Because they are trained and duly licensed by the local authorities, elected officials by the people charged with being a first responder in emergency situations from cats under the porch to a terrorist attack... DUH!!

A swat team with billy clubs may not be enough.

Because they are trained and duly licensed by the local authorities, elected officials by the people charged with being a first responder in emergency situations from cats under the porch to a terrorist attack.............................DUH!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!

A swat team with billy clubs may not be enough.

Which country do they plan on invading? Or opressing that they would NEED those?


Do they really need automatic weapons to issue parking tickets?

Hmmm...


Harvard study reveals gun control counterproductive (http://www.smallgovtimes.com/article/harvard-study-reveals-gun-control-counterproductive/)

Once again, a study from an organization that you would never accuse of being “gun-loving” or “right-wing” seems to disprove the myth that the availability of handguns increases murder rates. In fact, it doesn’t.

The Harvard study attempts to answer the question of whether banning firearms would reduce murders and suicides. Researchers looked at crime data from several European countries and found that countries with HIGHER gun ownership often had LOWER murder rates.

Russia, for example, enforces very strict gun control on its people, but its murder rate remains quite high. In fact, the murder rate in Russia is four times higher than in the “gun-ridden” United States, cites the study. ”Homicide results suggest that where guns are scarce other weapons are substituted in killings.” In other words, the elimination of guns does not eliminate murder, and in the case of gun-controlled Russia, murder rates are quite high.

The study revealed several European countries with significant gun ownership, like Norway, Finland, Germany and France – had remarkably low murder rates. Contrast that with Luxembourg, “where handguns are totally banned and ownership of any kind of gun is minimal, had a murder rate nine times higher than Germany in 2002.”

The study found no evidence to suggest that the availability of guns contributes to higher murder rates anywhere in the world. ”Of course, it may be speculated that murder rates around the world would be higher if guns were more available. But there is simply no evidence to support this.”

Further, the report cited, “the determinants of murder and suicide are basic social, economic, and cultural factors, not the prevalence of some form of deadly mechanism.” Meaning, it’s not guns that kill people.

People kill people.

Don't shoot me, I'm only the messenger.

Hmmm...



Don't shoot me, I'm only the messenger.

Speech, the reality is that civilised people can own guns and not murder each other but unsophisticated barbarians can not, how you civilise those barbarians in your population who do the killing is the quandry and until you do you need to take the guns from their hands

speech, the reality is that civilised people can own guns and not murder each other but unsophisticated barbarians can not, how you civilise those barbarians in your population who do the killing is the quandry and until you do you need to take the guns from their hands

But not at the expense of me protecting myself from the barbarians.

You see I didn't say anything about responsible people not owning guns

you see I didn't say anything about responsible people not owning guns

Yes, but those who would disarm us don't care if you're responsible or not.

Hmmm...



Don't shoot me, I'm only the messenger.

The institution may well not have a bias. But the two individuals who carried out the research? Well that's a different matter isn't it?

The first thing that stands out is the statistical anomaly for Luxembourg. It is way out of line with the surrounding countries. The reason for the anomaly may well have to do with the population sample. Luxembourg is a tiny country in terms of population compared the heavily populated larger countries. In other words, we have a situation whereby we are comparing one small sample with larger samples. This is always fraught with problems.

If this were a realistic study and we wanted to include Luxembourg in our analysis then this anomaly should be reconciled with other samples over a wider time frame. If the figure is genuine( there may be many reasons it is or isn't) then it should be reflected in a overall year by year analysis.

Hmm.. is right.

The reality is that the US is the anomaly, their statistics on gun crime, gun ownership and various other measure of social interaction don't fit with the experience of 95% of the inhabitants of Planet Earth. This is in their experience called "freedom" or "liberty" but is in fact a tyranny which the rest of us don't experience. They cannot understand us and we cannot understand them, they have the strange idea that in order to be free you have to be in a position where you can take the life of another individual. This is a false premise and not intended by their constitution but is the consequence of pecular liberal philosophy

This is in their experience called "freedom" or "liberty" From the country with the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world. Whatever they are doing we should all do the opposite.

