They look white to me. You need to adjust the controls on your monitor LOL.

What, is anyone that's not black white to you? They are mose clearly not caucausion from those photos... they would fit right in many middle eastern countries with their features and skin coloring. And middle eastern people aren't white.

What, is anyone thats not black white to you? They are mose clearly not caucausion from those photos.....they would fit right in many middle eastern countries with their features and skin coloring. And middle eastern people aren't white.


Caucasian characteristics don't necessary imply a particular type of skin colour.

Caucasian characteristics don't necessary imply a particular type of skin colour.

Being dark skinned doesn't make someone black then either.

They are mose clearly not caucausionI keep forgetting your quest for the purity of the white race.

I keep forgetting your quest for the purity of the white race.

Off your meds again? You are the one here preaching for baby murder...

You are the one here preaching for baby murder... Yes, murder all the babies!! LOL

Yes, murder all the babies!!!!!!! LOL

Abortion is baby murder... pure and simple... I bet you are anti-capital punishment too which is pure hypocrisy... murder the undborn babies who harmed no one.. but preach about the right to life for murderers and rapists.

They are Chechen ,almost definitely Muslim. . As you are aware ,jihadistan has recruited them for years .

Being dark skinned doesn't make someone black then either.

Basically this is correct. Skin tone is not always a good indicator.

Tut

smoothy,
You're posting in the wrong thread. :D
Got to go, daughter and I are road-tripping to a competition. Have fun!

Basically this is correct. Skin tone is not always a good indicator.

Tut

But features do... and as pale as I am (Irish, Scottish and German background)... I've known a couple blacks that are lighter than me (well maybe not lighter.. more like as light as me)... I went to school with one for years before I found out she was black...

Smoothy, the longer you know them the lighter they become

But features do.......and as pale as I am (Irish, Scottish and German background)....I've known a couple blacks that are lighter than me (well maybe not lighter..more like as light as me).....I went to school with one for years before I found out she was black....

I am not an anthropologist. This is a highly specialized area depending on the area you choose to study. The whole subject of race is up for volumes of debate. The bottom line is that there is no clear cut agreement as to how many human races can be classified under particular types. As far as I am aware some say some say three races some say five races.

Irish, Scottish and German backgrounds are of course ethnic groups. However a large percentage probably belong to the Caucasian group. As you correctly point out it is the "features" that are the basis of the classification. This method of classification is fraught with problems as well.

As far as I understand, the classification is based on phenotypes ( how someone looks) rather than genotypes( genetic make up). Some traits are dominant and some recessive. This may explain why someone who is of Negroid background actually looked as light as you.

No matter the variety of subjective traits there is but one race of humans.

Smoothy, the longer you know them the lighter they become


BRILLIANT!

It is actually true.

What leads you to believe that?

How many Chechens are home grown American right-wingers? Do you even bother to read before posting?

They look white to me. You need to adjust the controls on your monitor LOL.

SMH.


Boston Marathon suspects are of Chechen origin (http://www.11alive.com/news/article/289088/40/One-Boston-Marathon-suspects-are-of-Chechen-origin)

The suspects in the attack on the Boston Marathon - one killed, one on the loose - are brothers of Chechen origin, at least one a legal permanent resident of the United States, law enforcement officials told NBC News.

The suspect at large early Friday was identified as Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, born in Kyrgyzstan and holding a Massachusetts driver's license. He was the suspect in the white hat in surveillance photos from the marathon released by the FBI.

His brother, who was killed in a firefight with law enforcement, was identified as Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26, born in Russia. He became a legal permanent resident in 2007, the officials said. He was the suspect in the black hat in the FBI photos.

Any more questions genius?

Commentary: Al-Qaeda's New Hunting Ground | The National Interest (http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/al-qaedas-new-hunting-ground-5347)

Smoothy, the longer you know them the lighter they become

No really. Just the luck of the draw genetically... being she was half black. Her older brother was very dark skinned.

BRILLIANT!!

It is actually true.

Actually its not true... Fact is I didn't find out she was black until the senior year of high school.when I found out who her brother was.after knowing her as a classmate for 6 years... question never came up... and it was never asked...

BRILLIANT!!

It is actually true.

Should I bow now or would you like more of my sage wisdom?

should I bow now or would you like more of my sage wisdom?

Be a waste of time because it isn't at all true.

Hello again,

Ok, my questions are too hard. Here's an easier one... I say the odds are 4 to 1 that the Boston Bomber was a right wing American nut and not a Jihadist.

Are you wingers HOPING it wasn't? You're not sure, are you?

excon

Well, if these were the guys then you'd have lost that bet. I'm betting the odds are 4-1 that some left-wingers are awfully disappointed this morning.

Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American (http://www.salon.com/2013/04/16/lets_hope_the_boston_marathon_bomber_is_a_white_am erican/)

Hello again, Steve:

It's not the first bet I lost.. I'm glad he's not an American.

excon

The Kaufman killers were Americans. So was that Colorado guy. Win some, lose some?

According to the uncle, the younger one (maybe still alive somewhere) had been in this country since 2001, was doing well in school and had a bright future, but his older brother (killed in the shootout early this morning) came to this country about five years ago and began poisoning the younger brother's mind about politics and religion and the U.S. The boys' father is in Chechnya and pleading with the younger one to give up peacefully. Both young men were legal permanent U.S. residents.

Odd since what I've seen the Uncle says he hasn't seen eithe rof them since 2005.

And the Father was claiming they are innocent and aggels... yeah right... innocent my butt...

Odd since what I've seen the Uncle says he hasn't seen eithe rof them since 2005.
Why odd? The uncle seemed sure about the characters of the two young men. You don't have to be talking with them on a regular basis to know characters/personalities of your relatives.

And the Father was claiming they are innocent and aggels... yeah right... innocent my butt...
Angels? Used to be, as in hard to believe this is what they have become, how they have turned out.

Why odd? The uncle seemed sure about the characters of the two young men. You don't have to be talking with them on a regular basis to know characters/personalities of your relatives.

Angels? Used to be, as in hard to believe this is what they have become, how they have turned out.

Their coverage on the uncle is local news here.. being he's about 20 miles from where I am right now in montgomery County MD that borders Whashington, DC.

They might have been angels as LITTLE kids... but they haven't been for some time obviously.

Apparently, the older brother (from what I am hearing) was socially and emotionally disconnected, had no friends, was obsessed with Islam and what was "right." The younger brother had totally become part of the U.S. landscape until his brother started to influence him a few years ago.

Apparently, the older brother (from what I am hearing) was socially and emotionally disconnected, had no friends, was obsessed with Islam and what was "right." The younger brother had totally become part of the U.S. landscape until his brother started to influence him a few years ago.

And yet the Chechen president blames the evil on their American upbringing, not the apparent Islamic fanaticism.

And yet the Chechen president blames the evil on their American upbringing, not the apparent Islamic fanaticism.
Why the Chechen President Released His Statement About the Boston Bombers via Instagram | Motherboard (http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/why-the-chechen-president-released-his-statement-about-the-boston-bombers-via-instagram)

Any attempt to draw a connection between Chechnya and Tsarnaevs — if they are guilty — is futile

I fully agree with this part of his statement . It has nothing to do with the nation of origin. It has a lot to do with the radicalized version of the religion they embraced. I wonder if Ramzan Kadyrov is willing to disavow such extremism. It is an absolute FACT that AQ heavily recruits in Chechnya. American soldiers have been killed by Chechen jihadists in Afghanistan and Iraq . There are whole cells of Chechen jihadists waging war in Syria today.

Why the Chechen President Released His Statement About the Boston Bombers via Instagram | Motherboard (http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/why-the-chechen-president-released-his-statement-about-the-boston-bombers-via-instagram)

So he loves Instagram. Ok.

Hmmm... NYC looking at Muslim college communities in the area doesn't seem so bad anymore.

The Checken president must be running for Premier of East Cretin.

All the people in that Watertown neighborhood, hiding, doors locked. ... How many of them, do you think -- and worried that this guy might get into their home, maybe take them hostage -- how many of them, do you think, might like a gun? To be able to protect themselves and defend their homes.
(Chris Wallace )
Chris Wallace on Bombing Suspect Manhunt: How Many In Lockdown Area 'Might Like A Gun'? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ubiAA1f8BQ)

All the people in that Watertown neighborhood, hiding, doors locked. ... How many of them, do you think -- and worried that this guy might get into their home, maybe take them hostage -- how many of them, do you think, might like a gun? To be able to protect themselves and defend their homes.
(Chris Wallace )
Chris Wallace on Bombing Suspect Manhunt: How Many In Lockdown Area 'Might Like A Gun'? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ubiAA1f8BQ)

So Fox is covering gun control, that should make the NY Slimes happy.

I'm guessing that since these guys weren't homegrown white boys they'll be treated as "lone wolves" now by the Islamist apologists. Oops, I forgot you can't say Islamist any more. So how is al-AP going to report this?

P.S. I hear they had a fondness for a radical Australian cleric. What of that, Clete?

I don't apologize for nut cases that use God's name in vain as they justify extreme bad behavior, be they from Islam, or Christian, Jew or whatever. These guys had as much in common with Islam, as the Klan has with Christianity.

I don't apologize for nut cases that use God's name in vain as they justify extreme bad behavior, be they from Islam, or Christian, Jew or whatever. These guys had as much in common with Islam, as the Klan has with Christianity.

Ok, but should people remain in denial that the chief domain for terrorism is radical Islam? Yes, we darn sure need to stop tiptoeing around it, sensitivity be damned.

Got to wonder about the parents.. the oldest son is named after a later day Genghis Kahn who roamed the areas around southern Russia ,Iran Turkey ,and most of the ummah trying to recreate the Khan dynasty as the self proclaimed "sword of Islam " .In the process he killed apx 17 million people... or about 5% of the world population at the time.
Timur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timur)
He was notorious for his brutality and butchery . He slaughtered all 80,000 residents of Delhi He built walls from the skulls of his victims .

