The militias at the time were to mobilize against a tyrannical government ;not to serve it.
And we have no militia in this country -- unless you mean the NRA members. The "tyrannical government" will have tanks and drones and lots of bombs and even nuclear warheads at the ready. Bring on your blunderbusses (bunderbussi?).

Hello again, tom:

Ok, then. Let the STATE hire the militia, build an armory, and put the guns there.

But, you don't get to pick the militia.. That sounds like Syria or Libya. Or some other banana republic.

excon

PS> Let's be CLEAR. The people who you want to SHOOT are our sons and daughters who have JOINED the National Guard. You want to SHOOT your local cops. That IS who you're arming yourself against, isn't it?

Dog gonnit TOM, this ain't 1776! The founders did the best they could with what they had, and we have to do the best we can with what we have NOW.

We don't need a gun to change the government, we turned bullets into ballots long ago. Well some of us did. So take off that silly old hat you have been wearing for more than two hundred years and comb that gray away and get you a hoodie.

Hello again, tom:

Ok, then. Let the STATE hire the militia, build an armory, and put the guns there.

But, you don't get to pick the militia.. That sounds like Syria or Libya. Or some other banana republic.

excon

PS> Let's be CLEAR. The people who you wanna SHOOT are our sons and daughters who have JOINED the National Guard. You wanna SHOOT your local cops. That IS who you're arming yourself against, isn't it?

I don't want to shoot anyone. But if our sons and daughters became the instruments of a tyranny then yes I would have no choice but to defend myself . You would too .

I don't want to shoot anyone. But if our sons and daughters became the instruments of a tyranny then yes I would have no choice but to defend myself . You would too .
Our police are also our sons and daughters and aunts and uncles and moms and dads. And I cannot imagine all (okay, most!) of them in the military or in law enforcement jumping on a tyrannical government's bandwagon.

Dog gonnit TOM, this ain't 1776! The founders did the best they could with what they had, and we have to do the best we can with what we have NOW.

We don't need a gun to change the government, we turned bullets into ballots long ago. Well some of us did. So take off that silly old hat you have been wearing for more than two hundred years and comb that gray away and get you a hoodie.

Yeah maybe I'll get one of those detection proof hoodies
Avoid snooping UAVs with a Stealth Wear hoodie (http://www.gizmag.com/stealth-wear-drones/25892/)

I was wearing hoodies before they became popular. Now that they are popular ,they are over priced .

LOL, we agree. So are the gym shoes. The free market at work.

I'll just have to pioneer a new fashion trend.

Tried that, they called me a bum! Bought me new clothes. Made me wear them. Made me shave. My name is the same but everything looks different. I long for the good old days.

These are the good old days Tal things will never be as good as they are now

I think better days lie ahead, but sometimes memories of past happiness sneak into your thoughts

And we have no militia in this country -- unless you mean the NRA members. The "tyrannical government" will have tanks and drones and lots of bombs and even nuclear warheads at the ready. Bring on your blunderbusses (bunderbussi?).

That hurt wondergirl. All were fighting for is the right to bear arms. It has gotten far to political, even for me. A guy that just wants to hunt and own a gun and hunt things. Maybe I should spend the rest of my days making bird houses and peace signs.

Never be afraid of having the debate, as crazy as it can get, and its important you state your case and to be honest it makes a lot of sense. All my friends are hunters, and respect the woods and the tools they use to hunt. Bambi may be cute but can be as dangerous as any animal. I would sure hate to be in a situation where one more shot is the difference between life and death and you are alone in the wilderness. Like I say ranchers/farmers/hunter should have whatever they need to survive.

That hurt wondergirl. All were fighting for is the right to bear arms. It has gotten far to political, even for me. A guy that just wants to hunt and own a gun and hunt things. Maybe I should spend the rest of my days making bird houses and peace signs.

I think wondergirl is being realistic, there are two forces in the gun debate, the NRA and the government and to coin an old cliché "It's nearing High Noon". No one is worried about your hunting but they are worried about those who hunt things other than game. This is about big issues now, not the backwoods issues, this is about violence, death, lawlessness

Our police are also our sons and daughters and aunts and uncles and moms and dads. And I cannot imagine all (okay, most!) of them in the military or in law enforcement jumping on a tyrannical government's bandwagon.

Then of course there would be no reason to exercise that aspect of the 2nd amendment right . But ;as everyone here likes to remind me.. things today were unthinkable in the past. You can't envision a time where a great freedom loving people gave in to tyranny... even embracing it ? Just look at the history of Europe in the last 200 years. There are enough examples there to keep you busy .

Tom a great freedom loving people gave into the tyanny of the gun, and without a wimper. Tyranny comes in many forms and not all of it is centred on the Potamac

You can't envision a time where a great freedom loving people gave in to tyranny ...even embracing it ? Just look at the history of Europe in the last 200 years. There are enough examples there to keep you busy .
But they didn't have the kind of government we do with its checks and balances and with voting system we have. And each president can undo what the previous one did.

But they didn't have the kind of government we do with its checks and balances and with voting system we have. And each president can undo what the previous one did.

Yes ;so far it hasn't been an issue . What does that mean though ? The French thought they were forging a free loving nation... then they willing surrendered all that to an Emperor . Economic forces in the 1930s was enough to end democracies in more than one nation.
You don't see that happening here ? Just ask the Japanese Americans who were alive in 1942 .

yes ;so far it hasn't been an issue . What does that mean though ? The French thought they were forging a free loving nation ... then they willing surrendered all that to an Emperor . Economic forces in the 1930s was enough to end democracies in more than one nation.
You don't see that happening here ? Just ask the Japanese Americans who were alive in 1942 .
We're improving, not regressing and going back to redo old mistakes. We've learned since 1942. The American public is a lot smarter now than it was and communicates a lot better than it did in 1942.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Where is this from Tom?

The Declaration of Independence

the Declaration of Independence
I had Googled it and had found a modern-day translation. How does it fit with the current discussion?

I had Googled it and had found a modern-day translation. How does it fit with the current discussion?

It looks like a partial quote. I would have thought it wasn't relevant, but the whole quote would probably help decide.

I am frankly amazed that you can't think of a scenario where our government would become intolerable despotic . I dare say that most of the 2000s the left had a different opinion of the administration. Or was that just hyperbole ? All that talk of abuses of rights that the left claimed were initiated by our response to GWOT .

It looks like a partial quote. I would have thought it wasn't relevant, but the whole quote would probably help decide.

Geeeze... I'll give you the whole paragraph


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

I am frankly amazed that you can't think of a scenario where our government would become intolerable despotic . I dare say that most of the 2000s the left had a different opinion of the administration. Or was that just hyperbole ? all that talk of abuses of rights that the left claimed were initiated by our response to GWOT .
But the government under Bush wasn't intolerably despotic or tyrannical. The left knew things would swing in their direction, and they did (and they made sure it would). Now the right is scheming to turn things in its direction in 2016.

But the government under Bush wasn't intolerably despotic or tyrannical.Well you did lose an awful lot of your privacy during those years.

Well you did lose an awful lot of your privacy during those years.
And it hasn't been restored.

Hello NK:


Well you did lose an awful lot of your privacy during those years.I thought is was despotic and tyrannical, and I SAID so. And, if Obama was going to DESTROY the 2nd Amendment like Bush destroyed the 4th, and the 5th, I'd be YELLING about that too..

But, the 4th and the 5th Amendments were, in the real world, ACTUALLY DESTROYED. The notion that Obama is going to take your guns resides ONLY in the heads of right wingers.

Excon

The only way the President will get new laws passed through even the Senate will be if Harry Reid gets his plan to blow up the fillibuster rules. He should tread softly with that idea because eventually the Repubics (or the next party that takes their place ) will have the majority .
On a straight majority vote ,he may not be able to even hold his majority on gun control . There are nine Senate Dems,and “independent” Maine Sen. Angus King,who would vote against at this time. With rule changes Obama may be able to pull off another Stupak Amendment end around to convince some of the suckers... or do some arm twisting... but I doubt it .

Hello again, tom:


the only way the President will get new laws passed through even the Senate will be if Harry Reid gets his plan to blow up the filibuster rules. It's true. But, he'd like to get a law passed now and then, so he's probably going to blow up the filibuster.

Otherwise, as you say, they'll BLOCK every piece of legislation that comes down the pike, just like they did last time.

I do agree that it's a drastic move.. But, the Republicans DESERVE it. Moreover, the country deserves a congress that WORKS, and if it takes this to make it WORK, so be it.

Excon

I don't understand why the NRA has such an extreme all or nothing attitude about gun laws, even most gun owners support sensible gun laws. Gun rights groups always mention Switzerland and Israel's high gun ownership, but they leave out the fact that they have sensible laws, you need a licence to buy most types of guns in Switzerland and owning a gun is seen as a privilege with responsibilities to serve your country, not an absolute right.

I hope Harry gives us the two years of breathing space because we need it NOW!


I don't understand why the NRA has such an extreme all or nothing attitude about gun laws,

Its about the money, what you think they care about ANY BODY'S rights? Just their right to make money, by any means necessary. Ask the right why they say nothing of the tyranny of capitalism.