We have the highest Incarceration rate because we put our criminals behind bars... not keep them loose terrorizing the rest of the citizens.

Hello again, Steve:

Yes, but those who would disarm us don't care if you're responsible or not.There are some REAL problems in the world. Making one up doesn't help matters any. I don't know HOW you can confuse a comprehensive background check with disarming... I really can't... Now, if I read that Obama was calling for DISARMAMENT, or that Joe Biden DOESN'T want you to fire your shotgun in the air, I'd BELIEVE you...

But, there's NONE of that.. All this paranoia resides ONLY in the heads of right wingers... Now, do you see why you can't be trusted with adult toys?

Excon

From the country with the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world. Whatever they are doing we should all do the opposite.

I noticed one of the authors of the study is a Canadian criminologist. Just sayin'

The institution may well not have a bias. But the two individuals who carried out the research? Well that's a different matter isn't it?

The first thing that stands out is the statistical anomaly for Luxembourg. It is way out of line with the surrounding countries. The reason for the anomaly may well have to do with the population sample. Luxembourg is a tiny country in terms of population compared the the heavily populated larger countries. In other words, we have a situation whereby we are comparing one small sample with larger samples. This is always fraught with problems.

If this were a realistic study and we wanted to include Luxembourg in our analysis then this anomaly should be reconciled with other samples over a wider time frame. If the figure is genuine( there may be many reasons why it is or isn't) then it should be reflected in a overall year by year analysis.

Hmm.. is right.

Did you actually read the study?

I think he did since he's commenting on the facts argued in that study.

I think he did since he's commenting on the facts argued in that study.

So now you're answering for Tut? Dude...

Hello again, smoothy:

We have the highest Incarceration rate because we put our criminals behind bars... Nahhhh... We've been here before. I'm committing a FELONY right now, and I KNOW you don't think I should be in jail. More than HALF of the people in the slam are locked up because they did exactly what I did two seconds ago.

Now, if we ONLY locked up TRULY bad guys, I'd agree with you. But, you TRULY don't understand what's going on..

Excon

So now you're answering for Tut?Once again, the premise of a discussion board is lost to some.

Hello again, smoothy:
Nahhhh... We've been here before. I'm committing a FELONY right now, and I KNOW you don't think I should be in jail. More than HALF of the people in the slam are locked up because they did exactly what I did two seconds ago.

Now, if we ONLY locked up TRULY bad guys, I'd agree with you. But, you TRULY don't understand what's going on..

excon

Tell that to Kalifornia.

Once again, the premise of a discussion board is lost to some.

Wrong again, "you (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/3540255-post1264.html)" aren't Tut. Duh.

Tell that to Kalifornia.Ex was speaking to smoothy.

BURN!

LOL

Hello again, smoothy:
Nahhhh... We've been here before. I'm committing a FELONY right now, and I KNOW you don't think I should be in jail. More than HALF of the people in the slam are locked up because they did exactly what I did two seconds ago.

Now, if we ONLY locked up TRULY bad guys, I'd agree with you. But, you TRULY don't understand what's going on..

excon

Its NOT a victimless crime... try and tell that to the vitims of the gangs that traffic in it... and the victims who are injured and killed by people driving under the influence... and its no better than alcohol if you are behind the wheel.

Ex was speaking to smoothy.

BURN!

LOL

Ex didn't ask Smoothy a question only he could answer. Duh. Do you have to work hard at looking like an idiot or does it just come natural?

Hello again, smoothy:

Its NOT a victimless crime... So, you DO think I should be rotting in jail. Glad we got that straight.

Aren't YOU sullied by associating with somebody who HURTS people? You ACT friendly toward me, but you really think I'm a MONSTER. Glad we got that straight..

Can you SLEEP at night knowing that I'm a DANGEROUS felon, and you DON'T call the cops on me?? How do you live with yourself?

Glad we got ALL this straight..

