the door. Also, unlike in New Jersey, unless you fail the background check, you can obtain a license to carry. You can't get a license to carry in New Jersey unless you're wealthy or employed as a police officer, precious stones transporter or similar. You also can't buy automatic weapons in New Jersey, as I've done here in Pennsylvania. The federal government does allow such purchases, but states decide if they'll allow it on an individual basis. A universal standard and universal carry laws would be most helpful here, in my opinion.

As to Mexican drug wars, the commonly held belief that the weapons used come from the United States has been debunked, yet we continue to hear this "fact" bandied about. Firearms being used in these drug wars are often military in nature, and Mexican cartels are known to have deserters from the Mexican army in their employ. These weapons, due to US federal gun regulations, could not be obtained by Mexican cartels without extreme difficulty, and the cost of obtaining them and the trouble of doing so makes no sense in light of the availability of the same weapons in Mexico and the lower cost of purchase. Further, captured military weapons have not been traced back to US firearms retailers, and few handguns or rifles have either. This should come as no surprise, as Mexico has handguns and rifles of its own, and thus doesn't need help from the US in that area.

[Stavros]

My remark about the purchase of weapons north of the border is a memory from a newspaper report from a while ago, otherwise I accept your correction, also in view of allegations that the Mexican govt is playing one cartel off against another, a murky business indeed.

I am not familiar with the details of the law here (it can be googled obvioisly), to buy weapons you need a reason to satisfy the police, references, and proof that you can secure the weapon(s) in your home. I think because we only have two legal systems (Scotland has its own judiciary and laws), it is easier to create a uniform law for most of the UK; an obvious weakness in the USA -one assumes- is that if you can't buy a gun easily in State A you go to State B, but I don't know how that works.

[Ineeda SM]

Background checks and fingerprinting does nothing to help the gun problem. An idiot with mental illness got one and killed a lot of people in Arizona. They can pass the checks and screenings with flying colors as a perfect citizen and still go nuts and kill people.

We don't need to ban guns, we just need gun control. They are 2 very different things. When Clinton signed the assault weapons ban, crimes committed with guns over the next 4 years dropped by 62%. That is an impressive number. But nobody had their guns taken away and crime went down.

When good ole cowboy Bush and his republican congress allowed the assault weapons ban to expire, the crimes committed with guns increased by 127% in just 18 months. That means WITHOUT the ban, the crimes with guns went up more than twice the amount that they decreased WITH the ban.

Every country in the world that has some form of gun control, has a crime rate where the percentage is in single digits of the crime in America. That is also an impressive number. Gun control DOES work. The world has proved it without question. Only in America will we find Rambo types that think a gun makes their cock bigger. And they don't give a fuck who gets killed so they can have them.

[Stavros]

Only in America will we find Rambo types that think a gun makes their cock bigger

I think there is a theory is that its more a case of organ replacement than enhancement...

[TJ347]

an obvious weakness in the USA -one assumes- is that if you can't buy a gun easily in State A you go to State B, but I don't know how that works.

This depends on the state you live in, the state in which you intend to make the purchase and it's laws regarding out-of-state firearms sales, and where specifically you intend to make the purchase. I was told by a firearms dealer in New Jersey that out-of-state sales are prohibited by state law, meanwhile gun owners I know who live in New Jersey were able to buy firearms in Pennsylvania, where I live. Then there are gun shows, where supposedly these laws are loosely enforced, if at all. I can't speak on that as I've never made a gun show purchase or even been to one.

I do know that one of my neighbors, who collects SSI for a mental impairment, cannot purchase a firearm because of the nature of his disability. So, when people do their jobs and the authorities are notified, background checks, such as exists in Pennsylvania at least, clearly work.

[Ineeda SM]

Only in America will we find Rambo types that think a gun makes their cock bigger

I think there is a theory is that its more a case of organ replacement than enhancement...

LMAO! Ahhhh so you DO know how Americans think. LOL

[TJ347]

Of course my stretch doesn't come anywhere near the really big lie that guns deter crime.

Yeah, because it's not like I gave you an example that proved otherwise or a clue as to where you could find additional evidence that you're wrong. As you clearly want to believe what you're saying, I won't waste time posting links to material showing the opposite to be true. Still, who's right when we can both post links to data which backs up our beliefs?