Come on Tal you know tyranny is when the other side rules, when you are not allowed to exploit, to make profits without limit

Today Show - no rifles used in Newtown shooting. - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGn4o1Lb6L0&feature=youtu.be)

No assault weapon at sandy Hook school. But the pundits used it to enrage the politcians and the public to ban the weapon. More lies again.

All you are saying is greater control of hand guns is needed

Commenter on YouTube (below video) says (in part):

CT State Police posted on Jan 18th.

Seized inside the school:

#1. Bushmaster .223 caliber- model XM15-E2S rifle with high capacity 30 round magazine

#2. Glock 10 mm handgun

#3. Sig-Sauer P226 9mm handgun

Seized from suspect's car in parking lot:

#4. Izhmash Canta-12 12 gauge Shotgun (seized from car in parking lot)

But there were no rifles used in the school?
Was the above report a mistake?

Today Show - no rifles used in Newtown shooting. - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGn4o1Lb6L0&feature=youtu.be)

No assualt weapon at sandy Hook school. But the pundits used it to enrage the politcians and the public to ban the weapon. More lies again.

This is an old report and it was done in the heat of the moment. 12/15/12


Here is another site to clear the matter up. 1/21/13



UPDATE: State Police Confirm Weapons Used in Newtown Shootings Independent Journal Review (http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/31221-update-state-police-confirm-weapons-used-in-newtown-shootings/)




Here is yet another debate on the controversy. 1/23/13

Assault Weapon At Sandy Hook Or Not? Coroner Vs MSNBC | Peace . Gold . Liberty (http://www.dailypaul.com/271679/assault-weapon-at-sandy-hook-or-not-coroner-vs-msnbc)



Lets keep things clear so good decisions can be made and not just jump on anything that comes by.

Commenter on youtube (below video) says (in part):

CT State Police posted on Jan 18th.

Seized inside the school:

#1. Bushmaster .223 caliber- model XM15-E2S rifle with high capacity 30 round magazine

#2. Glock 10 mm handgun

#3. Sig-Sauer P226 9mm handgun

Seized from suspect’s car in parking lot:

#4. Izhmash Canta-12 12 gauge Shotgun (seized from car in parking lot)

But there were no rifles used in the school?
Was the above report a mistake?



Yes, I believe it was a mistake by the media to rush ahead of the story without gathering facts.

Yes let's put this whole thing down to media hype, just another media beatup, probably didn't happen at all

yes let's put this whole thing down to media hype, just another media beatup, probably didn't happen at all

Since it didn't happen then we can stop talking about it and leave everything how it is. ;)


Now a return to reality.

Senator Feinstein just came out and announced that NO guns will be taken away, but they do want to dry up the supply from here on in, and close loopholes and stop straw purchasers from going from a gun show to another state and selling guns and ammo out of their trunk, and banning imports of some arms by other countries.

And trust but verify through registrations, and background checks, that gun purchasers are the honest citizens they claim to be, and not criminals gaming the system.

Now what's wrong with that?

but they do want to dry up the supply from here on in
What does that mean ?

Sounds like the greatly successful war on drugs.

I think it means existing stock becomes grandfathered... and new semi-auto guns banned... including the ammo . That way they can keep up the bleating "no one is taking guns away".

Senator Feinstein just came out and announced that NO guns will be taken away, but they do want to dry up the supply from here on in, and close loopholes and stop straw purchasers from going from a gun show to another state and selling guns and ammo out of their trunk, and banning imports of some arms by other countries.

And trust but verify thru registrations, and background checks, that gun purchasers are the honest citizens they claim to be, and not criminals gaming the system.

Now whats wrong with that?

Sounds like the voice of reason but there are those who won't make these sort of concessions

Senator Feinstein just came out and announced that NO guns will be taken away, but they do want to dry up the supply from here on in...

Dry up the supply? You must be joking.

P.S. The vast majority of sellers at gun shows are dealers who would dare not risk pi$$ing off the regulators. Most of the rest of the exhibitors sell t-shirts and hats.

Senator Feinstein just came out and announced that NO guns will be taken away, but they do want to dry up the supply from here on in, and close loopholes and stop straw purchasers from going from a gun show to another state and selling guns and ammo out of their trunk, and banning imports of some arms by other countries.

And trust but verify thru registrations, and background checks, that gun purchasers are the honest citizens they claim to be, and not criminals gaming the system.

Now whats wrong with that?

Register with who? National gun registration? No way in my book. Im not opposed to being checked out at the time of purchase but registering guns can be a bad idea. A very bad idea.

Dry up the supply? You must be joking.

P.S. The vast majority of sellers at gun shows are dealers who would dare not risk pi$$ing off the regulators. Most of the rest of the exhibitors sell t-shirts and hats.

Truth be told there are also private firearm sellers at almost every gun show I have been to. They are not the ones inside the show. They are not regulated in the same manner. But then again they may also be selling who knows what. Stolen guns or those used in a crime. Its never a good idea unless you know the person your dealing with to make a private sale of guns

Also to make a clarification: A straw purchaser is buying with the intention of selling to a person or persons that can not own a gun legally. They are not the ones selling out of a trunk or otherwise walking the lines at gun shows.

Truth be told there are also private firearm sellers at almost every gun show I have been to. They are not the ones inside the show. They are not regulated in the same manner. But then again they may also be selling who knows what. Stolen guns or those used in a crime. Its never a good idea unless you know the person your dealing with to make a private sale of guns

Also to make a clarification: A straw purchaser is buying with the intention of selling to a person or persons that can not own a gun legally. They are not the ones selling out of a trunk or otherwise walking the lines at gun shows.

Hey, even I don't think selling guns out of a trunk in the parking lot is a good idea. I just think we need to clarify that dealers at a gun show have the same requirements as any other licensed dealer, they have no loophole.

P.S. Feinstein wants more funding for the ATF to help enforce her new rules. That would be the same ATF that let guns walk to Mexico wouldn't it? No registration, no background check, no fingerprints?

That's the Arizona laws that makes it legal to buy a gun, walk down the street and sell it to someone, without any of those things you mentioned. What part of the Arizona AG refusing to prosecute those folks are you missing.

Thats the Arizona laws that makes it legal to buy a gun, walk down the street and sell it to someone, without any of those things you mentioned. What part of the Arizona AG refusing to prosecute those folks are you missing.

Lets be clear here if we can. Many states allow for the private sale of a gun. Almost all that do; do not require a background check at the time of sale as it would be using a FFL. That being said all of those states also make it illegal to knowingly sell a firearm to someone who doesn't have the right to own one as defined by law.

So what part of the "sale" upsets you the most? The fact it can be done quickly without verification or that it can be done at all?

For reference here is Arizona gun laws:

Arizona Gun Laws (http://gun.laws.com/state-gun-laws/arizona-gun-laws)

Thats the Arizona laws that makes it legal to buy a gun, walk down the street and sell it to someone, without any of those things you mentioned. What part of the Arizona AG refusing to prosecute those folks are you missing.

What part of the ATF allowing high-powered assault weapons to walk to Mexico have you been missing?

I think both Houses of Congress should have an up and down vote on this bill immediately... no amendments .Let's get them all on record . Who supports this and who opposes .

Hello again, tom:

I think they should too. Clearly the country wants the ban. The question is whether politicians will do their jobs, or are they beholden to the special interests.

excon

So what part of the "sale" upsets you the most? The fact it can be done quickly without verification or that it can be done at all?

BOTH. I don't think its right for a drug dealer to give a person cash to buy him a gun.

Hello again, tom:

I think they should too. Clearly the country wants the ban. The question is whether politicians will do their jobs, or are they beholden to the special interests.

excon

Yeah keep believing that

Hello again, tom:

I think they should too. Clearly the country wants the ban. The question is whether politicians will do their jobs, or are they beholden to the special interests.

Excon

We can have an honest discussion, who's going to start it on your side? Not Rahmbo, who's pressuring banks to stop dealing with gun manufacturers.


Emanuel is sending letters to two major financial institutions, TD Bank and Bank of America, which offer lines of credit to gun makers suggesting that they stop lending money to the manufacturers if they don’t come out for new gun restrictions.

“TD Bank currently aids the gun manufacturing industry through a $60 million revolving line of credit with Smith & Wesson, a gun manufacturer that produces the AR-15 — an assault weapon that was used by James Holmes to kill 12 people and wound 58 in a crowded movie theatre in Aurora,” Emanuel’s missive to TD CEO Bharat Masrani states. “I ask you to use your influence to push this company to find common ground with the vast majority of Americans who support a military weapons and ammunition ban and comprehensive background checks.”

Noting that Chicago’s municipal employees and teachers had already divested money in pension funds from gun makers that are opposing new gun laws, the White House chief of staff-turned-mayor wrote: “Now we need you and other commercial banks to join this fight for safer streets. Collectively we can send a clear and unambiguous message to the entire gun industry that investors will no longer financially support companies that profit from gun violence.”