Excon

Do you have to work hard at looking like an idiot or does it just come natural?You're getting all pissy because I made this comment:

I think he did since he's commenting on the facts argued in that study.What part of that offended you?

Hello again, smoothy:
So, you DO think I should be rotting in jail. Glad we got that straight.

Aren't YOU sullied by associating with somebody who HURTS people? You ACT friendly toward me, but you really think I'm a MONSTER. Glad we got that straight..

Can you SLEEP at night knowing that I'm a DANGEROUS felon, and you DON'T call the cops on me??? How do you live with yourself?

Glad we got ALL this straight..

excon If you are buying it by the pound and distributing it at the highschools... Because that's who I was specifically talking about... or the people smoking a reefer driving their car...

You're getting all pissy because I made this comment:
What part of that offended you?

Nothing, I Just asked if you were answering for Tut now. But if you want to act like an a$$ and a fool about it be prepared to be treated like one. BURN, lol, and all that rot.

Now, do you have anything constructive to add? Ever?

Continue on with your deep analysis for your two friends here. I'm sure it comforts you to no end.

You really suck at insults.

Hello again, smoothy:

If you are buying it by the pound and distributing it at the highschools... Because that's who I was specifically talking about... That's NOT the law.. Possession of even one gram of pot is a felony under federal law...

But, I see, that even YOU have some compassion in your heart, and you TOO think Holder should HAVE the prosecutorial discretion to ONLY go after pound dealers..

Excon

Hello again, smoothy:
That's NOT the law.. Possession of even one gram of pot is a felony under federal law...

But, I see, that even YOU have some compassion in your heart, and you TOO think Holder should HAVE the prosecutorial discretion to ONLY go after pound dealers..

exconPossession with intent to distribute... that is the law...


And those people SHOULD get locked up.

Incidentally... if there were no users... there would be no dealers... if there were no dealers there would be no Cartels. Everyone in those groups share the blame... that applies to ALL drugs equally.

Hello again, smoothy:

Possession with intent to distribute... that is the law... Nahhh.. Possession PERIOD is the law.

But, you missed the point, anyway.. You SAY Holder doesn't have the authority to use discretion in one breath, and then you say he SHOULD use discretion in the next.

Excon

Did you actually read the study?

Yes. There was a link attached to the article.

Hello again, smoothy:
Nahhh.. Possession PERIOD is the law.

But, you missed the point, anyway.. You SAY Holder doesn't have the authority to use discretion in one breath, and then you say he SHOULD use discretion in the next.

exconPossession with intent to distribute is a whole lot worse... because you are a dealer at that point.

The law is the law... its not for him to decide if any laws are going to be followed or not... in fact for him to even think he can means he is putting himself above every other branch of government... which by the way... constitutionally... are co-equal.

Hello again, smoothy:

I'm going to try this one more time.. You are INCORRECT on the law. It doesn't matter which crime is worse - distribution or possession. BOTH of them are against federal law.

But, you DON'T support federal law as it IS, any more than Holder does. According to YOU, he should go after pound dealers, and leave the smokers alone.

You apparently think he SHOULD use his discretion only IF he agrees with YOU. But, if he doesn't, he doesn't have the authority AT ALL...

You DO understand, that that makes no sense, don't you? Or, not. You'll probably MISS the point again, because it'll DESTROY your argument.

excon

I reckon the new gun control laws didn't go over too well in Colorado.


Colorado Senate President John Morse, state Sen. Angela Giron ousted (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_24066168/colorado-senate-president-john-morse-recalled-angela-giron)

An epic national debate over gun rights in Colorado on Tuesday saw two Democratic state senators ousted for their support for stricter laws, a "ready, aim, fired" message intended to stop other politicians for pushing for firearms restrictions. Senate President John Morse and Sen. Angela Giron will be replaced in office with Republican candidates who petitioned onto the recall ballot.

Party insiders always said Giron's race was the harder one. Although her district is heavily Democratic, Pueblo is a blue-collar union town. Morse's district included Manitou Springs and a portion of Colorado Springs — and more liberals.