That was then, this is now. Recent events may have alienated him, particularly if the Russians had singled him out and in any event there has been plenty to radicalise Muslim youth. We are expecting problems when our muslim youth return from Syria and you might find the same problem

I think soft targets is the next 'wave' .

I think soft targets is the next 'wave' .

As opposed to tall buildings. Yes a small cell can accomplish much, in fact most of these attacks have been carried out by small cells and ithe idea of using IED's has been well proven in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's difficult if your enemy isn't going to face you with a gun, what good will your assault rifle be? What good will your hand gun be? Food for thought for the NRA. I expect the sales of bullet proof vests to be the next growth industry, if for no other reason than they are being supplied to Syrian rebels

An 8th grader was suspended AND arrested (http://www.wowktv.com/story/22020264/8th-grade-student-arrested-over-gun-t-shirt)for wearing a pro-second amendment shirt...


When 8th grade Jared Marcum got dressed for school on Thursday he says he had no idea that his pro-Second Amendment shirt would initiate what he calls a fight over his First Amendment rights.

"I never thought it would go this far because honestly I don't see a problem with this, there shouldn't be a problem with this," Jared said.

It was the image of a gun printed on Jared's t-shirt that sparked a dispute between a Logan Middle School teacher and Jared, that ended with Jared suspended, arrested and facing two charges, obstruction and disturbing the education process, on his otherwise spotless record.

Jared's father Allen Lardieri says he's angry he had to rush from work to pick his son up from jail over something he says was blown way out of proportion.

"I don't' see how anybody would have an issue with a hunting rifle and NRA put on a t-shirt, especially when policy doesn't forbid it," Lardieri said.

The Logan County School District's dress code policy prohibits clothing that displays profanity, violence, discriminatory messages and more but nowhere in the document does it say anything about gun images.

"He did not violate any school policy," Lardieri reiterates. "He did not become aggressive."

Go ahead, tell us how evil the kid is.

An 8th grader was suspended AND arrested (http://www.wowktv.com/story/22020264/8th-grade-student-arrested-over-gun-t-shirt)for wearing a pro-second amendment shirt...



Go ahead, tell us how evil the kid is.

Exactly... now the left is going after the first amendment now too.

I bet there would have been no issue if the T-SHirt supported communism.

An 8th grader was suspended AND arrested (http://www.wowktv.com/story/22020264/8th-grade-student-arrested-over-gun-t-shirt)for wearing a pro-second amendment shirt...



Go ahead, tell us how evil the kid is.

No what's evil is the parent or person who gave the child a political T shirt and radicalised him a a young age. The school is correct to discipline him

no what's evil is the parent or person who gave the child a political T shirt and radicalised him a a young age. The school is correct to discipline him

No it isn't.. its BS that he got disciplined for something so stupid... that not only ISN'T wrong... its not even illegal.

I bet the school would have looked the other way if it was a pro-abortion t-shirt... of a same sex marriage t-shirt.

Being Pro-gun isn't "radicalized"... it called being AMERICAN. A concept a lot of non-Americans can't grasp...

We have something they don't have... a Second Amendment RIGHT.. to own guns...

no what's evil is the parent or person who gave the child a political T shirt and radicalised him a a young age. The school is correct to discipline him

If standing up for your rights is a radical idea then they are going to be coming after a lot of us. Why is it so radical to teach your child to hunt?

If standing up for your rights is a radical idea then they are going to be coming after a lot of us. Why is it so radical to teach your child to hunt?

People like that care more about the rights of the criminal element to practice their profession without fear of getting harmed by the people they are oppressing, or stealing from..

That's why the PRO-ABORTION baby killers also defend the right to life of convicted murderers by being ANTI-Capital punishment, babies really have no right to life however, not in their minds.

Notice how the anti-gun crowd seems to love their own personal ARMED body guards... for Protection... you know against the same people they don't want the rest of us to be protected from.

no what's evil is the parent or person who gave the child a political T shirt and radicalised him a a young age. The school is correct to discipline him

Clete, you really hate our rights don't you? The only thing radical here is a school that has a kid with an excellent record arrested when he's done nothing wrong and violated no school policy.

You guys hate the idea of a police state, but want your barely trained citizens to be the police in the schools. I guess its cheaper to have armed volunteers, than a well trained paid cop.

Hello again, Steve:


a kid with an excellent record arrested when he's done nothing wrong Here's a different opinion.
The belief (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/19/opinion/criminalizing-children-at-school.html) that police officers automatically make schools safer was challenged in a 2011 study that compared federal crime data of schools that had police officers with schools that did not. It found that the presence of the officers did not drive down crime. The study — by Chongmin Na of The University of Houston, Clear Lake, and Denise Gottfredson of the University of Maryland — also found that with police in the buildings, routine disciplinary problems began to be treated as criminal justice problems, increasing the likelihood of arrests

Excon

You guys hate the idea of a police state, but want your barely trained citizens to be the police in the schools. I guess its cheaper to have armed volunteers, than a well trained paid cop.

I have no idea what that has to do with having a good kid arrested when he's done nothing wrong.

Hello again, Steve:

Here's a different opinion.

excon

As with Tal, what's the relevance to having a good kid arrested when he's done nothing wrong?

Hello again, Steve


As with Tal, what's the relevance to having a good kid arrested when he's done nothing wrong?The relevance is, that WITHOUT a police presence in schools, (which you SUPPORT) most routine disciplinary problems would be treated as ROUTINE DISCIPLINARY PROBLEMS.

Excon

You guys hate the idea of a police state, but want your barely trained citizens to be the police in the schools. I guess its cheaper to have armed volunteers, than a well trained paid cop.

There have been over 90 DC police arrested and jailed the last 10 years... PG County in MD isn't a lot better... just because someone has a badge... doesn't make them good at their job. OR any more honest than the average Joe on the street.

Hell I can shoot better than most of them. And I am not even in the top 10% of shooters. Yes I have shot Competition for a lot of years. And did it against Civilians AND the Military.

Hello again, Steve

The relevance is, that WITHOUT a police presence in schools, (which you SUPPORT) most routine disciplinary problems would be treated as ROUTINE DISCIPLINARY PROBLEMS.

excon

It's a T-Shirt... that had NO profanity or Racial comments on it... its WASN'T a discipline problem.

THe only problem was the lefty pantywastes who got their frilly lace panties in a knot over someone expressing their second amendment rights via T-shirt.. in their communist Indocrination centers... which decades ago used to be public schools.

Hello again, Steve

The relevance is, that WITHOUT a police presence in schools, (which you SUPPORT) most routine disciplinary problems would be treated as ROUTINE DISCIPLINARY PROBLEMS.

excon


I saw nothing in the article that indicated there was a police presence in that school and either way it's irrelevant if the cops were there or had to be called. I've already noted before how our schools are fast becoming a pipeline to prison thanks to their zero tolerance BS (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/killer-cops-741807-2.html#post3432639). This poor kid didn't even violate a policy, that's LESS than zero tolerance - there was nothing to discipline the kid for.

Interesting though how you expect us to be on your bandwagon about non-violent drug offenders but won't defend an eight-grader that's done nothing wrong.

Jailed for NRA T-shirt: Student Jared Marcum, 14, charged with causing disruption at Logan Middle School | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2312730/Jailed-NRA-T-shirt-Student-Jared-Marcum-14-charged-causing-disruption-Logan-Middle-School.html)



Marcum's stepfather, Allen Lardieri, said the youth was waiting in line in the school cafeteria Thursday when a teacher ordered the eighth-grader to remove the T-shirt or to turn it inside out.

Marcum said he was sent to the office where he again refused the order.

Like any who exercise their rights he will get his day in court, and we will see if he had a lawful right to disobey a school authority, TWICE. That is what led to escalated actions. That is the process, let it work.

The real issue is was the T-Shirt a violation of the school dress code


Logan County Schools' dress code, which is posted on the school system's website, prohibits clothing and accessories that display profanity, violence, discriminatory messages or sexually suggestive phrases.

Clothing displaying advertisements for any alcohol, tobacco, or drug product also is prohibited.

Their lawyer, Ben White, said that the T-shirt did not appear to violate any school policy.

The school says it does, the 8th graders lawyer says it doesn't. We will see.

He shouldn't have to have a day in court, the teacher was wrong.

Jailed for NRA T-shirt: Student Jared Marcum, 14, charged with causing disruption at Logan Middle School | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2312730/Jailed-NRA-T-shirt-Student-Jared-Marcum-14-charged-causing-disruption-Logan-Middle-School.html)




Like any who exercise their rights he will get his day in court, and we will see if he had a lawful right to disobey a school authority, TWICE. That is what led to escalated actions. That is the process, let it work.

The real issue is was the T-Shirt a violation of the school dress code



The school says it does, the 8th graders lawyer says it doesn't. We will see.
The only profanity or violence exhibited here was by the school system, who violated his civil rights by getting involved in an arrest.

I think calling his parents would have been a better course of action by the schools. That's how unruly students are dealt with. If no response by the parents sitting in the principles office all day would have been punishment enough, back in the day.

But nowadays you never know when some angry kid decides to take his daddy's guns and get revenge on a school full of innocent kids.

I think calling his parents would have been a better course of action by the schools. That's how unruly students are dealt with. If no response by the parents sitting in the principles office all day would have been punishment enough, back in the day.

But nowadays you never know when some angry kid decides to take his daddy's guns and get revenge on a school full of innocent kids.

Before calling the cops.

I think calling his parents would have been a better course of action by the schools. That's how unruly students are dealt with. If no response by the parents sitting in the principles office all day would have been punishment enough, back in the day.

But nowadays you never know when some angry kid decides to take his daddy's guns and get revenge on a school full of innocent kids.

Tell you what... if you want to MAKE someone WANT to get revenge and shoot up a school... violate their civil rights with a false arrest... over somne stupid made up charge of wearing a T-shirt the communists in the school don't like.

I hope that kids parents sue the school system... and win... and the parties involved in that arrest get fired and lose their pension... all of them.