Read more: Rahm Emanuel presses banks on guns - Jonathan Martin - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/rahm-emanuel-presses-banks-on-guns-86706.html#ixzz2J1uqYB7C)


Yes, those evil gun manufacturers are in business to "profit from gun violence." And trying to strong-arm the banks to cut their financial ties? Unbelievable.

I understand, you don't care about the lives lost from gun violence in the cities.

I understand, you don't care about the lives lost from gun violence in the cities.

Could it be these cities your talking about?

60% of Gun Murders Take Place in Major Cities Which Voted for Obama (http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/60-of-gun-murders-take-place-in-major-cities-which-voted-for-obama/)

The 5 U.S. Cities With the Worst Gang Violence - Neighborhoods - The Atlantic Cities (http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/01/5-us-cities-worst-gang-violence/1095/)

Gun Violence Destroying Pennsylvania Cities' Black Community (http://www.blackvoicenews.com/news/news-wire/46137-gun-violence-destroying-pennsylvania-cities-black-community.html)

I understand, you don't care about the lives lost from gun violence in the cities.

Chicago, Rahmbo, toughest gun laws... how many murders last year?

I'm only 12 and this upsets me because the politicians are disagreeing with the country. We get it you have more authority than we do but we have the freedom to keep our children safe . If they put themselves in Newtowns' position they would have changed that law quicker than the speed of lightning. but its not only that all of the crazy people out there can just take someone's gun and go on a rampage!! :(

im only 12 and this upsets me because the politicians are disagreeing with the country. we get it you have more authority than we do but we have the freedom to keep our children safe . if they put themselves in Newtowns' position they would have changed that law quicker than the speed of lightning. but its not only that all of the crazy people out there can just take someone's gun and go on a rampage!!! :(

It is important that you have opinions on subjects and also be willing to defend them. The best way is through educating yourself. But you have to be very careful with what you read on the internet. Not every thing you read is true and you have to filter it. Do your own research to be able to form defendable opinions.

Having said all of that. What do your parents think of all of this mess that we are in and have you spoken with them about it? Have they also read through this thread and cheked it for accuracy?

Hello again;

So, there ARE some pro lifers (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/26/us/politics/catholics-raise-issue-of-guns-amid-call-to-end-abortion.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130126&_r=0) who get the disconnect between supporting life in the womb at ALL costs, and supporting UNLIMITED guns in society...


More than 60 Catholic priests, nuns, scholars and two former ambassadors to the Vatican sent a letter this week saying that if marchers and politicians truly want to defend life they should support “common-sense reforms to address the epidemic of gun violence in our nation.”

They called in particular on Catholic lawmakers, naming the House speaker, John A. Boehner, and Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, both Republicans.

Excon

Hello again;

So, there ARE some pro lifers (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/26/us/politics/catholics-raise-issue-of-guns-amid-call-to-end-abortion.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130126&_r=0) who get the disconnect between supporting life in the womb at ALL costs, and supporting UNLIMITED guns in society...



excon

The key words being common sense. They don't support a ban on everything. While emotions are running high it is far to easy to overstep the problem that truly exists.

60 that many ? I think there are more than that in my county .

Hello righty's:


60 that many ?
They don't support a ban on everything. ONE fruit vendor set off the Arab Spring.

We SHOULD be able to make a deal then, because nobody plans a ban on everything...

Excon

Hello righty's:

ONE fruit vendor set off the Arab Spring.

We SHOULD be able to make a deal then, because nobody plans a ban on everything...

excon

Yet.

Maybe the anti-gun protesters that were headed for the Harrisburg PA Gun Show that was cancelled a day or so ago, will go on a pro-life march instead. Harrisburg claims the area lost $ 80 million in business over the cancellation when more than 200 vendors, including companies like Cabelas pulled out.

Hello righty's:

ONE fruit vendor set off the Arab Spring.

We SHOULD be able to make a deal then, because nobody plans a ban on everything...
excon

I think it depends on who you talk to. There are some out there that are squalling about an all encompasing ban. Also there are talks about banning ammo.

I think the real problem is that many speaking out on the subject are not educated about what is real and what is just the truth being blown out of proportion. Also Im not overly comfortable about those that plan on making a ban for thee but not for me. That makes no sense to pretnd something doesn't exist.

As much as I admire Feinstein for her fortitude through the years as a politician. She has double speak when it comes to this debate. When she felt threatened she got a carry permit. At about the same time she also voted for banning guns in the city of SanFrancisco. There can be no debate when it is a one sided argument. It either applies or it doesn't. This does not preclude the need for secret service protection or the need for LEO's throughout the country to have the tools needed to do the job they were hired for.

Hello dad:

Don't pay attention to the kibbitzers. Pay attention to the lawmakers. Yes, Feinstein got a gun... And, her proposal doesn't BAN handguns. The Obama/Biden proposal doesn't ban handguns..

excon

Hello dad:

Don't pay attention to the kibbitzers. Pay attention to the lawmakers. Yes, Feinstein got a gun... And, her proposal doesn't BAN handguns. The Obama/Biden proposal doesn't ban handguns..

excon

Not at this point as it hasn't been formed fully yet. But there is a push for semi-automatics to be banned. That would also include many hand guns. That is why I have been pushing for education of all sides so the debate can be even and just. Otherwise those armed with misinformation are going to be much more dangerous then any gun could be.

And to be fair so its completely clear I am in favor of defending the second amendment and also gun owners rights. So there is a bias in what I say but I try to stick to the truth.

Hello dad:

Don't pay attention to the kibbitzers. Pay attention to the lawmakers. Yes, Feinstein got a gun... And, her proposal doesn't BAN handguns. The Obama/Biden proposal doesn't ban handguns..

excon

I think they should vote on her bill immediately.. get a count... I expect there are enough Dems opposed to the bill to prevent a straight 51 % majority .

Hello again, dad:

The targets I shot when I was a kid were NRA targets.. The distinguished pistol shot medal I won is from the NRA. I'm biased toward the Second Amendment too. I support the ENTIRE Constitution..

And, like you, I believe in "common sense" gun regulation.

excon

Hello again, dad:

The targets I shot when I was a kid were NRA targets.. The distinguished pistol shot medal I won is from the NRA. I'm biased toward the Second Amendment too. I support the ENTIRE Constitution..

And, like you, I believe in "common sense" gun regulation.

excon

I know we stand in common on many sides of issues we all face. I think what my concern is that when we start talking about military style weapons then by extension the debate may include semi-automatics. As most military can atest to when being issued a firearm it usually involves 2 parts. One being a rifle (the choice of the service your in) and another is a sidearm (most likely a semiautomatic). That is why I push for education and ask that the debates stay as honest as information allows.

Assault Weapons - United States Senator Dianne Feinstein (http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons)

Assault Weapons - United States Senator Dianne Feinstein (http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons)

I skimmed through it and I see some major problems coming from it. The people that they are going to be taking guns away from aren't going to be happy.

As I understand the ban, its for future public sales, and owners are grandfathered into it.

How weak you are? How unwilling to meet the challenge, you have been brainwashed

Hello again, dad:

The targets I shot when I was a kid were NRA targets.. The distinguished pistol shot medal I won is from the NRA. I'm biased toward the Second Amendment too. I support the ENTIRE Constitution..

And, like you, I believe in "common sense" gun regulation.

excon

If you support the ENTIRE constitution you would have taken my side on not forcing the church to buy contraceptives.

I support the entire constitution, but don't think its says the church has a right to tell me what to do, nor do I give up my rights working for a church. Show me where it does. Why do some churches allow for insurance companies that offer woman's health coverage and some don't.

Can I cancel the insurance the church offers (or any employer for that matter) and get my own?

I support the entire constitution, but don't think its says the church has a right to tell me what to do, nor do I give up my rights working for a church. Show me where it does. Why do some churches allow for insurance companies that offer womans health coverage and some don't.

Can I cancell the insurance the church offers (or any employer for tha matter) and get my own?

If you support the entire constitution then you support the first amendment. By doing so then you would realize that it is the churches right to tell you what to do. That is what churches do. But being a church they can not force you to do anything. The simple fact of not having the coverage that you desire doesn't constitute forcing you to do anything. The rest would be by choice.

.

This whole argument is ludicrous. The Constitution says that laws cannot be made to govern the conduct of a religion or to establish a religion. The provision of health care is not the conduct of a religion, but a relationship between an employer and the employee and the government can make laws in that respect, all the government is doing is putting in place uniform laws. This is what you get when you start providing assistance to churches to conduct certain "ministries"" or allow tax deductions for contributions, you get the government dictating terms. I don't know about you but I get a little fed up with the protected persons approach associated with churches. This is not the middle ages

Maybe the solution is to make the church pay taxes like everyone else, and observe their religion as they will under the same laws of the land that govern us all. There is no tax exemptions in the constitution for churches is there? Show me.

Show me where it says a church has more rights than a business, or an individual. And I point out that ALL the churches aren't claiming their rights to deny coverages, only some. So your right, we can choose who we deal with, and who we don't.