[Ineeda SM]

My reference was to "violent crime", & we seem to be in the top 10 for all of them. Or at least the ones involving guns. Gee, I guess I really got caught exaggerating. Mea culpa. Of course my stretch doesn't come anywhere near the really big lie that guns deter crime. That's gotta be right up there with "tax cuts increase revenue & reduce deficits". You guys have really been brainwashed.

Not quite Hippi. Brainwashing assumes they have brains.

You forgot, "Big businesses that get big tax breaks will trickle down their savings to their employees, and create new jobs.

[Faldur]

Not quite Hippi. Brainwashing assumes they have brains.

You forgot, "Big businesses that get big tax breaks will trickle down their savings to their employees, and create new jobs.

Such utter bullshit, its quite obvious we have brains. Most of us are the ones paying for all your free lunches, so lets get beyond the "brainless" comments. And your welcome for lunch.

My company, "Big business", has contributed more than $850,00 to the US treasury over the last 19 years. What contribution have you made Ineeda?

People carrying guns prevents crime, the FBI statistics prove it. Rednecks with steady hands saving the country one dead criminal at a time...

In U.S. states forbidding concealed-carry (meaning states that don’t allow law-abiding citizens to pack heat without restriction):

** There are 89% more violent crimes than in states that permit concealed carry
** There are 127% more murders than in states that permit concealed carry
** There are 25% more rapes than in states that permit concealed carry
** There are 96% more aggravated assaults than in states that permit concealed carry
** There are 106% more robberies than in states that permit concealed carry.

Put another way, the argument in defense of unlimited concealed carry looks like this: In the seven-year period following the adoption of unrestricted (or virtually so) concealed-carry handgun laws, affects U.S. states saw an average…

** 27% reduction in violent crime
** 31% reduction in murders
** 16% reduction in robberies
** 26% reduction in aggravated assault
** 16% reduction in robberies

Read more: Bias Against Guns http://dailyreckoning.com/bias-against-guns/#ixzz1JbV5b8h4 (http://dailyreckoning.com/bias-against-guns/)

[TJ347]

Such utter bullshit, its quite obvious we have brains. Most of us are the ones paying for all your free lunches, so lets get beyond the "brainless" comments. And your welcome for lunch.

My company, "Big business", has contributed more than $850,00 to the US treasury over the last 19 years. What contribution have you made Ineeda?

People carrying guns prevents crime, the FBI statistics prove it. Rednecks with steady hands saving the country one dead criminal at a time...

In U.S. states forbidding concealed-carry (meaning states that don’t allow law-abiding citizens to pack heat without restriction):

** There are 89% more violent crimes than in states that permit concealed carry
** There are 127% more murders than in states that permit concealed carry
** There are 25% more rapes than in states that permit concealed carry
** There are 96% more aggravated assaults than in states that permit concealed carry
** There are 106% more robberies than in states that permit concealed carry.

Put another way, the argument in defense of unlimited concealed carry looks like this: In the seven-year period following the adoption of unrestricted (or virtually so) concealed-carry handgun laws, affects U.S. states saw an average…

** 27% reduction in violent crime
** 31% reduction in murders
** 16% reduction in robberies
** 26% reduction in aggravated assault
** 16% reduction in robberies

Read more: Bias Against Guns http://dailyreckoning.com/bias-against-guns/#ixzz1JbV5b8h4

It's pretty clear that posting stats isn't going to stop INeedaBrain from his inane ranting, but neither is it going to convert those who still have the ability to spark multiple brain cells as they can similarly post links to stats saying the opposite. I guess I just wonder what the point of it all is when people on either side have drawn a line and the sand, so to speak. With the exception of Hippi, who says he grew up around and even owns guns, the rest of these folks are reciting talking points and have no actual point of reference to begin with, but... Carry on leading the horses to water, I guess.

[Ineeda SM]

Such utter bullshit, its quite obvious we have brains. Most of us are the ones paying for all your free lunches, so lets get beyond the "brainless" comments. And your welcome for lunch.

My company, "Big business", has contributed more than $850,00 to the US treasury over the last 19 years. What contribution have you made Ineeda?

People carrying guns prevents crime, the FBI statistics prove it. Rednecks with steady hands saving the country one dead criminal at a time...

In U.S. states forbidding concealed-carry (meaning states that don’t allow law-abiding citizens to pack heat without restriction):

** There are 89% more violent crimes than in states that permit concealed carry
** There are 127% more murders than in states that permit concealed carry
** There are 25% more rapes than in states that permit concealed carry
** There are 96% more aggravated assaults than in states that permit concealed carry
** There are 106% more robberies than in states that permit concealed carry.