And I hope civil suits are brought against the school employees involved.

The vengeful right wing in action

the vengeful right wing in action

We learned it from the left who did it first...

Funny how civil rights apply to every one else other than just lefties too. Bet you find that inconvenient as hell.

The left sues on stupid crap all the time... a false arrest by left wing loons is the BEST application of a civil rights case to sue over as has ever been seen in 50 years.

I don't have any problems, my civil rights aren't being violated by an armed population

http://25.media.tumblr.com/9ae8152c0e57f145c667d7d8cae7db1b/tumblr_mlem1pNyfG1rafnuto1_500.jpg

http://25.media.tumblr.com/9ae8152c0e57f145c667d7d8cae7db1b/tumblr_mlem1pNyfG1rafnuto1_500.jpg

What kind of model is that?? Didn't even have a scope on it for long range looking to see if its done. Sheesh!!

I haven't seen one of those in years

I didn't know you could get 'em with tactical pistol grips.

Hello again,

Gun control is dead. So is immigration reform, but I don't want to get ahead of myself.. My question is twofold. The polls say 90% of the people wanted, even the watered down background check bill to become law.

(1) Are the polls wrong?

(2) If they're right, will the senators who voted against it be punished by the voters?

(3) Why?

excon

90% of the people polled at a Democrat party meeting maybe... but not 90% of the actual public. That so called "poll" has already been debunked.

Any senator that voted against the Bill of rights should be voted out of office... and they should be happy they aren't tarred and feathered right before being lynched for anti-american behaviour.

Hello again,

Gun control is dead. So is immigration reform, but I don't want to get ahead of myself.. My question is twofold. The polls say 90% of the people wanted, even the watered down background check bill to become law.

(1) Are the polls wrong?

(2) If they're right, will the senators who voted against it be punished by the voters?

(3) Why?

excon



1) It depends on how they were worded. If the current system of checks were expended to private sales then the poll is going to read in favor. Its not that big of a deal. But if you add language of a national registration and your going to get the oppisite.

2) Will there be punishment for those that voted it down when they changed the wording. My thinking is the only ones ticked about it is those left of center. They were frothing for a total gun ban and anything short of that they will cry about.

3) Why it goes the way it does is because we have long term politicians and it was never intended to be that way.

Hello again,

FOX News isn't liberal.. They say 83% wanted it to pass. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/22/fox-news-poll-majorities-support-new-gun-measures/) Frankly, I haven't seen a poll saying otherwise.

excon

Hello again,

FOX News isn't liberal.. They say 83% wanted it to pass. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/22/fox-news-poll-majorities-support-new-gun-measures/) Frankly, I haven't seen a poll saying otherwise.

excon

Looks like a wording issue and an emotional one. Like I said if they word it one way then you get one response and another garners you something completely different.

I didn't see the wording in the link you posted.

Hello again, dad:

I get the sense that you DENY that 90% of the people WANTED the background check... But, let's NOT argue about that. Let's ASSUME the polls are RIGHT. What will happen to the politicians who voted against it?

Of course, if the polls are WRONG, nothing will happen.

excon

Hello again, dad:

I get the sense that you DENY that 90% of the people WANTED the background check... But, let's NOT argue about that. Let's ASSUME the polls are RIGHT. What will happen to the politicians who voted against it?

Of course, if the polls are WRONG, nothing will happen.

excon

I don't deny it. Im saying it depended on the wording. As far as I am aware of. If they expanded existing back ground checks to private sales and didn't change anything else. Then Im sure you could easily get to that 90%. But if you ask the same group about a national gun registration then about 1/2 of them would not say yes to it.

The bill they talked about passing had a back door built into it that could have allowed such registration. So in voting it down I don't see a lot of backlash coming from it. .

Seeing as how the only place it's going to matter is with red state Dems your question seems rather pointless.

The only ones hollering about a national registry is the right. There has been no such language in any bill, quite the opposite as Manchin/Toomey calls for a 15 year jail term.

For sure us lefty's would love a national registry, but we can settle for background checks for now of everybody. Most states, even red ones don't take the word of gun owners that their son or nephew is responsible and sane enough to get a gun as a gift anyway.

We should put a rider into the next bill instituting capitol punishment for Pot use and possession... that will get the attention of the left.

For sure us lefty's would love a national registry, but we can settle for background checks for now of everybody. Most states, even red ones don't take the word of gun owners that their son or nephew is responsible and sane enough to get a gun as a gift anyway.

Since your speaking up about it. In your ideal world what do you want done with what is already out there as far as the gun issues go ?

Odd that the left wants every gun registered... yet they are responsible for the mental deficients running loose doing all the killing instead of being locked up in mental institutions like they used to be.

Odd that the left wants every gun registered...yet they are responsible for the mental deficients running loose doing all the killing instead of being locked up in mental institutions like they used to be.

And the gas chambers are not far away

There has been no such language in any bill, quite the opposite as Manchin/Toomey calls for a 15 year jail term. no you are quite wrong about that;and dad is right... there really was a means for a back door registry . The only restriction in the bill was if the Justice Dept kept such a registry . It did not restrict the one agency that is going to ask EVERY American adult if they own a gun... HHS .

Now I think the lesson learned here is that if you try to jam through an ad hoc comprehensive bill that no one has read because you don't want to let a crisis go to waste ;it most likely will not pass anymore... Once bit twice shy .

I don't think there will be ANY political consequences for voting against the bill.. I won't dispute the numbers the polls say about support for national backround checks if you don't dispute the poll that said only 4% of Americans gave any gun control a high priority compared to all the other issues facing the country

and the gas chambers are not far away

Guns in the hands of law abiding people aren't the problem... lunatics running loose are.

There are plenty of examples of loons killing people with means other than guns... yet you choose to ignore the people committing the crimes to oppress the people who AREN'T committing the crimes... Typical leftist action... then they complain when nothing changes. Duh... that's like having a problem with rats... but you put out bait and traps for mountain lions... then wonder why the rat problem isn't getting any better.

Hello smoothy:


We should put a rider into the next bill instituting capitol punishment for Pot use and possession... that will get the attention of the left.Why don't you stick your right wing sh1t UP your a$$. Fu*k you!

Excon

Hello smoothy:

Why don't you stick your right wing sh1t UP your a$$. Fu*k you!

excon

Ex that's not nice, smoothy doesn't know his arse from his apex, look, he is probably a dope sniffer anyway, you might get shafted for this one, mate

Hello smoothy:

Why don't you stick your right wing sh1t UP your a$$. Fu*k you!

excon
I see that gets your attention...

Ex that's not nice, smoothy doesn't know his arse from his apex, look, he is probably a dope sniffer anyway, you might get shafted for this one, mate
I don't eat bar-B-que Koala bear...

Since your speaking up about it. In your ideal world what do you want done with what is already out there as far as the gun issues go ?

Being able to tell the good guys from the bad guys and crazy people. And some reasonable dialog without paranoia and fear dictating everything.


no you are quite wrong about that;and dad is right ... there really was a means for a back door registry . The only restriction in the bill was if the Justice Dept kept such a registry . It did not restrict the one agency that is going to ask EVERY American adult if they own a gun....HHS .


Yeah your family doctor asking is a threat to your rights Sheeesh!! He only asks if he thought you were a dangerous NUT!! Are you?

Not true... The President announced 23 executive actions on Jan. 16 addressing gun violence . Number 16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
It's a small step from that the HHS mandating that doctors add it to the ever expanding questionnaire they are required to ask under Obamacare . Many already have. It's a clever play on words for the legislation to prohibit the Justice Dept from keeping a registry .

The limit on creating a registry applies only to the Attorney General (and thus to entities under his direct control, such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives). By a straightforward application of inclusio unius exclusio alterius it is permissible for entities other than the Attorney General to create gun registries, using whatever information they can acquire from their own operations. For example, the Secretary of HHS may consolidate and centralize whatever firearms records are maintained by any medical or health insurance entity. The Secretary of the Army may consolidate and centralize records about personal guns owned by military personnel and their families.
The Volokh Conspiracy » The “Pro-Gun” Provisions of Manchin-Toomey are Actually a Bonanza of Gun Control (http://www.volokh.com/2013/04/15/the-pro-gun-provisions-of-manchin-toomey-are-actually-a-bonanza-of-gun-control/)

I don't eat bar-B-que Koala bear.....

Nor do I it's a protected species what I suggest you go find a wild boar you would be great mates

nor do I it's a protected species what I suggest you go find a wild boar you would be great mates

Wild boar makes for good eating...

It's a delicacy in Italy... chingiale

Cinghiale: Wild Boar (http://italianfood.about.com/od/aboutingredients/a/aa031009.htm)

All they are is little more than feral hogs... and genetically they are very close to domestic hogs.

Taste good and a real menace ,sort of like the deer population in NY . What we need to do is encourage hunters to kill them and donate the meat to shelters .

Careful now, Speech will come along shortly to tell how irrelevant your posts are and how stupid you all are.

Careful now, Speech will come along shortly to tell how irrelevant your posts are and how stupid you all are.

That was totally uncalled for.

not true ... The President announced 23 executive actions on Jan. 16 addressing gun violence . Number 16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
It's a small step from that the HHS mandating that doctors add it to the ever expanding questionaire they are required to ask under Obamacare . Many already have. It's a clever play on words for the legislation to prohibit the Justice Dept from keeping a registry .

The Volokh Conspiracy » The “Pro-Gun” Provisions of Manchin-Toomey are Actually a Bonanza of Gun Control (http://www.volokh.com/2013/04/15/the-pro-gun-provisions-of-manchin-toomey-are-actually-a-bonanza-of-gun-control/)

I reckon if my doc asks I'll just have to lie to him.

Lol!

lol!

Rhymes with troll.

Stop stalking me!!!!!

Grow up.

not true ... The President announced 23 executive actions on Jan. 16 addressing gun violence . Number 16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
It's a small step from that the HHS mandating that doctors add it to the ever expanding questionaire they are required to ask under Obamacare . Many already have. It's a clever play on words for the legislation to prohibit the Justice Dept from keeping a registry .