Yes the conduct of some churches would suggest they are a business and perhaps the definition of not for profit should be tightened to define the non exempt activities much more closely. One way out of the dilemma is to remove them from any requirement to provide health cover and let them give the employees sufficient to seek their own cover. I think you would quickly see the number of ministers rise and church associated businesses fall

I'm all in favor of eliminating exempt status. A church that accepts that status quid pro quo compromises the 1st amendment establishment clause.
However ;you are crossing the line by forcing an employer ,religious or not ,to compromise their morals with this contraception mandate. But that is part and partial with my overall criticism of government mandates.

Meanwhile in Seattle ,the cops were doing a buy back program .They were giving away gift cards . Private dealers showed up and offered cash . The dealers were on site long after the cops folded their tent.

I'm all in favor of eliminating exempt status. A church that accepts that status quid pro quo compromises the 1st amendment establishment clause.
However ;you are crossing the line by forcing an employer ,religious or not ,to compromise their morals with this contraception mandate. But that is part and partial with my overall criticism of government mandates.

Meanwhile in Seattle ,the cops were doing a buy back program .They were giving away gift cards . Private dealers showed up and offered cash . The dealers were on site long after the cops folded their tent.

Do you have a link for this? It sounds to me like it should have been illegal. The buy back program has set values. Also it would have to be an effort through the city / county. If private dealers were there then that oversteps the line on a buy back program as those purchased during the but back are destroyed.

I'm all in favor of eliminating exempt status. A church that accepts that status quid pro quo compromises the 1st amendment establishment clause.
However ;you are crossing the line by forcing an employer ,religious or not ,to compromise their morals with this contraception mandate. But that is part and partial with my overall criticism of government mandates.

.

Tom there is a disconnect here, the government regulates the benefits to be provided by health care, the employee makes their own decision as to whether they avail themselves of any particular benefit. The provision of health care is part of the payment arrangement between the employer and the employee, is part of the employees pay and no different to the employee being paid and contracting their own health care. The employer is not entitled to regulate which benefits the employee is entitled to. What part of this do you not understand? This is not a moral issue, it is a labour relations issue

Do you have a link for this? It sounds to me like it should have been illegal. The buy back program has set values. Also it would have to be an effort through the city / county. If private dealers were there then that oversteps the line on a buy back program as those purchased during the but back are destroyed.

Police run out of gift cards at gun buyback | Local News | The Seattle Times (http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020223445_gunbuybackxml.html)

Tom there is a disconnect here, the government regulates the benefits to be provided by health care, the employee makes their own decision as to whether they avail themself of any particular benefit. The provision of health care is part of the payment arrangement between the employer and the employee, is part of the employees pay and no different to the employee being paid and contracting their own health care. The employer is not entitled to regulate which benefits the employee is entitled to. What part of this do you not understand? This is not a moral issue, it is a labour relations issue

Yes the issue is what is being mandated ;it is a violation of religious conscience ,and there are many examples in our system where religious conscience exemptions apply . That's all the Obots needed to do to avoid the challenges . They created the issue .

Police run out of gift cards at gun buyback | Local News | The Seattle Times (http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020223445_gunbuybackxml.html)

Thanks. After reading what happened Im not convinced it was legal at all. Also Im sure they paid nothing back to the program for all the advertizing that was there.

Yes the issue is what is being mandated ;it is a violation of religious conscience ,and there are many examples in our system where religious conscience exemptions apply . That's all the Obots needed to do to avoid the challenges . They created the issue .

Your constitution left the issue of religious conscience out of the provence of government and very deliberately so

Tom there is a disconnect here, the government regulates the benefits to be provided by health care, the employee makes their own decision as to whether they avail themself of any particular benefit. The provision of health care is part of the payment arrangement between the employer and the employee, is part of the employees pay and no different to the employee being paid and contracting their own health care. The employer is not entitled to regulate which benefits the employee is entitled to. What part of this do you not understand? This is not a moral issue, it is a labour relations issue

Wrong Clete, you have it exactly bass ackwards. In a normal world if the employer is purchasing the policy the employer is the only one who has the right to decide which coverage to offer. If you don't like what your employer offers you're free to find another employer or buy your own insurance.

Hello again, Steve:


In a normal world if the employer is purchasing the policy the employer is the only one who has the right to decide which coverage to offer.Nahhhh!

In the LEGAL world, if an employer is going to offer heath coverage to MEN, he MUST offer it to WOMEN.. It's IN the Constitution. I thought you LOVED the Constitution...

Excon

Fine eliminate mandates for free men contraception.

Hello again, Steve:

Nahhhh!

In the LEGAL world, if an employer is going to offer heath coverage to MEN, he must offer it to WOMEN.. It's IN the Constitution. I thought you LOVED the Constitution...

excon

I don't know of any employer that only offers to coverage to one sex.

Hello again, Steve:

Yeah, I know we've been over this several hundred times, but, the law is the law, and I'm going to correct you when necessary.

Stated accurately, you're B!TCHING about the mandate that REQUIRES employers to cover both sexes, and you don't like that at all.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Yeah, I know we've been over this several hundred times, but, the law is the law, and I'm gonna correct you when necessary.

Stated accurately, you're B!TCHING about the mandate that REQUIRES employers to cover both sexes, and you don't like that at all.

excon

NO, stated accurately I'm b!tching about forcing people to violate their religious beliefs. You seem to be under the ridiculous impression that all insurance policies cover Viagra or something. Fine, stop covering Viagra.

Like I said many times, my wife's insurance quit covering Nexium because "alternatives are available over the counter." Sorry, but her Nexium is medically necessary unlike the vast majority of women on contraceptives. Not once did you ever side with me on this, you'd rather force someone to violate their beliefs so women can have free birth control pills than treat my wife's medical condition. Seems to me that people are waging an actual war on MY wife and daughter while you're getting your panties in a wad over a cure without a disease that violates the first amendment in your silly "war on women."

I'm not moved by your protests, I have real issues to deal with.

I have real issues to deal with.Well you're not to solve anything on this forum. Jus' sayin'

Well you're not to solve anything on this forum. Jus' sayin'

Maybe that's why it's called "member discussions."

Rep. Marsha Blackburn has challenged (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=188D577B-320C-4D79-A269-420353F06A6B) our gun-slinging president to a skeet shooting match. What, you didn't know Obama goes skeet shooting "all the time (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112190/obama-interview-2013-sit-down-president#)" at Camp David? Blackburn feels confident she would win the match, Obama is probably as skilled as Romney (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57359904-503544/has-romney-been-hunting-since-2008-small-varmints-gaffe/) when he goes hunting for "small varmints."


Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) challenged President Barack Obama to a skeet shooting contest and questioned whether Obama really enjoys the hobby as he said in a recent interview.

“If he is a skeet shooter, why have we not heard of this? Why have we not seen photos? Why hasn’t he referenced this at any point in time?” Blackburn said on CNN on Monday night.

She added: “I tell you what I do think — I think he should invite me to Camp David, and I’ll go skeet shooting with him and I bet I’ll beat him.”

C'mon Mr. President, accept the challenge.

He's still working on that bowling stuff. Maybe he can borrow Sec State John F Kerry's hunting outfit.

http://aaworkersleague.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/john-kerry-hunting-4.jpg
Look close enough you can see the price tags .

“If he is a skeet shooter, why have we not heard of this?"Does it matter? Why is this important to anyone?

Does it matter? Why is this important to anyone?

If it doesn't matter to you then feel free to join a different discussion.

Hello wingers:

So, you're surprised that lefty's like their guns too?? How did you NOT know that?

excon

If it doesn't matter to you then feel free to join a different discussion.Different opinions are welcome here, you can't oust anyone because they don't share your zeal for totally unimportant factoids.
How is this in any way important to the gun control issue?

You guys holler he is going to take your gun, and then you holler when he sympathizes with hunters and sport shooters.

I would hate to be a cop and ten people had weapons drawn and have to decide who to shoot. Maybe its different in a rural community with one or two schools and the police are to far away to respond but I would rather have a few experienced well trained cops outside than a few poorly trained teachers in a crowded hallway or classroom.

Different opinions are welcome here, you can't oust anyone because they don't share your zeal for totally unimportant factoids.
How is this in any way important to the gun control issue?

Thanks for the lecture but making a suggestion is not the same thing as ousting someone. If it's unimportant to you then feel free to ignore the discussion. It's quite simple really.

Hello wingers:

So, you're surprised that lefty's like their guns too??? How did you NOT know that?

excon

Surprised that libs own guns? LOL, no. In fact quite a few that lecture us on gun control hide behind them on a regular basis. I am curious as to if that particular liberal goes skeet shooting "all the time" or if he's just pandering.

if he's just panderingThe guy that wants gun control is pandering by showing that he likes guns? What?

The guy that wants gun control is pandering by showing that he likes guns? What?

Uh, yes. What do you not get?

Hunting and shooting were talked about in previous administrations:

Fox News: Cheney's Quail Hunting Accident Affects No On
(except the guy that was shot in the face)
Cheney's Quail Hunting Accident Affects No One | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184933,00.html)

Fox News: Cheney's Quail Hunting Accident Affects No On
(except the guy that was shot in the face)
Cheney's Quail Hunting Accident Affects No One | Fox NewsThe hypocrisy is incredible, isn't it.