Put another way, the argument in defense of unlimited concealed carry looks like this: In the seven-year period following the adoption of unrestricted (or virtually so) concealed-carry handgun laws, affects U.S. states saw an average…

** 27% reduction in violent crime
** 31% reduction in murders
** 16% reduction in robberies
** 26% reduction in aggravated assault
** 16% reduction in robberies

Read more: Bias Against Guns http://dailyreckoning.com/bias-against-guns/#ixzz1JbV5b8h4 (http://dailyreckoning.com/bias-against-guns/)

OH how typical of a right wing lying asshole to use a right wing website like The Daily Reckoning to push your bull shit. Those stats are so far from the truth it isn't funny. Who are you going to quote next to prove your crap? Glenn Beck, Rupert Murdock, Rush Limburger or maybe ONMYKNEES. LMAO! Come up with REAL stats and we'll talk.

And of course I would expect TJ347 to be kissing your ass. He is just another brainless republican follower who beleives anything a right winger says without questioning it or checking to see if it's true or not.

FALDUR, I pay for my own lunches. I am retired. I worked my ass off to pay it in, now I am getting it back. I have put in my years of hard work, and I have paid more than my fair share of taxes as a small business owner, while fat cat big businesses pay little to nothing because of GOP loopholes that were not available to me. If your "Big Business" only paid less than $45,000 each year for 19 years, then you completely understand about those tax loopholes. Or most likely, you lied and don't have any business at all. You obviously do not know what a big business pays into the fed.

You are just another right wing TROLL here to stir the pot of hate and racism with lie after lie. Go back to the FoxGOP website where your bull shit is appreciated. You are not going to convert anyone here to your bull shit propaganda, so stop wasting yours and our time.

[Faldur]

Like i thought, toss out rhetoric with no proof. I posted stats.. prove they are wrong.

I used "Big Business" because thats what the country and the federal government think of small business. GE pays nothing in taxes and small business pays 35% each and every year. Raise taxes on the rich, for fuck sakes thats small business.

[Stavros]

For me the point is that the relationship between guns and crime is an elective one -certainly in the UK if a 21-year old Afro-Caribbean who lives in social housing in a run-down part of London or Manchester tries to get a licence to own a gun he is wasting his time, if he wants the gun to commit a crime he -or anyone else of any background- will know how to get one same as scoring a bag of dope -and these are the people who are most likely to use the gun in a robbery or score-settling with another gang and either shoot another gangster or an innocent bystander.

I don't know how you can calculate that gun-ownership reduces crime when in the US as far as I can see, most gun-owners are not wannabee or actual hoodlums; the only other incidences outside crime when I see guns being used are when an individual goes ape-shit because he wants to rule the world or get his revenge on a world that doesn't recognise his genius; or when a 10 year old finds his dad's rifle points the trigger at his sister or relative and shoots them.

Incidentally, I am sure BM are aware that a substantial number of Arabs are armed, and think it quite normal -US troops when they first got to Iraq in 2003 were I think alarmed and intimidated by this and there were too many shootings over this cultural misundersanding.

[Ineeda SM]

Like i thought, toss out rhetoric with no proof. I posted stats.. prove they are wrong.

OH PLEASE! You got those stats from "The Daily Reckoning". They are as much right wing liars as you are. Anyone who visits their site can clearly see it. You might as well been quoting Fox news. You republicans think the rest of the world is stupid enough to buy your bull shit.


I used "Big Business" because thats what the country and the federal government think of small business. GE pays nothing in taxes and small business pays 35% each and every year. Raise taxes on the rich, for fuck sakes thats small business.

And to say the government thinks small businesses are actually big businesses shows just how pathetic you are. If you hate GE paying no taxes while the little guys pays a lot, then join the democratic club. We have been arguing that shit for years. The republican congress under Reagan and Bush made it possible, and the GOP is going through every step to keep it that way. Tell the republicans to stop allowing it to be that way. They invented the fucking loopholes that make it happen.

We dems want to raise taxes on the fucking rich, and you republicans keep saying no, yet you bitch that GE doesn't pay taxes and you do. You can't have it both ways sonny boy. Pick one side or the other. If you want GE to pay taxes, then you side with the dems. That's what we have always wanted. If you want the rich to get tax breaks or pay nothing, then stick with your GOP assholes.