The Volokh Conspiracy » The “Pro-Gun” Provisions of Manchin-Toomey are Actually a Bonanza of Gun Control (http://www.volokh.com/2013/04/15/the-pro-gun-provisions-of-manchin-toomey-are-actually-a-bonanza-of-gun-control/)

It might be a small step to identifying whether a patient with mental issues or under strong medication can become dangerous to himself, or others. I mean you do want a list of those people don't you? Probably not.


I reckon if my doc asks I'll just have to lie to him.

Good then the doctor won't be responsible for knowingly letting a dangerous loony bird with access to a firearm should you go off and shoot up a movie theater. You do see where a crazy person with a gun is dangerous don't you?

Why should doctors be tattling to the government who owns a gun or not... why should a docter even know if you have a gun or not... what business is it of theirs.

This is not unlike getting kids to tattle on their parents like under Pol Pot in Cambodia, under the old Soviet Union... or under Chairman Mao... or any other number of oppressive regimes.

Reporting the mentally unstable is their field... not trying to be a back door to finding out who owns a gun or not.

Or a more saner version of your rant is he may not prescribe certain things if he knows you can shoot up your own family, or shoot yourself. I know, you can't imagine any drug that make you crazier than what you are. Honestly, neither can I even if you add loads of alcohol. But you never know.

If meds can say don't drive or operate machinery, why can't a doctor tellyou don't play with a loaded gun?

Good then the doctor won't be responsible for knowingly letting a dangerous loony bird with access to a firearm should you go off and shoot up a movie theater. You do see where a crazy person with a gun is dangerous don't you?

I answered that before you asked it, but since I'm not a loon if my doctor asked me that I'd tell him it was none of his business.

Hello again,

Gun control is dead. So is immigration reform, but I don't want to get ahead of myself.. My question is twofold. The polls say 90% of the people wanted, even the watered down background check bill to become law.

(1) Are the polls wrong?

(2) If they're right, will the senators who voted against it be punished by the voters?

(3) Why?

excon

Apparently the only ones really angry about it are 26 percent of Democrats (http://www.people-press.org/2013/04/24/mixed-reactions-to-senate-gun-vote/). That's got to be another kick in the groin to Obama after trying so hard to fool the people into buying into his BS.

I answered that before you asked it, but since I'm not a loon if my doctor asked me that I'd tell him it was none of his business.

Take TWO aspirin, call me in the morning. If paranoia persist seek an emergency free clinic.

We have more of a legal right to know about Obamas still secret college transcripts than ANY doctor or the government has to know if we have a gun or not...

Take TWO aspirin, call me in the morning. If paranoia persist seek an emergency free clinic.

I took some aspirin but you're still there.

I took some aspirin but you're still there.You want him to leave this site?

You want him to leave this site?

SMH... will you ever grow up? Ask Tal if that's what I meant, k?

So what did you mean? It's a public forum.

It's an old, old joke, dude. As I said before, Tal can answer for himself, we don't need your help.

Gun control is apparently not dead, yet, and Bill Clinton is giving us advice on self-defense a la Joe Biden.


If you live in a city and you think you need protection of your home, you’re way better off with a shotgun than an assault weapon,” Clinton added. “Trust me. It’s not even close.

Something like this baby? The SRM 1216 (http://www.srmarms.com/firearms/)semi-automatic tactical shotgun, holds 16 rounds.

http://www.tactical-life.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/srm.jpg

Hello again, Steve:

No, it's NOT dead. That's because you wingers don't know how to read polls. Ok, that's not true. You don't BELIEVE the polls you read.

Of course, this blowback is going to DESTROY the Republican majority in the House, and RUIN your hopes of taking over the Senate.

How could you guys miscalculate so badly?

excon

Hello again, Steve:

No, it's NOT dead. That's because you wingers don't know how to read polls. Ok, that's not true. You don't BELIEVE the polls you read.

Of course, this blowback is going to DESTROY the Republican majority in the House, and RUIN your hopes of taking over the Senate.

How could you guys miscalculate so badly?

excon

I haven't miscalculated, you guys are miscalculating on these polls. It just isn't that important to Americans, they're worried about the ECONOMY (http://www.gallup.com/poll/161813/few-guns-immigration-nation-top-problems.aspx) and jobs, but you guys cannot get your priorities straight.

The best defense against Clintoon is a chastity belt

http://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/gun-rights.jpg

http://conservativehideout.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/gun_control_works-e1311830311819.gif

http://grumpyelder.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/These-men-support-your-right-to-bear-arms-these-men-oppose-it-who-do-you-trust-300x214.jpg

Nice add for 1776, but kind of stupid for 2013.

Nice add for 1776, but kind of stupid for 2013.

Kind of stupid for lefties to have freedom of speech... what the heck do they need that for anyway... your handlers tell you what to think anyway.

Hello smoothy/traitor:

See you on the battlefield. I'll be the one carrying the American Flag.

excon

Hello again,

Right wingers argue that background checks would NOT have stopped Sandy Hook.. That's the answer to a question that NOBODY is asking.. They give that answer, because they don't want to answer the CORRECT question...

The CORRECT question, is what can be done to prevent the NEXT one. I'm SURE Frank Luntz has something to do with the right wing lockstep response.. They think they're FOOLING us...

From MY vantage point, I don't care that the proposed law wouldn't have stopped Sandy Hook.. I care if it'll stop the NEXT one... And, if the next one is perpetrated by a person who WOULD have been stopped by a background check, what will right wingers say? What COULD they say? Would they embarrassed? Would they be ashamed? Would they come out and ADMIT they were answering the wrong question? Will they RESIGN? Will they fall on their swords?

Nahhh... They'll just LIE again..

excon

The FBI conducted 14,409,616 background checks in 2010, 16,454,951 in 2011, and 19,592,303 in 2012.

Add to that the first four months of 2013 (2,495,440, 2,309,393, 2,209,407 and 1,714,433 respectively) and the total number of background checks under President Obama comes to 72,005,482.

Obama has been President for 1,550 days. That works out to 46,455 background checks for gun purchases each day.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/total-nics-background-checks-1998_2013_monthly_yearly_totals-033113.pdf

Hello again,

Yes, I have more to say... One of the reasons right wingers don't want background checks is because they say the EXISTING background check law ISN'T being enforced... That's a pretty BIZARRE way to look at it... In fact, it's SOOO bizarre, that it's not credible... I'm STILL scratching my head over it...

From MY perspective, the purpose of the current background check law is to PREVENT felons from buying guns. And, it's WORKING. It's DOING that. It REALLY is. However, right wingers, say it's not being enforced because the cops DON'T arrest the felons who were DENIED... Makes NO sense to me..

Now, let me see... They CAN'T buy a gun.. They were REFUSED. They didn't WALK out of the gun shop WITH a gun. But, the law doesn't work because the cops don't chase them down?? Really.. They want cops to arrest the guy who COULDN'T buy a gun. And, if they don't, they're not going to let OTHER felons be denied.?

Am I the only one who thinks that's STUPID, STUPID, and even more STUPID than that??

Over to you, wingers...

excon

Hello again, tom:


That works out to 46,455 background checks for gun purchases each day.Cool. What's your point?

Excon

The only gun recovered so far from the Tsarnaev brothers' shootout was a semiautomatic handgun with its serial number scratched off... which means it was probably purchased /obtained illegally (as ,most guns used in crimes are ).That means that the brothers somehow neglected to register for gun permits as required in Massachusetts. Would expanded backround checks have made a difference in this case ? Nope . For that matter ;all the other lists the government maintains made no difference either .

Democratic Rep. Carolyn Maloney said (http://freebeacon.com/maloney-background-check-would-have-stopped-boston-bombing-suspect/) background checks would have stopped the Boston bomber.


As it stands right now, Tamerlan, as we know now, was on the terrorist watch list, so we know a gun check would stop him. If there was a background check, as it stands now, Tamerlan… or the next terrorist, can go to any gun show, and buy a hundred-round magazine. They can buy all the assault weapons they want, no questions asked. The gun lobby has the upper hand now, even though 90 percent of Americans want gun safety. This in no way infringes on the right of law-abiding Americans… but for the terrorist, for the bad guys, let’s pass sensible gun-safety legislation.

Personally I didn't know pressure cookers (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=pressure%20cooker&sprefix=pressure+c%2Caps&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Apressure%20cooker&sepatfbtf=true&tc=1367586810135) were that hard to come by.

As long as you lefties keep making dubious, make that moronic links you can't be taken seriously.

More people get killed every year with knives and baseball bats than guns every year.

Where are the background checks and registration programs for those? No bowels in an uproar from the left over those.

Hello again, tom:


Would expanded backround checks have made a difference in this case ? NopeLike I said earlier, that's the WRONG question...

As SURE as I'm sitting here, there WILL be a mass shooting where the perp WOULD have been prevented from buying a gun with the expanded background checks... Why don't you want to stop THAT one??

Are you NOT able to look ahead??

Or, are we going to argue whether felons can GET guns at a gun show?? Probably?

Excon

Speaking of unbelievable things said by Democrats (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/3455572-post880.html), Zero said yesterday "this is just the first round" of the push for gun control. He said it in Mexico. No, really. It's a good thing his administration didn't do something like let thousands of guns walk to Mexico or he might look a bit hypocritical.

Ex, I just find it odd that you've spent so much time whining about the government infringing on our rights and can't understand why we're skeptical that our rights will be protected in this case. We have damn good reason not to trust our government, you of all people should know that.

As SURE as I'm sitting here, there WILL be a mass shooting where the perp WOULD have been prevented from buying a gun with the expanded background checks...
When you can demonstrate that ,I'm listening . Like I already showed... 46,455 backround checks per day. Sounds like the country already has the backround check thingy covered .

Nice numbers there Tom, but obviously only a fraction of the background checks that actually are needed.

How many purchases are made a day ?