Yet again you guys always pander to the ones in the echo chamber you live in.

Hunting is the side show... I read the ratification debates... the 2nd amendment wasn't passed to insure our right to hunt.

Haven't you righties learned that resisting arrest no matter the circumstances is a foolish thing to do? Armed conflict with what you think is a tyrannical government can be considered by some as a foolish thing too since we fight in the courts, not the woods.

Maybe a more effective way to bear arms would be through strong communities and even stronger lawyers, especially given no one is going to take what you have, just make some guns unavailable for future loonies which we will be looking closer at.

Its like every other issue we argue in current events you guys have rights the rest of us don't, and yours trump everyone else's, and some deserve none at all.

Haven't you righties learned that resisting arrest no matter the circumstances is a foolish thing to do? Armed conflict with what you think is a tyrannical government can be considered by some as a foolish thing too since we fight in the courts, not the woods.

Maybe a more effective way to bear arms would be thru strong communities and even stronger lawyers, especially given no one is going to take what you have, just make some guns unavailable for future loonies which we will be looking closer at.

Its like every other issue we argue in current events you guys have rights the rest of us don't, and yours trump everyone elses, and some deserve none at all.

That's odd because we aren't the ones arguing for a mythical right to force someone else to buy contraceptives. We are however defending your first and second amendment rights.

Hunting and shooting were talked about in previous administrations:

Fox News: Cheney's Quail Hunting Accident Affects No On
(except the guy that was shot in the face)
Cheney's Quail Hunting Accident Affects No One | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184933,00.html)



Well, to be "fair and balanced" maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

And in other gun control news...


Newtown Votes for Armed Guards in Elementary Schools (http://news.yahoo.com/newtown-votes-armed-guards-elementary-schools-152326609.html)

By Alexander Abad-Santos | The Atlantic Wire – 3 hrs ago

As the nation continues to confront the concept of "good guys with guns" in schools, armed guards are coming in force to Newtown, Connecticut. Late Thursday the Newtown Board of Education voted to request the presence of two kinds of guards inside the town's elementary schools. The vote, for now, only represents a request — it still needs to clear budget and logistical boundaries since the guards would come from the town's police resources as opposed to the school board itself. But the plan "would put two eyes and ears -- one armed, one unarmed -- at each Newtown school," reports Bronxville Patch's Davis Dunavin. The guards, officially called school resource officers (SROs), were already a fixture at all Newtown schools in the wake of the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, but until this vote they were budgeted only to be a presence at middle and high Schools, according to NBC Connecticut.

From reports of the school-board meeting, concerned parents cited the Sandy Hook shootings as their reason for backing an armed-guard policy. "The only thing that stopped that guy that day was when the two Newtown police burst in the building," one parent is quoted as saying in the Patch story. "You all know that." Which sounds eerily familiar to the NRA's "good guy with a gun" talking point, even though the Obama administration has backed armed guards if schools want them. One of President Obama's 23 executive actions on gun violence includes the following order: "Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations."

And in other gun control news...
But make sure they aren't unionized. Volunteer would be best.

What would have stopped "that guy" would have been no access to guns.

But make sure they aren't unionized. Volunteer would be best.

What would have stopped "that guy" would have been no access to guns.

Come on, if someone wants to kill people they will find a way.

Come on, if someone wants to kill people they will find a way.
Twenty first graders (after six adults) with a Bowie knife? A bow and arrow? A big rock?

Why make it easy?

Twenty first graders (after six adults) with a Bowie knife? A bow and arrow? A big rock?

A pickup, a molotov cocktail, some fertilizer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing)...


The Oklahoma City bombing was a terrorist bomb attack on the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995. It would remain the most destructive act of terrorism on American soil until the September 11, 2001 attacks. The Oklahoma blast claimed 168 lives, including 19 children under the age of 6,[1] and Injured more than 680 people.[2] The blast destroyed or damaged 324 buildings within a sixteen-block radius, destroyed or burned 86 cars, and shattered glass in 258 nearby buildings.[3][4] The bomb was estimated to have caused at least $652 million worth of damage.

A pickup, a molotov cocktail, some fertilizer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing)...
That would have taken some thought and planning. This way was much easier with almost instant gratification. Yay, guns!

Now, what about the buses and the bus stops?

That would have taken some thought and planning. This way was much easier with almost instant gratification. Yay, guns!

As if he didn't plan the massacre?

As if he didn't plan the massacre?
How would you prefer to kill 26 people, with a semi-automatic rifle or a rock?

That would have taken some thought and planning. This way was much easier with almost instant gratification. Yay, guns!

You think the attack was impulsive ? Nahh he planned the attack for a long time. This was a premeditated shooting attack.Why do you think he destroyed his hard drive ? He jungles taped magazines to his rifle so he could quickly reload . The idea that smaller magazines would've made a difference is wishful thinking . He did not stop shooting until the cops came. He had all the time all the time in the world to reload until the cops showed up .

He had all the time all the time in the world to reload until the cops showed up .
But smaller magazines would have been more unwieldy and a pain and fewer kids would have been shot.

.maybe.. he shot each multiple times . He had that much time.

But smaller magazines would have been more unwieldy and a pain and fewer kids would have been shot.

Do you know how many semiautomatic handguns with 10 rounds I could fit in a jacket, on my belt, in my pants pockets, waistband, etc.

Do you know how many semiautomatic handguns with 10 rounds I could fit in a jacket, on my belt, in my pants pockets, waistband, etc.?
But then you would have had to fish around for them and take time to load each one. Let's have a contest -- me with 30-round magazines and you with 10-round ones and see who can load and fire the fastest and hit the most targets.

But then you would have had to fish around for them and take time to load each one. Let's have a contest -- me with 30-round magazines and you with 10-round ones and see who can load and fire the fastest and hit the most targets.

I really don't think you want to take that bet.

I really don't think you want to take that bet.
You're right. Too easy for me

Maybe we cannot always predict or prevent a loony from popping up with bad intentions but we can get known criminals and drive by guys and dope dealers from getting guns from straw purchasers, and pawn shops.

The Newton killer was trained to shoot instead of sent for help. The Colorado punks had issues that were known, and the Arizona dude was just had to easy of a time of it. To say we should just do nothing is unacceptable.

Maybe we cannot always predict or prevent a loony from popping up with bad intentions but we can get known criminals and drive by guys and dope dealers from getting guns from straw purchasers, and pawn shops.

The Newton killer was trained to shoot instead of sent for help. The Colorado punks had issues that were known, and the Arizona dude was just had to easy of a time of it. To say we should just do nothing is unacceptable.

No one that Im aware of is saying to do nothing. But why is it that the mental health aspect of all this including the drugs they were taking not a part of the conversation ? Should we continue to be so quick in passing out drugs like candy that have side effects so bad its causing an epidemic to occur ?

No one that Im aware of is saying to do nothing. But why is it that the mental health aspect of all this including the drugs they were taking not a part of the conversation ? Should we continue to be so quick in passing out drugs like candy that have side effects so bad its causing an epidemic to occur ?
What do you suggest? (I've read no report yet that Adam Lanza was taking any drugs. Most mass murderers have stopped taking the prescribed drugs and have descended into their psychosis that the drugs kept them from experiencing.)

What do you suggest?

I suggest it be allowed as part of the solution that may be in order. At least address the problem at its core. It will require a harder look at how our rights are applied but it may be needed as a way to address the problem.

There are many forms it can be applied in. Some persons should not have the right to purchase a gun if in a high risk category. The problem is patient privacy rights. How we address that will have to be a part of the debate. HIPPA is keeping many doctors from reporting things as well as the fine line between treatment and trust. If a person knows they will lose a right by seeking help then why would they seek help in the first place? Its one of many landmines we will have to walk through to address the problems we are having.

(I've read no report yet that Adam Lanza was taking any drugs. Most mass murderers have stopped taking the prescribed drugs and have descended into their psychosis that the drugs kept them from experiencing.)

The report won't be out for a few more months according to news reports surrounding the event.

Adam Lanza had a paper trail of psych evaluations, but his mother decided to homeschool him and take him target shooting and allow him to be alone in his room for hours playing violent video games -- and may have had guns available to him in their home. So then what?

In retrospect, it was a disaster waiting to happen -- and how many more like that are out there?

Adam Lanza had a paper trail of psych evaluations, but his mother decided to homeschool him and take him target shooting and allow him to be alone in his room for hours playing violent video games -- and may have had guns available to him in their home. So then what?

In retrospect, it was a disaster waiting to happen -- and how many more like that are out there?

Until I can read a full report and see what it says Im going to reserve comment. She may have went great lengths to keep the guns away from him except under controlled conditions. We just don't know. As you have said before he may have figured out how to gain access to them. We don't know at this point and are going to have to rely on the report that comes out.

There were also rumors (unconfirmed) as far as I know that she was trying to have him committed. Again we don't really know and will have to wait and see.

I suggest it be allowed as part of the solution that may be in order. Atleast address the problem at its core. It will require a harder look at how our rights are applied but it may be needed as a way to address the problem.