Giron was defiant, because after all "We will win in the end, because we are on the right side," she said.

Apparently some people disagree that taxing them to death and eroding their constitutional rights is the "right side."

"It's unclear when the city of Pueblo was last represented in the Senate by a Republican."

I guess that shows there is a glimmer of hope for Colorado after all.

I guess that shows there is a glimmer of hope for Colorado after all.

Now if all those wrinkled old hippies and airheads would just clean up the ratty mobile homes and junk vehicles ruining the view of the mountains.

I guess the blind people buying guns is next.

I'd rather have a blind guy with a gun near me... than someone high on drugs or drunk with one.

I guess the blind people buying guns is next.

You discriminate against those with disabilities?

Debbie Downer says (http://www.democrats.org/news/press/dnc_chair_debbie_wasserman_schultzs_statement_on_c olorado_recall_election_r) the reason the two gun control Democrats lost was voter suppression. That and the NRA, the Koch brothers and blah, blah, blah.


”The recall elections in Colorado were defined by the vast array of obstacles that special interests threw in the way of voters for the purpose of reversing the will of the legislature and the people. This was voter suppression, pure and simple.

“Colorado voters are used to casting their ballots by mail, but because of lawsuits filed by opponents of common sense gun reform, voters were not mailed their ballots in this election. Those who intended to vote in person did not learn their polling locations until less than two weeks before Election Day. Tuesday’s low turnout was a result of efforts by the NRA, the Koch brothers and other right wing groups who know that when more people vote, Democrats win.

"But any electoral victory that hinges on impeding access to democracy is a hollow one, and ultimately, the NRA did not get what it wanted. The recall results will do nothing to change the Democratic control of the Colorado House, Senate and Governor’s office. And the commonsense gun laws that were passed by popular vote in Colorado will remain intact, including provisions like universal background checks and restrictions on the size of ammunition magazines. This will make residents safer from acts of violence.

“The Democratic Party has already bolstered its effort to expand voting rights through the National Voter Registration Project, an outgrowth of our belief that when more citizens are involved in the political process, the better it is for the country. I have faith that the outrageous events in Colorado will bring more activists to join our cause, because the American people understand that the right to vote is a fundamental feature of citizenship that must be protected against assault.”

OK Deb, first of all Bloomberg and your other cohorts outspent everyone and still couldn't win, in a union town that can't remember when a Republican lat represented them.

Second of all, the reason voters weren't mailed ballots was because Democrats passed election reform that violated the state constitution (http://kdvr.com/2013/08/12/judges-ruling-means-no-mail-ballots-in-recall-elections/).


The Sept. 10 recall elections of two Democratic Colorado lawmakers were supposed to be the first test-run of a new election overhaul, passed this year by Democrats, that would have sent mail ballots to every voter.

Now, those elections won’t involve any mail ballots at all.

After a long day in court, District Judge Robert McGahey ruled in favor of Colorado Libertarians, who’d sued after being denied a spot on the recall ballot because they failed to meet a deadline, put in place by the new election law, to submit petitions within 10 days of the election date being set.

McGahey agreed with the plaintiffs that the state constitution — which has, for 101 years, allowed candidates up to within 15 days of an election to submit their petitions — takes precedence over the new and, ultimately, flawed law.

“I know what this decision means,” McGahey told the court as he issued the ruling around 7 p.m. Monday night, alluding to concerns from county clerks of escalating election costs and from Democrats who worried that the loss of mail ballots, which can’t be printed and mailed to voters in time if candidate signatures are validated so late, will lower voter turnout.

“I wish I didn’t have to make this decision, but I do,” McGahey said. “The constitution can’t be ignored.”

The argument from the plaintiffs was simple and, it turned out, on solid legal ground: that the constitution trumps conflicting state statutes.

But you go on blaming others for your own mistakes, Deb, it's something you Dems have down pat.

The president can sign the treaty, but congress has to ratify it to be honor, but it doesn't over rule the constitution. So call, write email your congressman and senators and tell them you are against the small arm treaty, and if they don't vote your way, vote them out.