Hello again, tom:


When you can demonstrate that ,I'm listening Since we're talking about the future, I don't NEED to wait in order to "demonstrate". What I CAN do is PROJECT. You can too if you want. But, your right wing blinders prevent it.

You seem to be saying that because we have xx number of background checks that should cover it... But, the problem isn't the background checks we're DOING.. It's the ones we're NOT doing.

Now, I'm sure this isn't going to demonstrate ANYTHING to you... But, this weekend I can go to a gun show and buy lots and lots of guns, and NOBODY will do a background check on me.. Now, I can surmise that OTHER felons and a few NUTS will be shopping there too. I can further surmise that one (or more) of those people WILL perpetrate a mass shooting in the future...

Even if he only shoots ONE person, WHY wouldn't you want to STOP him from doing that?

Oh, oh... Wait a minute... You're going to give me the NRA line that because I'm a felon, I AUTOMATICALLY know where to buy a gun on the black market... So, WHY try to stop me from doing it the easy way?? If that sounds STUPID, that's because it IS.

But, we've been here before... You take the right wing line, and NOTHING will change that.. Not even my indisputable facts and cogent logic will persuade you..

Excon

Hey Tom have you considered the statistic you have just posted 46,000 a day, that means 11,000,000 a year so it's going tp take, what 30 years to check out everyone that is if everyone could be checked, but moe importantly, what on earth do 46,000 people a day need with firearms? Total paranoia

hey Tom have you considered the statistic you have just posted 46,000 a day, that means 11,000,000 a year so it's going tp take, what 30 years to check out everyone that is if everyone could be checked, but moe importantly, what on earth do 46,000 people a day need with firearms? total paranoia

That's on average . If you look at the link I posted ,it's closer to 20 million(19,592,303 in 2012.)

Hello again, tom:

Since we're talking about the future, I don't NEED to wait in order to "demonstrate". What I CAN do is PROJECT. You can too if you want. But, your right wing blinders prevent it.

You seem to be saying that because we have xx number of background checks that should cover it... But, the problem isn't the background checks we're DOING.. It's the ones we're NOT doing.

Now, I'm sure this isn't going to demonstrate ANYTHING to you... But, this weekend I can go to a gun show and buy lots and lots of guns, and NOBODY will do a background check on me.. Now, I can surmise that OTHER felons and a few NUTS will be shopping there too. I can further surmise that one (or more) of those people WILL perpetrate a mass shooting in the future...

Even if he only shoots ONE person, WHY wouldn't you want to STOP him from doing that??

Oh, oh... Wait a minute... You're gonna give me the NRA line that because I'm a felon, I AUTOMATICALLY know where to buy a gun on the black market.... So, WHY try to stop me from doing it the easy way???? If that sounds STUPID, that's because it IS.

But, we've been here before... You take the right wing line, and NOTHING will change that.. Not even my indisputable facts and cogent logic will persuade you..

excon

OK then .You must have some supporting stats like.. how many guns used in crimes are purchased with the so called gun show exception ? I'm willing to bet almost none.

hey Tom have you considered the statistic you have just posted 46,000 a day, that means 11,000,000 a year so it's going tp take, what 30 years to check out everyone that is if everyone could be checked, but moe importantly, what on earth do 46,000 people a day need with firearms? total paranoia

Would you stop with the paranoia bit. We have a lot of hunters, a lot sport shooters, a lot of folks that just go plink a target on the weekends and a lot of just plain gun enthusiasts. That's only one purchase for every 6773 people, that's hardly paranoia.

Hello again, tom:

I don't know WHY you concentrate on the background checks we DO, and then pat yourself on the back over a job well done...

It's the ones we DON'T do that's that problem.. I don't know what's so HARD about that.

Look.. If a guy is drowning 100 yards off shore.. You tried to save him, but only could go 90 yards before you turned back. Are you going to congratulate yourself over the 90 yards you DID do, or are you going to lament the 10 yards you didn't do?

Never mind...

excon

You're good at projecting (in more ways than one), how many of those felons do you project are actually going to try and buy a gun legally?

Hello again, tom:


I'm willing to bet almost none.Even if there's only ONE, why wouldn't you want to STOP it?

But, have no idea WHY you'd say that... Gun shows happen in every county in this great nation of ours, and they happen ALL summer long. Then they move INDOORS. We KNOW that felons can buy there to their hearts content there...

WHY you'd think that THOSE guns AREN'T used in crimes escapes me... It truly does. Unless, of course, you think felons like me would RATHER use guns we got in the black market instead of going to a show where we have some CHOICE. And that assumes that we KNEW where to go... Which is absolutely RIDICULOUS!

But, I want to here from you why you'd say that the existing gun laws AREN'T working because the cops don't go after the people who were DENIED... The law STOPPED the felon from getting a gun, but you think the law ISN'T being enforced because they don't chase down the guy who got DENIED...

I really want you to address that...

Excon

Hello again, Steve:


how many of those felons do you project are actually going to try and buy a gun legally?First off, felons CAN'T buy a gun legally, so I don't know what you're getting at.

But, if you're talking about felons who WANT a gun and CAN'T buy it legally from a gun shop, I'm sure they shop at gun shows. Why wouldn't they?

Look... Even IF I had an exconvict membership card, WHY would I wander around the streets LOOKING for a black market gun?? WHY would I do that, when I can go the to convention center and come home with 10 BIG guns - maybe 20?? WHY would I do that??

Excon

Hello again, tom:

Even if there's only ONE, why wouldn't you want to STOP it?

I've been asking that same question about some dude named Gosnell.

Hello again, Steve:

First off, felons CAN'T buy a gun legally, so I don't know what you're getting at.

But, if you're talking about felons who WANT a gun and CAN'T buy it legally from a gun shop, I'm sure they shop at gun shows. Why wouldn't they?

Look... Even IF I had an exconvict membership card, WHY would I wander around the streets LOOKING for a black market gun??? WHY would I do that, when I can go the to convention center and come home with 10 BIG guns - maybe 20??? WHY would I do that????

excon

OK, give us some numbers on how many felons are buying at gun shows.

Save your logic Ex, the wingers are more concerned about their rights and being prepared for an armed civil war and a zombie apocalypse, than they are about some evil loony shooting things up.

I mean they are making guns for kids now.

Guns made for kids: How young is too young to shoot? - U.S. News (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/03/18014902-guns-made-for-kids-how-young-is-too-young-to-shoot)

Hello again, Steve:


OK, give us some numbers on how many felons are buying at gun shows.Tal is right... Logic doesn't play a role when we're talking about the religion of guns..

Do you really think felons are going to identify themselves at gun shows?? Do you really think felons DON'T buy lots and lots of guns at gun shows?? Tell me why you think they'd rather scour the hood for a gun when they can buy 30 or 40 in a weekend at a gun show, and have LOTS of choices too..

Why would they do that?? Why?? The bigger question is WHY do you think they wouldn't?? Let me see... They've got Bubba who's got a gun - maybe even two. OR, there's the gun show downtown where they can shop and shop and then shop some more...

Why would they go to Bubba's?? Why?

Excon

Hello again, tom:

Even if there's only ONE, why wouldn't you want to STOP it?

But, have no idea WHY you'd say that... Gun shows happen in every county in this great nation of ours, and they happen ALL summer long. Then they move INDOORS. We KNOW that felons can buy there to their hearts content there...

WHY you'd think that THOSE guns AREN'T used in crimes escapes me... It truly does. Unless, of course, you think felons like me would RATHER use guns we got in the black market instead of going to a show where we have some CHOICE. And that assumes that we KNEW where to go... Which is absolutely RIDICULOUS!

But, I wanna here from you why you'd say that the existing gun laws AREN'T working because the cops don't go after the people who were DENIED... The law STOPPED the felon from getting a gun, but you think the law ISN'T being enforced because they don't chase down the guy who got DENIED...

I really want you to address that...

excon

What if they have no priors, like ALL the mass shooters in recent memory ? How will expanded backround checks prevent.. even that one ?

Hello again, tom:
What if they have no priors?

You're STILL asking the wrong question... The idea here is to prevent, if we can, the next shooting... It's true, we can't stop somebody who LEGALLY owns a gun..

But, THAT'S not what this discussion is about. IF you want to CONTINUE this conversation with me, you'll STOP throwing up straw men, and address the points I made... You've ALWAYS done that before, but it seems that guns make you woozy.

I think we're done here.

Excon

Hello again, Steve:

Tal is right... Logic doesn't play a role when we're talking about the religion of guns

Dude, And where is the logic in letting thousands of guns walk to Mexico? Nobody gives a damn about that. Where's the logic in saying the Boston bomber would have been stopped by background checks? Don't condescend to me about logic.


Do you really think felons are going to identify themselves at gun shows?? Do you really think felons DON'T buy lots and lots of guns at gun shows?? Tell me why you think they'd rather scour the hood for a gun when they can buy 30 or 40 in a weekend at a gun show, and have LOTS of choices too..

Why would they do that?? Why?? The bigger question is WHY do you think they wouldn't?? Let me see... They've got Bubba who's got a gun - maybe even two. OR, there's the gun show downtown where they can shop and shop and then shop some more...

Why would they go to Bubba's?? Why?

Excon

It was a simple question, it needs a simple answer - not more stalling. But I do know IF I were a felon I'd probably already know people that could get me guns, and I would go to them before sticking my head out in public trying to buy a gun.

Save your logic Ex, the wingers are more concerned about their rights and being prepared for an armed civil war and a zombie apocalypse, than they are about some evil loony shooting things up.

I mean they are making guns for kids now.

Guns made for kids: How young is too young to shoot? - U.S. News (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/03/18014902-guns-made-for-kids-how-young-is-too-young-to-shoot)

I was shooting when I was 7 or 8, so what? We're not training them to be terrorists (http://www.theglobaldispatch.com/video-of-children-training-to-be-terrorists-goes-viral-27420/)or sending them to school to learn IED planting and grenade throwing.

Hello again,

Pink is for the little girls.. Boys, can get them in brown.