There are many forms it can be applied in. Some persons should not have the right to purchase a gun if in a high risk catagory. The problem is patient privacy rights. How we address that will have to be a part of the debate. HIPPA is keeping many doctors from reporting things as well as the fine line between treatment and trust. If a person knows they will lose a right by seeking help then why would they seek help in the first place? Its one of many landmines we will have to walk through to address the problems we are having.

I think besides criminals this is the biggest issue in the debate. But I agree with WG, the problems start when they go off the meds, and stop seeing a doctor. But most don't go off on the world, they isolate themselves. But it only takes one or two that do horrific things to get the notice of the public.

I think besides criminals this is the biggest issue in the debate. But I agree with WG, the problems start when they go off the meds, and stop seeing a doctor. But most don't go off on the world, they isolate themselves. But it only takes one or two that do horrific things to get the notice of the public.

They are even violent on the drugs too. It I a side effect of what they are taking.


Ref:

Fact: Between 2004 and 2011, there have been over 11,000 reports to the U.S. FDA’s MedWatch system of psychiatric drug side effects related to violence. These include 300 cases of homicide, nearly 3,000 cases of mania and over 7,000 cases of aggression. Note: By the FDA’s own admission, only 1-10% of side effects are ever reported to the FDA, so the actual number of side effects occurring are most certainly higher.


Psychiatric drugs and violence - federal investigation long overdue « CCHR International (http://www.cchrint.org/2012/07/20/the-aurora-colorado-tragedy-another-senseless-shooting-another-psychotropic-drug/)

You're right. Too easy for me

No, not at all.

More linkage.

NIMH · Mental Health Medications (http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/mental-health-medications/complete-index.shtml)


FDA warning on possible rare side effects:


Acting more subdued or withdrawn than usual
Feeling helpless, hopeless, or worthless
New or worsening depression
Thinking or talking about hurting himself or herself
Extreme worry
Agitation
Panic attacks
Trouble sleeping
Irritability
Aggressive or violent behavior
Acting without thinking
Extreme increase in activity or talking
Frenzied, abnormal excitement
Any sudden or unusual changes in behavior

FDA warning on possible rare side effects:

The operant words are "possible" and "rare." And the individuals have to be taking these drugs PLUS have problems with them.

The operant words are "possible" and "rare." And the individuals have to be taking these drugs PLUS have problems with them.

11,000 may be rare considering how many are on the drugs. But it is still of great concern.

It goes to the point Im trying to make that it isn't just that they are going off the drugs for something to happen. And there may be many more out there where it has gone unreported.

Drug companies have been sued and settled out of court with non disclosure as part of the deal and in those cases we may never know.

The operant words are "possible" and "rare." And the individuals have to be taking these drugs PLUS have problems with them.

Also you combine it with this and those words just might go out the window.



Note: By the FDA’s own admission, only 1-10% of side effects are ever reported to the FDA, so the actual number of side effects occurring are most certainly higher.

Note: By the FDA's own admission, only 1-10% of side effects are ever reported to the FDA, so the actual number of side effects occurring are most certainly higher.
All drugs have side effects. What works well for one person may not work well for another, thus the attending/counseling psychiatrist takes note of problems and is constantly assessing and reassessing dosage and the med itself.

All drugs have side effects. What works well for one person may not work well for another, thus the attending/counseling psychiatrist takes note of problems and is constantly assessing and reassessing dosage and the med itself.

Many of the drugs especially given to our children are issued by family doctors and not a psychiatrist. That may be part of the problem.

Many of the drugs especially given to our children are issued by family doctors and not a psychiatrist. That may be part of the problem.
I can agree with that. Our kids are overmedicated. My niece was given a med for ADHD to "calm her down," but in my professional opinion, it was a parenting problem that was never addressed.

I can agree with that. Our kids are overmedicated. My niece was given a med for ADHD to "calm her down," but in my professional opinion, it was a parenting problem that was never addressed.

To me by opening the discussion and trying to stay honest and look at the facts surrounding us then no matter what side of the issue you (general term) are on then you can reach a consensus as to what steps to take in the future.

The discussion shouldn't just be about a single issue surrounding a greater one. But an all encompassing approach to get to the bottom of things as best as we can understand them. I believe this type of an approach could lead to the best results for everyone. Im not so sure our politicians can nor will do the same. I can only hope they can and join in as much as allowed to do so by writing congressmen and senators and expressing my opinion.

But then we have fatherless families with single moms raising children (created by more than one father), and she works two and three jobs while the children come home from school to an empty house and get into all kinds of mischief, plus look to gangs (i.e. guns and violence) and the opposite sex to find "love" and a support system since there is none at home. So how does one tackle that problem?

I heard conceptives might be used but then with faith based organisations being against those being provided free by health insurance they won't be prescribing that solution. What you outlined is not one problem but many, firstly; the lack of a caring society, two; the rise of the me materialistic society, third; a permissive society that allows drugs, etc. fourth; the failure of education.

I have a solution but you won't take it;revolution

But then we have fatherless families with single moms raising children (created by more than one father), and she works two and three jobs while the children come home from school to an empty house and get into all kinds of mischief, plus look to gangs (i.e., guns and violence) and the opposite sex to find "love" and a support system since there is none at home. So how does one tackle that problem?.

There is way too much to address in such a small area. But your going to have to start with the law and the courts. They need to stop trating dads as walking wallets and start giving more custody to them rather then taking it away custody so support will be paid.

Many courts have a unwritten "standard" of 80/20 split with fathers getting the short end of the stick. That causes custody issues and greater conflict which in turn affects the child.

i have a solution but you won't take it;revolution
Who is to revolt? Against what? And what, kill all the single moms and fatherless children?

Revolutio. The entire society needs to change and that starts with dumping present leadership no matter what the political hue

Originally Posted by paraclete
I have a solution but you won't take it;revolution

I would prefer evolution instead and as WG and Dad are pointing out, its so complex, rational dialogue is what's needed, not just laws and guns.

I would prefer evolution instead and as WG and Dad are pointing out, its so complex, rational dialogue is whats needed, not just laws and guns.

Dang it!! Where is that geenie button. ;)

I would prefer evolution instead and as WG and Dad are pointing out, its so complex, rational dialogue is whats needed, not just laws and guns.

Tell that to Governor Andrew Cuomo who couldn't wait to ram-rod the most ridiculous draconian law about guns in the nation through the NY government... without a sniff of rational dialogue

Tell that to Governor Andrew Cuomo who couldn't wait to ram-rod the most ridiculous draconian law about guns in the nation through the NY government ....without a sniff of rational dialogue

Big surprise... a politician Grandstanding.


At least here we seem to have settled down in the debate and are now focusing on problems and issues instead of straight emotions.

He's trying to set up a 2016 Presidential run. His only chance is if Evita is telling the truth when she says she's not running .

But then we have fatherless families with single moms raising children (created by more than one father), and she works two and three jobs while the children come home from school to an empty house and get into all kinds of mischief, plus look to gangs (i.e., guns and violence) and the opposite sex to find "love" and a support system since there is none at home. So how does one tackle that problem?.

I don't know, seems to me that's the consequences of feminism, the sexual revolution, secular humanism, the liberal education system and just otherwise isolating and demonizing faith and family values... imho.

I will say it again, there is a big difference between the big city, and the rural cities. Crime and gangs are much more pervasive in NY, than say a burg of a few thousand people. Seldom do you have so many enclaves of drugs and violence and poverty, than the larger cities. Cops are busy and out and about and makes no sense for them to be out gunned. The vehicle of death is not crazy people acting out, but bands of people with bad intentions.

Would you then support the NYC solution of stop and frisk ? Or the more high tech version demonstrated by Police Commissioner Ray Kelly ?
NYPD testing new scanner that detects hidden guns - NYPOST.com (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/nypd_got_ray_vision_yOMWPxOQjft3DFnMCZJ28N)
I can tell you that stop and frisk has been a highly successful program. There were 414 murders in NYC last year; a record low homicide rate . That is a drop from a high of over 2,000 in the Koch and Dinken years. The high tech version will be less intrusive and more effective .


Cops are busy and out and about and makes no sense for them to be out gunned.
Yeah but BOZO Cuomo forgot that cops use guns. He outlawed the magazines the cops service revolver uses.

I don't know, seems to me that's the consequences of feminism, the sexual revolution, secular humanism, the liberal education system and just otherwise isolating and demonizing faith and family values...imho.
You really want to go back to women/mothers at home 24/7 and cooking a delicious and nutritious dinner every night that the whole family sat down at and conversed happily over, only fathers working, teachers and education respected and worth something, the church as the center of social/family life, a gallon of gasoline at 30 cents? Surely you jest!

You could have all of that and the woman still having a choice . Maybe the man can cook a meal . I can. We both work and still made sure we left time for sit down family meals .We both do basic household chores ;and both parent.. Oh sometimes there was scheduling challenges ,but nothing that couldn't be worked out ,and it beats the hell out of one person trying to be both bread winner and parent .