Hello again, tom:

You're STILL asking the wrong question... The idea here is to prevent, if we can, the next shooting...
excon

And that's why you are all in for stop and frisk... right ?

Actually as part of their commitment to gun safety the NRA has gun-safety programs for kids, but apparently you guys don't think gun safety should be taught to kids in case they're ever around guns. At least not if the NRA is involved.

Two Houston schools cancel NRA gun safety classes (http://www.chron.com/default/article/Two-Houston-schools-cancel-NRA-gun-safety-classes-4476494.php)


Before cancelling the presentation, the principal of Peck, Carlotta Brown, gave a radio interview on Tuesday morning saying she was "so elated to have a gun safety program at our school today."

"We have to make sure that all of our children are safe, our adults are safe and it starts in the elementary school," Brown told KTRH, according to a broadcast on its website.

Brown did not mention the NRA in her comments, but the radio host noted that the association was behind the program and an NRA representative also was interviewed.

Spencer said Brown "did not make the connection that it was an NRA-driven event" until later when a news reporter asked to attend the presentation.

Except she did know the NRA was behind the event, she was specifically asked whether that was causing any problems and her response was “That’s not been the case in my school. It’s very important that we enlighten the school.”

Unless it's by the NRA, then someone will pressure you to change your mind and lie about why you're cancelling. Better to keep kids ignorant, right?

Hello again, Steve


But I do know IF I were a felon I'd probably already know people that could get me guns,There's not much you can say to somebody who's talking to an exconvict and telling him what it's like to BE an exconvict..

Nope. Not much at all.

and that's why you are all in for stop and frisk... right ?Nahhh... There's no question that a police state WOULD reduce crime, but I like the Constitution, thank you very much...

Excon

apparently you guys don't think gun safety should be taught to kids in case they're ever around guns. but teaching them how to roll a condom over a cuke is perfectly OK

Hello again, Steve

There's not much you can say to somebody who's talking to an exconvict and telling him what it's like to BE an exconvict..

Nope. Not much at all.
Nahhh... There's no question that a police state WOULD reduce crime, but I like the Constitution, thank you very much...

excon

You have no idea what I know, stop fooling yourself into thinking I don't what the hell I'm talking about. I know WAY more than I'm going to say here.

I was shooting when I was 7 or 8, so what? We're not training them to be terrorists (http://www.theglobaldispatch.com/video-of-children-training-to-be-terrorists-goes-viral-27420/)or sending them to school to learn IED planting and grenade throwing.

Adam Lanza's mama probably thought the same thing. I mean what's the harm of teaching a kid how to shoot? Except when he develops issues at puberty, and doesn't need a bomb, or terrorist training to wreak havoc. Come on how can we know how a kid will turn out even if it's one out of thousands.

Add to that all the undiagnosed loonies that bear watching. I know all upstanding Americans are sane and have rights. Nobody is a criminal until they break the law. The illogic of your side is we got 'em all and nobody cheats and slips through the cracks (loopholes), like the chick in Colorado who bought a gun for her boyfriend.

What's real hypocrisy is the same thing that allows straw purchases of guns to Mexican drug dealers and is the same thing that allows them to the other states and cities so why stop at Arizona with your outrage. I mean you are hyped on one agent's deal, and ignore the other thousand every year who get hot dead?

Illogical at best

Considering the raving Loon that's occupying the white house and the second in command slot... I think that argument is a bit weak in the knees.

Save your logic Ex, the wingers are more concerned about their rights and being prepared for an armed civil war and a zombie apocalypse, than they are about some evil loony shooting things up.

I mean they are making guns for kids now.

Guns made for kids: How young is too young to shoot? - U.S. News (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/03/18014902-guns-made-for-kids-how-young-is-too-young-to-shoot)

They have been making them for a long time. Big box stores like Sears used to sell them regularly. So what is your point? That we need to stop stupidity? Good luck with that. The parents in the article you posted were stupid.

Considering Joe Biden recommended shooting through the closed front door... look at the class of leader the Dems are following.

Hello again, Steve:

Tal is right... Logic doesn't play a role when we're talking about the religion of guns..

Do you really think felons are going to identify themselves at gun shows??? Do you really think felons DON'T buy lots and lots of guns at gun shows??? Tell me why you think they'd rather scour the hood for a gun when they can buy 30 or 40 in a weekend at a gun show, and have LOTS of choices too..

Why would they do that??? Why???? The bigger question is WHY do you think they wouldn't??? Lemme see... They've got Bubba who's got a gun - maybe even two. OR, there's the gun show downtown where they can shop and shop and then shop some more...

Why would they go to Bubba's??? Why?

excon

Its not as easy as you think it is. If someone is actively buying guns outside the gun show then they also are being watched. Their chances of making multiple purchases is very slim without someone there to ask what they are doing and to run a ID check on them.

VIDEO: Gun show sellers shoot holes in weapons laws; firearms sold with no ID shown, NYC sting finds - NY Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/video-gun-show-sellers-shoot-holes-weapons-laws-firearms-sold-id-shown-nyc-sting-finds-article-1.382943)

What's been done since?

Adam Lanza's mama probably thought the same thing. I mean what's the harm of teaching a kid how to shoot? Except when he develops issues at puberty, and doesn't need a bomb, or terrorist training to wreak havoc. Come on how can we know how a kid will turn out even if it's one out of thousands.

And in typical liberal logic everyone must be punished for the sins of a few, instead of encouraging the very things that would minimize such risks, a stable marriage with a mom and a dad and restoring VALUE for LIFE.

What would you do?

What would you do?
I've asked that same question here but never got an answer.

I've asked that same question here but never got an answer.

Start ducking because this I where the rocks and blame usually starts.

Start ducking because this I where the rocks and blame usually starts.
It's a honest question. What could Adam Lanza's mother have done differently? With any other child, she might have been doing everything right. And how do we know if we are raising our kids so they end up misusing a gun (or knife or brick or... )? I watched my bil raise his two daughters badly, but I kept my mouth shut because who is to say my way would have been better? Now those two daughters are over 20 and have terribly messed up lives. Should I have said something?

Sandy hook shooting: Was Adam Lanza lashing out against treatment? (+video) - CSMonitor.com (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/1219/Sandy-hook-shooting-Was-Adam-Lanza-lashing-out-against-treatment-video)

I don't know if his needs were addressed before he became 19, but the idea of being sent away triggered something I think.

VIDEO: Gun show sellers shoot holes in weapons laws; firearms sold with no ID shown, NYC sting finds - NY Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/video-gun-show-sellers-shoot-holes-weapons-laws-firearms-sold-id-shown-nyc-sting-finds-article-1.382943)

What's been done since?

I wouldn't know since the video portion that is so relied on for the article isn't showing up. Also what they were doing was illegal in the first place as NY doesn't have reciprocity agreements with the named states. They should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and bloomberg along with them since he sent them out to perform an illegal action.

I guess that is why NY cops have such an upstanding reputation. What crooks.

I've asked that same question here but never got an answer.

Please posture some more, you always ask questions without answering any.

What would you do?

In a normal world that would be a rhetorical question considering my response. No rock throwing necessary, the answer was already there.

Your side of the aisle has cultivated a society that has denigrated the traditional family - the only biological (scientific) reality - and turned the most innocent human life into something flushable. What the hell did you expect would happen?

Would you stop with the paranoia bit. We have a lot of hunters, a lot sport shooters, a lot of folks that just go plink a target on the weekends and a lot of just plain gun enthusiasts. That's only one purchase for every 6773 people, that's hardly paranoia.

Don't stuff around with statistics you forgot to remember we were talking about a daily rate, lots of those 6773 people have already exercised their right to buy guns, 270,000,000 of them. When we see the size of the market for more weapons, it is no wonder the NRA goes ape at the thought of restrictions

Ted Cruz challenged Joe Biden to debate the issue. If nothing else ,that would be entertaining .
Ted Cruz challenges Joe Biden to debate about gun control | WashingtonExaminer.com (http://washingtonexaminer.com/ted-cruz-challenges-joe-biden-to-debate-about-gun-control/article/2528799)

http://www.investors.com/image/RAMFnlclr-050613-mexico-IBD.jpg.cms

and that's why you are all in for stop and frisk... right ?

Nahhh... There's no question that a police state WOULD reduce crime, but I like the Constitution, thank you very much...

Excon



See Terry v Ohio
Terry v. Ohio | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1967/1967_67)
The Warren Court held that a police officer did not have to show probable cause in order to stop and frisk. Reasonable suspicion that unlawful activity might happen was all that was needed to do a “Terry stop.”
Justice John Marshall Harlan said that whenever the police had enough reason to stop a person, the right to frisking him followed “automatically” given the risk that the party stopped might be carrying a concealed weapon. The Warren Court was fully aware of the potential for charges of profiling . Yet they determined that there are no sensible alternatives to the Terry rule.

So the police are allowed to do their duty and protect themselves, seems it overrides the Constitution. I think that constitution looks like a war torn old glory, just enough left to recognisable

don't stuff around with statistics you forgot to remember we were talking about a daily rate, lots of those 6773 people have already exercised their right to buy guns, 270,000,000 of them. when we see the size of the market for more weapons, it is no wonder the NRA goes ape at the thought of restrictions

Uh, the NRA doesn't sell guns.

Uh, the NRA doesn't sell guns.

But they get paid to protect the interest of the gun manufacturers that sell guns so what's the difference?

But they get paid to protect the interest of the gun manufacturers that sell guns so what's the difference?

You have no idea what all the NRA does do you?

Its obvious they grade and fund lawmakers to do their bidding. And they actively throw money against those that don't. They oppose the will of the people in what they have said they want and that's all need to know.

The bad far outweighs the good.

Hello again, tom:


see Terry v OhioNahhhh... The police state I'm talking about is when EVERYONE is searched equally... The NY boys, are searching black guys BECAUSE they're black - not because the cop thinks they have guns..

Stop and Frisk is racism (https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/03/22-6) personified.