How the household functions is best left to the couple, but many house holds are headed by a single person and a lot are females. That's reality and should not be subjected to anyone's moral value system.

I have always been against stop and frisk without probable cause other than just race or age. Cast a wide net you can catch a few fish, that's blatant profiling. I am all for cops having new tools, but I hope its just not aimed at the hoodie crowd and that's their only probable cause. I can see it for safety in legit cases.

you could have all of that and the woman still having a choice . Maybe the man can cook a meal . I can. We both work and still made sure we left time for sit down family meals .We both do basic household chores ;and both parent.. Oh sometimes there was scheduling challenges ,but nothing that couldn't be worked out ,and it beats the hell out of one person trying to be both bread winner and parent .
And we parents (married and in a stable relationship) teach our children from little on that they are part of the family and household and so contribute in whatever way they can, especially by doing chores appropriate to their age and ability. We parents monitor their schoolwork/homework and have ongoing communication with teachers and school. We parents establish a moral base, first with each other and then include children as they are born and brought up. Music will be classical, religious/spiritual, jazz, popular with only G-rated lyrics. Movies will be heartwarming or funny or even exciting but will always have a moral. TV shows will be similar to movies. No one will need guns except if they hunt, and those guns will be securely locked up.

and it beats the hell out of one person trying to be both bread winner and parent .

Reality check------Some have to be both.

How the household functions is best left to the couple, but many house holds are headed by a single person and a lot are females. That's reality and should not be subjected to anyone's moral value system.

I won't speak of the 2 female couple. But you and I know that a single parent is less than ideal.

Reality check------Some have to be both

reality check... duh... I was speaking about what ought to be.

I speak of what is, and made no mention of a two female household, just one person, male, or female, same difference. That's reality too.

I wish I was rich, instead of handsome but that's my reality. :)

.fine then I'll repeat Steve's appropriate comment since it contributes to the reality


I don't know, seems to me that's the consequences of feminism, the sexual revolution, secular humanism, the liberal education system and just otherwise isolating and demonizing faith and family values... imho.

I have always been against stop and frisk without probable cause other than just race or age. Cast a wide net you can catch a few fish, that's blatant profiling. I am all for cops having new tools, but I hope its just not aimed at the hoodie crowd and that's their only probable cause. I can see it for safety in legit cases.

NYC ,before the new nonsense Cuomo law ,already had one of the toughest gun control laws in the nation.. maybe Chi-towns is tougher... both are ineffective as you just pointed out. The 2nd amendment you think is OK to violate ;but... have a solution that works ;and suddenly that amendment is inviolable.

faith and family values
People of faith are no better or no worse that people with no faith, people are individuals not groups that get given common traits to all.
"Family values" is actually a meaningless statement as no one can define it.

People of faith are no better or no worse that people with no faith, people are individuals not groups that get given common traits to all.
"Family values" is actually a meaningless statement as no one can define it.

And that attitude is a perfect demonstration of the problem.

And that attitude is a perfect demonstration of the problem.
Please define -- what is a family and are its values?

Family values is code for MY family values are correct, and YOURS is wicked. Its not a lack of definition, its an imposition of definitions that's the problem. Now everyone takes their INDIVIDUAL rights as absolute, written in stone, no changes, or variations according to the rights of anyone else.

It gives the strong license to subjugate the weak in the name of defending those rights.

Family values is code for MY family values are correct, and YOURS is wicked. Its not a lack of definition, its an imposition of definitions thats the problem. Now everyone takes their INDIVIDUAL rights as absolute, written in stone, no changes, or variations according to the rights of anyone else.

It gives the strong license to subjugate the weak in the name of defending those rights.

Bullsh*, I have no code words. Kids overwhelmingly fare much better when they have a mother and a father - which also happens to be how children come about in the first place. Feminism said women don't need men, the sexual revolution said people don't need commitment, secular humanism said we don't need God, the liberal education system said we don't need standards or discipline. After all we can't hurt little Johnny's feelings by giving him a grade or making him behave.

And now you have reaped what you've sown and instead of promoting what we know works, you want government programs that don't. You think the answer is gay marriage, gay adoption, "alternative lifestyles", "family planning", free birth control, paid maternity leave, childcare, "comprehensive sex education" (some nice code words in there), anything but promoting the nuclear family.

The only one imposing definitions is you, along with subjugating the weak by making them dependent on government instead helping them thrive on their own.

What would you advise to laid off/unemployed divorced people?

The job creators sure ain't helping them.So what should they do in a tight job market where there are hundreds of applicants for one job.

You blame feminist for females expressing themselves and working on their behalf. Does your wife work?

Gay people ARE people to, just like corporations are, why exclude them in the equal protection under the law? Why can't they have rights like everybody else?

What's wrong with daycare if a female has to work and has kids without a responsible partner? Your idea of helping people isn't help. Your entire post is about discriminating against the less fortunate, or those you hate.

Consider it dismissed as hate speech. (No pun intended)

The 1800's must have been great days since your republicans want to return you there.

What would you advise to laid off/unemployed divorced people?

The job creators sure ain't helping them.So what should they do in a tight job market where there are hundreds of applicants for one job.

You blame feminist for females expressing themselves and working on their behalf. Does your wife work?

Gay people ARE people to, just like corporations are, why exclude them in the equal protection under the law? Why can't they have rights like everybody else?

Whats wrong with daycare if a female has to work and has kids without a responsible partner? Your idea of helping people isn't help. Your entire post is about discriminating against the less fortunate, or those you hate.

Consider it dismissed as hate speech. (No pun intended)

Facts are hate speech? No sir, they speak for themselves. Your side created this mess and has no answers but to subject us all to a government nanny.


The 1800's must have been great days since your republicans want to return you there.

NK, how unoriginal and devoid of reality can you get? Never mind, I don't want to know. You and Tal are not up to having an honest debate, you only seek to demonize and divide.

Now speech you know good and well I can throw rocks and talk crap with the best of them. :) It shouldn't surprise you or make you mad when I do what you do.

you only seek to demonize and divide. Everything I've learned is learned from the AMHD Current Event board.
Tell me: is it your opinion that you do not demonize and divide? Lead by example!

Everything I've learned is learned from the AMHD Current Event board.
Tell me: is it your opinion that you do not demonize and divide? Lead by example!

I'm trying to have an honest discussion, I'm not the one calling that "hate speech."

And why does Tal keep combining my posts?

I'm trying to have an honest discussion, I'm not the one calling that "hate speech."

And why does Tal keep combining my posts?

It is hate speech to me and I am entitled to my opinion, and you get honest from me when I post, whether its right or wrong is up to you. Letme know and we can argue that too!

As for merging posts it's a routine thing to do to make it not only uniform, but easier to quote and reply to. You are not the only one, its done all over the site.

I replied to two different people, they SHOULD be separate posts, and if you think stating the fact that children fare better with a mother and a father (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/10/study-children-fare-better-traditional-mom-dad-fam/) is hate speech you shouldn't have that much control.

What would you advise to laid off/unemployed divorced people?

The job creators sure ain't helping them.So what should they do in a tight job market where there are hundreds of applicants for one job.

You blame feminist for females expressing themselves and working on their behalf. Does your wife work?

Gay people ARE people to, just like corporations are, why exclude them in the equal protection under the law? Why can't they have rights like everybody else?

Whats wrong with daycare if a female has to work and has kids without a responsible partner? Your idea of helping people isn't help. Your entire post is about discriminating against the less fortunate, or those you hate.

Consider it dismissed as hate speech. (No pun intended)


If the job creators are the "rich" and the government takes away all their wealth through taxation then how do you expect them to hire anyone?

What I blame feminists for is for demonizing choice. They ridiculed the preverbial housewife and demeaned them in public statements. They also were subverted in early days by the CIA.

Gloria Steinem: How the CIA Used Feminism to Destabilize Society (http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Feminism/gloria_steinem-feminism.htm)

Is there a reason to give gays superior rights because of sexual preferences? What would be next? What if its proved the pedophiles are born that way ? Does that make it OK or is it not the acceptable "norm" at this time?

As for merging posts it's a routine thing to do to make it not only uniform, but easier to quote and reply to. You are not the only one, its done all over the site. Why is it being done on a discussion forum ?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3Hg07YPMZRE/UPdkRACOaLI/AAAAAAAAB_Y/eKK5SugUYtU/s640/Pin+the+tail+on+the+Moron.jpg

The vast majority of gun owners are not maniacs. The vast majority are not planning on shooting their girlfriends, wives, or partners. But in a fit of anger or jealousy or some other overwhelming emotion, a gun can become a convenient way of lashing out. The decision to shoot can take a second, and then can't be undone. It happens every day in this country. These are the sad facts of life.

The many thousands of people who bought guns after the Connecticut massacre deem themselves to be just as responsible as gun enthusiast [in the last issue of The Week, author Sam] Harris. Most are — but take a step back. As the Harvard School of Public Health found, "guns in the home are used more often to frighten intimates than to thwart crime." Oh, and on city streets too by gang members and such like.