Excon

They defend our rights and that's what you hate. Someone has to, you won't.

Hello again, Steve:


They defend our rights and that's what you hate.From what I can detect in this conversation, the NRA is protecting MY rights as a convicted felon to buy a gun.

Tell him thanks for me.

Excon

Hello again, tom:

Nahhhh... The police state I'm talking about is when EVERYONE is searched equally... The NY boys, are searching black guys BECAUSE they're black - not because the cop thinks they have guns..

Stop and Frisk is racism (https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/03/22-6) personified.

excon

Nope ,they are searching in high crime areas. The Warren court was aware of the potential charge of profiling . But the fact is that when they were going after the mafia ,they searched Italians The Terry decision was candid in recognizing that it chose the best of a bad lot . But it still was constitutional one... again ;the operative word in the 4th amendment . Is 'reasonable'.

cdad already addressed that. It's not as easy as you make it out to be. Meanwhile the same guy hypocritically pushing gun control still hasn't been held accountable for the death of a border patrol agent and adding to Mexico's chaos.

They defend our rights and that's what you hate. Someone has to, you won't.

They defend your right to buy more guns and keep gun manufacturers rich. Greed over common sense as usual, and they scare you with lies and scary stories to keep you buying.

When does the armed revolution against the government start?

They defend your right to buy more guns and keep gun manufacturers rich. Greed over common sense as usual, and they scare you with lies and scary stories to keep you buying.

When does the armed revolution against the government start?

You crack me up. It's a constitutional right, get over it.

nope ,they are searching in high crime areas. The Warren court was aware of the potential charge of profiling . But the fact is that when they were going after the mafia ,they searched Italians The Terry decision was candid in recognizing that it chose the best of a bad lot . But it still was constitutional one ... again ;the operative word in the 4th amendment . is 'reasonable'.

I guess no one has connected the dots that high crime areas are poor, urban, and mostly minority. Easier to bend the rules with a law and order excuse.

Hello again, tom/Mr. Constitutional:


But it still was constitutional one... again ;the operative word in the 4th amendment . Is 'reasonable'.I don't know... You seem to be saying that if SCOTS says it, you LOVE it.. But, I'll bet you don't love Heller (District of Columbia v. Heller). That's where your guy Scalia said that guns CAN be regulated...

Put THAT in your Constitutional pipe.

Excon

And they are regulated.

Hello again, Steve:


And they are regulated.So, regulation ISN'T an assault upon the 2nd Amendment?? Wow.. But, background checks are... I got it..

Excon

James Gilkerson: Moment gunman opened fire with AK47 and was shot by police during routine traffic stop | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2319321/James-Gilkerson-Moment-gunman-opened-AK47-shot-police-routine-traffic-stop.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490)

??

James Gilkerson: Moment gunman opened fire with AK47 and was shot by police during routine traffic stop | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2319321/James-Gilkerson-Moment-gunman-opened-AK47-shot-police-routine-traffic-stop.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490)

??????

Perfect demonstration video on why cops shouldn't be put into schools. The disturbed man was looking for suicide by cop.

Hello again, Steve:

So, regulation ISN'T an assault upon the 2nd Amendment??? Wow.. But, background checks are... I got it..

excon

We already have background checks. You just keep going in circles. All left turns.

We already have background checks. You just keep going in circles. All left turns.

Obviously not enough. To many loopholes for ex and the crew to slide through.

I cannot believe he said this:

Lying in wait right now is a terrorist, a deranged school shooter, a kidnapper, a rapist, a murderer, waiting and planning and plotting in every community across our country, lying in wait right now," LaPierre said.

Uh, the NRA doesn't sell guns.

Really, who do you think are members of the NRA

Wayne LaPierre claimed there are 5 million NRA members yesterday at the NRA convention. Yes I suppose some of the members sell guns.

Yes I expect at least 250,000 of them

I guess no one has connected the dots that high crime areas are poor, urban, and mostly minority. Easier to bend the rules with a law and order excuse.

I'm talking about neighborhoods where Postal workers are too afraid to deliver the mail... so they don't . You can make your case all you want to about loss of freedom. The poor and minority residents are not free... their neighborhoods are run by gangbangers . Stop and frisk gives them a chance to liberate their neighborhoods . It is YOU that don't care about the plight of the residents. You instead want to protect the gangbangers .

really, who do you think are members of the NRA

My neighbors. I would also imagine some gun store owners are members. So?

I'm talking about neighborhoods where Postal workers are too afraid to deliver the mail ...so they don't . You can make your case all you want to about loss of freedom. The poor and minority residents are not free ...their neighborhoods are run by gangbangers . Stop and frisk gives them a chance to liberate their neighborhoods . It is YOU that don't care about the plight of the residence. You instead want to protect the gangbangers .

And I'm sure all those gangbangers, some felons, are buying their guns at gun shows.

And straw men for gang bangers, drug dealer and, fringe loons. Stopping everyone and frisking them in some neighborhoods doesn't eliminate the underlying reason for criminal activity, nor make them safer. It does help the arrest record look good though.

I suppose you live in those neighborhoods where Postal workers fear to tread.
Postal workers too scared to deliver mail in crime-ridden Brownsville, Brooklyn - NYPOST.com (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/mailmen_deliver_us_from_evil_9TJh9RgtiTv1FGwOw05MO I)
In NY City 70-75 % murder suspects are blacks.. and 90 % of murder victims are minorities from the neighborhoods where stop and frisk is employed. If only 53% of those stopped are blacks... then they are being under represented as a percentage of those being stopped .
Maybe stop and risk could've saved the life of Alphonza Bryant. He was a promising student at the Urban Assembly Bronx Studio for Writers and Artists . He was gunned down last month when gangbangers took random shots of a group of 10 that Alphonza was hanging out with . The fact is that when police stop and ask a 17 year old a question based on a reasonable suspicion of a crime there is outrage. Yet when a 17 year old is standing on the street corner near his home at 8:15 in the evening and gets shot and killed, there is silence from the civil rights crowd.

Hello again, tom:


Maybe stop and risk could've saved the life of Alphonza BryantIt's true.. A police state would stop a LOT of crime.. But, I like the Constitution.. You? Not so much.

Excon

I've already addressed the constitutional issues . I think the constitution is covered ;including the legitimate role of the government to protect life and property. You on the other hand would allow the streets of the inner city to become the equivalent of Fallujah run by gangs instead of tribes . Let me assure you ;there are no personal liberties for the people living there when gangs and criminals dictate the rules on the streets .

Hello again, tom:

You on the other hand would allow the streets of the inner city to become the equivalent of Fallujah run by gangs instead of tribes .Nahh.. I'd end the drug war and hire 'em to fix our bridges... You, on the other hand, would declare the hood a war zone.

Excon

PS> (edited) You DO know that the gangs are fighting over drug turf, don't you? The drug war is the underpinnings. If we ENDED it, we'd deprive them of their power.

Now, if we didn't have EXPERIENCE doing this, then I could understand your hesitancy.. But we DO.

Oh, never mind...

They have an old fashion civil war in Fallujah, to fill the power vacuum Saddam left. We have a modern civil war and one side is stuck in the poor part of town. You search everybody and still don't solve the problem.

Like there was no gangland activities in the country before illegal drugs. Ask the mother of Alphonza Bryant is if the streets are a war zone. BTW ;U.S. District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin has ruled that all such testimony by grieving moms must be kept out of the courtroom in that case you cited. But she is allowing a parade of witnesses talk about their experience about being stopped ,on streets where they could just as easily be the next Alphonza.Yes, being stopped can be degrading.But being shot or losing a loved one to mindless violence is worse. But that won't matter . Judge Shira Scheindlin most probably living in a very safe area(perhaps a gated community ) will find this policing technique unconstitutional.

Hello again, tom:

It's true.. A police state would stop a LOT of crime.. But, I like the Constitution.. You? Not so much.

excon

How do you feel about checkpoints for drunk drivers or those for seat belts? Are those OK ?

Speaking for myself, I hate anything that smacks of a police state or papers please or profiling.

If you want to catch a drunk, park outside the bar like they use to do in the old days. Protect kids with cameras outside and better ways to lock the doors, and a regular police patrol and hot line. Metal detectors work for me too.

Take away the profits and criminals like big business will find other ways to make money. The war on drugs and sin has produced nothing but poor people and death and costs us generations of casualties and broken homes.

You fear radical Islam? Fine, but don't ignore our own youth being radicalized in our own prisons.

Hello dad:


How do you feel about checkpoints for drunk drivers or those for seat belts? Are those OK? Of COURSE not. Neither is the soda pop cops or vaginal probe cops.

Excon

Getting to the ridiculous now

And straw men for gang bangers, drug dealer and, fringe loons. Stopping everyone and frisking them in some neighborhoods doesn't eliminate the underlying reason for criminal activity, nor make them safer. It does help the arrest record look good though.

And what exactly have Democrats done to fix this? The underlying problem is missing dads, your side has rendered dads and families obsolete.


My latest book, “Dear Father, Dear Son,” focuses on the importance of fathers (http://atlantablackstar.com/2013/04/06/without-fathers-in-the-home-black-children-are-at-risk/) — and the increasing number of children who grow up in homes without one. Juan Williams of Fox News understands this — sort of. He gets the “what,” but not the “why.”

Williams, in a Wall Street Journal piece called “Race and the Gun Debate,” writes:

“Gun-related violence and murders are concentrated among blacks and Latinos in big cities. Murders with guns are the No. 1 cause of death for African-American men between the ages of 15 and 34.

But talking about race in the context of guns would also mean taking on a subject that can’t be addressed by passing a law: the family-breakdown issues that lead too many minority children to find social status and power in guns.”

Williams is, of course, right.

There is a direct link between no father in the home and an increased chance that the child will drop out of high school, go on welfare and have a criminal record. This is particularly acute in the black community, where over 70 percent of black kids are born outside of wedlock.

In some communities, like southeast Washington, D.C, a staggering 84 percent of children live in homes without a father.

Roland Warren is the former head of National Fatherhood Initiative. Warren, a black man, read “Dear Father, Dear Son.” He called it “powerful” and said that it ought to be required reading in middle and high schools in America.

And Vincent DiCaro, vice president of the NFI, told the Washington Times: “(People) look at a child in need, in poverty or failing in school, and ask, ‘What can we do to help?’ But what we do is ask, ‘Why does that child need help in the first place?’ And the answer is often it’s because (the child lacks) a responsible and involved father…”

Hello again, tom:
Nahh.. I'd end the drug war and hire 'em to fix our bridges... You, on the other hand, would declare the hood a war zone.

excon

PS> (edited) You DO know that the gangs are fighting over drug turf, don't you? The drug war is the underpinnings. If we ENDED it, we'd deprive them of their power.

Now, if we didn't have EXPERIENCE doing this, then I could understand your hesitancy.. But we DO.

Oh, never mind...

You might... but I don't want Drug dealers or drug abusers working on the bridges I drive over... most of them aren't skilled enough to mow my yard or weed my garden. In fact most of them have no marketible job skills what-so-ever or they would have gotten real jobs.

Hello again, Steve:


The underlying problem is missing dads, your side has rendered dads and families obsolete.I don't know... Missing dads in the hood is a DIRECT result of YOUR SIDES drug war.

Excon

Hello again, Steve:

I don't know... Missing dads in the hood is a DIRECT result of YOUR SIDES drug war.

Excon

I think the drug war was a bipartisan effort but change history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs).


Although Nixon declared the War on Drugs in 1971,[14] the policies that his administration implemented as part of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 were a continuation of drug prohibition policies in the U.S. which started in 1914.[15][16] Less well-known today is that the Nixon Administration also repealed the federal 2–10-year mandatory minimum sentences for possession of marijuana and started federal demand reduction programs and drug-treatment programs. Robert DuPont, the "Drug czar" in the Nixon Administration, stated it would be more accurate to say that Nixon ended, rather than launched, the "war on drugs". DuPont also argued that it was the proponents of drug legalization that popularized the term "war on drugs".[11]

But I do challenge your assumption, see baby daddy. (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=baby+daddy)

Federal and state policies also impose collateral consequences on those convicted of drug offenses, such as denial of public benefits or licenses, that are not applicable to those convicted of other types of crime.[63]

State sponsored discrimination,


At the time of the bill, there was public debate as to the difference in potency and effect of powder cocaine, generally used by whites, and crack cocaine, generally used by blacks, with many believing that “crack” was substantially more powerful and addictive. Crack and powder cocaine are closely related chemicals, crack being a smokeable, freebase form of powdered cocaine hydrochloride which produces a shorter, more intense high while using less of the drug. This method is more cost effective, and therefore more prevalent on the inner-city streets, while powder cocaine remains more popular in white suburbia. The Reagan administration began shoring public opinion against “crack,” encouraging DEA official Robert Putnam to play up the harmful effects of the drug. Stories of “crack whores” and “crack babies” became commonplace; by 1986, Time had declared “crack” the issue of the year.[79] Riding the wave of public fervor, Reagan established much harsher sentencing for crack cocaine, handing down stiffer felony penalties for much smaller amounts of the drug.[80]

See also Iran Contra freeing the hostages with promises of cheap arms sales funded by South American drug money, after congress forbid Reagan from military interdiction in South America.

Tales of Reagan's Guatemala Genocide | Consortiumnews (http://consortiumnews.com/2013/04/16/grichilling-tales-of-reagans-guatemala-genocide/)

Boland Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boland_Amendment)


despite the Boland Amendment, Vice Admiral John M. Poindexter, USN, and his deputy, Lt. Colonel Oliver North, USMC, secretly diverted to the Nicaraguan contras millions of dollars in funds received from a secret deal which some alleged had explicit presidential approval – the sales of anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles to Iran in spite of Reagan's public pledge not to deal with terrorists. In November 1986, a pro-Syrian newspaper in Lebanon revealed the secret deal[citation needed] to the world. This came as Democrats won back control of the Senate in the 1986 elections. In public hearings of a joint House-Senate committee convened for purposes of investigating the affair, Democrats sought to prosecute LTC North for his role.

Hello again, Steve:

I dunno... Missing dads in the hood is a DIRECT result of YOUR SIDES drug war.

excon

No, it's a direct result of an ethnic subculture that has zero respect for the law.

No, its a direct result of an ethnic subculture that has zero respect for the law.

Zero respect for your right wing laws so we have to rewrite them.

Zero respect for your right wing laws so we have to rewrite them.

Then we can disrespect your left wing laws and hunt down the crack heads.. the drunk, the welfare bumss... the gangstas and clean up the human gene pool a lot.

And stop paying ANY taxes until everyone in the 47% pay their fair share.

You guys on the left won't take responsibility for anything will you? All your policies are creating a utopia aren't they?

I think offspring of Registered democrats should be sterilised at birth for free... then outlaw abortion. Ord when they register to vote if they decide to go democrat growing up.

Problem will resolve itself in one generation.

Zero respect for your right wing laws so we have to rewrite them.

That is the most racist thing I have read in a very long time. Care to justify that statement?

It was my turn to throw rocks, nothing to do with racism.

That wasn't rock throwing, that was absolute intolerance.

That wasn't rock throwing, that was absolute intolerance.

Just another Democrat showing their true thoughts... The left doesn't tolerate anything. To them it's their way or the name calling starts.

Just another Democrat showing their true thoughts... The left doesn't tolerate anything. To them it's their way or the name calling starts.Do you read your own posts?

Hello again, Steve:

I dunno... Missing dads in the hood is a DIRECT result of YOUR SIDES drug war.

excon

No, a former liberal in the UK just happened to post a most timely column to bolster my point, the left hates families.

Why the Left hates families: MELANIE PHIILLIPS reveals how the selfish sneers of Guardianistas made her see how the Left actively fosters – and revels in – family breakdown... (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2319192/Why-Left-hates-families-MELANIE-PHIILLIPS-reveals-selfish-sneers-Guardianistas-Left-actively-fosters--revels--family-breakdown-.html)

I can already predict the responses...

The NRA convention featured Palin, Perry, LaPierre, and Glen Beck. And you call me intolerant?

Do you read your own posts?

Do you?

The NRA convention featured Palin, Perry, LaPierre, and Glen Beck. And you call me intolerant?

See my last post on the butchers, your pro-abortionists make the NRA look like sheep.

Show me the support for this butcher after his arrest. And your lefty turned righty sounds like she I getting her revenge by being a loony.

Read her whole article and she has fewer solutions than you do and blames the high divorce rate on lefties? Give me a break.

The NRA convention featured Palin, Perry, LaPierre, and Glen Beck. And you call me intolerant?

And in previous years they had Ted Nugent there to play the national anthem. The point being that if your side or whoevers side throws an event they normally invite those that are proponents of the position they hold and not opponents.

Show me the support for this butcher after his arrest. And your lefty turned righty sounds like she I getting her revenge by being a loony.

Read her whole article and she has fewer solutions than you do and blames the high divorce rate on lefties? Give me a break.

It's easy to slither away after his arrest, what I want to know is why the state regulators, Planned Parenthood and the NAF looked the other way KNOWING full well of the complaints against him. I also want PA's Democratic governor candidate to answer some questions (http://www.lifenews.com/2013/04/19/will-governor-candidate-allyson-schwartz-answer-gosnell-questions/) and the media to start asking some.

That wasn't the point of the comment however, I find your outrage over the NRA defending our rights laughable considering the outright bullying from the pro-abortion crowd any time their knees jerk over the thought of any abortion regulation.

And yes, I still blame the left for the breakdown of the family. It wasn't us, dude and the consequences are plain as the nose on your face.

Hello again, Steve:


This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
I didn't hear much about protecting your rights.. But, I DID hear some randy right wingers talking about revolution. Where in the Constitution does it say you can do that?

I see that Alabama and some other right wing controlled state passed an UNCONSTITUTIONAL law saying that they WON'T let the federal government enforce federal law in their state...

I thought right wingers LOVED the Constitution. No, huh? How come they HATE America?

Excon

I don't know anything about any "randy right wingers" plans for a revolution, but I do know 38 states have passed a non-binding resolution telling the feds to back off. That would leave 12 that hate the constitution.

'Armed revolution to protect liberties' may soon be necessary, 44% of Republicans say - NY Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/armed-revolution-44-republicans-article-1.1332621)

A poll (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/poll) is not a plan (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/plan).

A poll (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/poll) is not a plan (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/plan).

You forget... Canadians have the thought police, they aren't allowed to think of anything but being part of the collective... the left doesn't believe anyone should be allowed to voice an opinion that differs from their own.

A poll is not a plan.What would you consider a plan?
Can we now discount any poll if it isn't a plan?


You forget... Canadians have the thought police
The link is directly to the NY Daily News. You may have missed that.
Also your statement is argumentum ad hominem, an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument.

What would you consider a plan?

Certainly not a poll, duh. You'll have to grill ex about this alleged plan, it's his post, not mine. Try and keep up.

What would you consider a plan?
Can we now discount any poll if it isn't a plan?


The link is directly to the NY Daily News. You may have missed that.
Also your statement is argumentum ad hominem, an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument.

And the point I was making, hell the point we were both making went sailing over your head.

He didn't say "plans" ever. He said "But, I DID hear some randy right wingers talking about revolution." See his post here (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/gun-control-didnt-take-long-715117-99.html#post3458128).

And the point I was making, hell the point we were both making went sailing over your head.Dude, I just posted a link, calm down! LOL!

He didn't say "plans" ever. He said "But, I DID hear some randy right wingers talking about revolution." See his post here (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/gun-control-didnt-take-long-715117-99.html#post3458128).

Dude, I said the actual word "plans" (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/3458147-post991.html) and you responded with a poll. (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/3458175-post992.html) He's still the only one that knows about anything this revolution crap, not me. Try and keep up.