And

The handgun is easily the most convenient and most common choice for the loaded man wanting a loaded gun — the combination that causes so much terror in America every single day. It is the crux of the issue. Regardless of our position on the issue, we must squarely acknowledge that America would dramatically reduce killing in general and fatal domestic violence in particular if we dramatically reduced access to handguns.

Why more guns won't make us safer - The Week (http://theweek.com/article/index/239497/why-more-guns-wont-make-us-safer)

Less guns don't make us any safer either... look at Chicago and NYC as two shining examples...

People are LESS safe because the criminals act with the knowledge they are unlikely to meet an armed potiential victim there.

And most murders aren't committed with guns.

http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=UNODC&f=tableCode%3A1 select sort by rate, decending... see how many places are far worse than the USA.

That covers ALL murders... since dead is dead no matter how its done. It's a more accurate description.

It will come as no surprise to most people that men commit homicide 10 times as often as women. Their victims are often women. Two thirds of women killed by spouses are killed with guns. Firearm assaults on female family members and intimate acquaintances are approximately 12 times more likely to result in death than are assaults using other weapons. This is not some minor secondary issue. It is the heart of the matter — a form of chronic and pervasive domestic terrorism. It is impossible to claim to address gun violence in America while failing to address domestic violence against women. Why more guns won't make us safer - The Week (http://theweek.com/article/index/239497/why-more-guns-wont-make-us-safer)

According to this (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0310.pdf), guns ARE the main method of killing in the US.

So... and what does that have to do with the price of rice in China.

Why don't you rely on statistics for people burned at the stake when comparing to actual murder rates? Think nobody ever gets killed without a gun being used... and if they can't get a gun nobody will ever be killed. Fact is they will pick something else that's handy to use... knife, baseball bat, 2X4.. pieace of pipe... bowling trophy...

If you don't compare ACTUAL per capita murder rates... exclusive of method used... then you are creating a circular argument based on flawed source data.

Using the numbers YOU want to use... look at CHicago and NYC vs the rest of the country...

And they already did make guns effectively illegal there...

Heck... Washington DC murder rates DROPPED after the supreme court ruled their gun laws unconstitutional... the thugs no longer can expect victims to be unarmed... and more often they aren't.

"guns in the home are used more often to frighten intimates than to thwart crime[/I]

That's a rather misleading statement. From the survey (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10619696)...


In the US, guns, particularly handguns, are typically brought into the home for protection. The wisdom of having a firearm in the home, however, is disputed. While guns appear to be a risk factor for family homicide, suicide and unintentional firearm fatality, no evidence has been available about gun use at home to intimidate family members and little about gun use to thwart crimes by intruders, or about the use of other weapons in home self-defense. Over the past decade, various private surveys have asked questions about the respondent's use of guns in self-defense. None, however, has asked detailed questions about the use of guns to threaten or intimidate the respondent. This study presents results from a national random digit dial telephone survey of 1906 US adults conducted in the spring of 1996. Respondents were asked about hostile gun displays and use of guns and other weapons in self-defense at home in the past five years. The objective of the survey was to assess the relative frequency and characteristics of weapons-related events at home. Thirteen respondents reported that a gun was displayed against them at home, two reported using a gun in self-defense at home, and 24 reported using another weapon (e.g. knife, baseball bat) in home self-defense. While we do not always know whose weapon was used in these incidents, most gun brandishings were by male intimates against women. A gun in the home can be used against family members or intruders and can be used not only to kill and wound, but to intimidate and frighten. This small study provides some evidence that guns may be used at least as often by family members to frighten intimates as to thwart crime, and that other weapons are far more commonly used against intruders than are guns.

Out of 1906 people, 13 - .682 percent - said a gun was used to intimidate them. I wonder how many were intimidated by another weapon?

If I thought gun control laws would make a difference ,I'd reconsider.. But Hadiya Pendleton ,a girl who performed at the Obama Inauguration was gunned down in Chi-town ,a town with some of the toughest gun laws in the land . Her death was random chance as a gangbanger fired into a crowd. The gun laws did not prevent this tragedy... and Chi-town is settting a pace for a record numbers of gun related homicides.
The only reason this even made the news is because Hadiya was a performer at the inauguration. What happened to her is an almost daily event in Chi-town . If tough gun laws would've prevented this it would've .

From my summary of breakdowns of info at census.gov :

For 2009
13,756 total murders
9,203 by firearms
4,553 by non-firearms comprised of knives or cutting instruments (1,836), blunt objects (623), personal weapons incl. hands, fists, feet, pushing etc (815), other (374) poison, explosives, fire, narcotics, drowning, strangulation, asphyxiation and others (905)--suspected of being poison etc that can't be determined.

If I had to be the victim and had a choice, I'd take the firearm. Maybe narcotics would be easy for some, but the others would be varying amounts of suffering for sure. But a poor shot could cause suffering too, I'll admit.

Out of 1906 people, 13 - .682 percent - said a gun was used to intimidate them.
There have been three instances at my house where a handgun was misused, but none were reported. I wonder how many others in other homes have not been reported.

If tough gun laws would've prevented this it would've .
Chi-town cops are going after the illegal handguns now.

There have been three instances at my house where a handgun was misused, but none were reported. I wonder how many others in other homes have not been reported.

Hey, it was your survey and it was used in a very misleading way.

Hey, it was your survey and it was used in a very misleading way.
How so?

I have had at minimum an average of 2 handguns for 50 years with zero instances of misuse.
A friend of mine had one instance of wood splitting sledge hammer misuse by his son one morning four or so years ago, with one fatality (murder), that being my friend.
If we are using our own stats, all of the people murdered who I personally knew, were killed by blunt instruments.

Isn't it interesting, I don't own a gun and I don't know anyone personally who was murdered, there is a 100% corrolation here

How so?

The article is using the exaggerated statement out of context to argue against guns as a deterrent based on an incident rate of less than one percent. There is also no way to gauge how many crimes are thwarted because the potential victim may be armed. It was a useless, outdated, misleading survey to support his argument. Violent crime is down in Texas since concealed carry, the survey predates that reality.

Homicide in US went from about 4 per 100k in 1950 to 10 per 100k in 1975 and stayed at about 10 per 100k until 1995, and down to about 4.5 per 100k in 2010. USDOJ.gov
Gun ownership has doubled to about 1 per person in US over about that same time. CSMonitor.com
Drug arrests just about quadrupled during the 1980's, which included the period during which homicides peaked. USDOJ
Homicides are at about the same rate today as they were in 1950, while gun ownership doubled in the US.

How about the simple basic fact... if someone wanted to murder someone and they didn't have a gun... they would use some other means.

They don't think... "Oh I can't find a gun....so I guess I have to be an upstanding citizen now."

A simple visit to a grocery store or hardware store not to mention you can make an explosive far more effective than a gun.

Hell I could make an air fuel explosive out of laser printer toner cartridges... and I was never a chem major, many people could. Ever wonder why they are considered a hazardous material and you MUST ship them by ground?

I've often wanted to murder someone, but didn't have a gun handy to shoot her with and I didn't want to just maim her. Anything else was too much trouble.

This is strange I have never wanted to use a gun to murder someone, must be a result of gun culture

I've often wanted to murder someone, but didn't have a gun handy to shoot her with and I didn't want to just maim her. Anything else was too much trouble.

Trust me , if you REALLY wanted to do it (and that's way, WAY beyond just entertaining the thought.. trust me I know)... not having a gun would have not been a deterrent.

I put a guy in intensive care once in a case of self defense with a steel bar... I almost put him in a coffin had I not been wrestled to the ground by an adult male neighbor when I was. I could have ran in the house and got a gun we had several... but the steel bar was handy. And I felt I was in imminent danger... and actually... the State Police did too, I took down two guys bigger and stronger than I was. That jumped me... and there were lots of witnesses to it. As in almost 70. ( as in no charges at all, I had the option of pressing them, cops said no rush I could think about it... they never even looked at me wrong again).

There is a lot of romaticism about the used of guns no doubt helped along by hollywood

There is a lot of romaticism about the used of guns no doubt helped along by hollywood

Exactly... few people really are that casual about shooting someone... something that really becomes apparent when you are put in the position to actually do it.

Many gun owners of my generation have military experience and while there may be exceptions, a casual attitude toward weapons in the military was a good way to get some brig time. Responsible (non-criminal) gun owners handle weapons with extreme care and lock and secure the weapons, and most are fully capable of using them very rationally if and when it becomes necessary. Home invasions (most drug related) are a popular sport in even the small burgs in my area.

Chi-town cops... don't call us .
Chicago Police Changing Response Plan For Some 911 Calls « CBS Chicago (http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/02/04/chicago-police-changing-response-plan-for-some-911-calls/)

Maybe the sneaker tax will pay for more cops
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/illinois/sneaker-tax-illinois-considers-a--cent-charge/article_51020583-02c9-51ce-b858-1e07054a4648.html

I've often wanted to murder someone, but didn't have a gun handy to shoot her with and I didn't want to just maim her. Anything else was too much trouble.

That's kind of scary.

That's kinda scary.
And I'm a registered Republican.

Yeah well, I don't know what being a registered Republican has to do with it but I have never wanted to murder anyone. Must be a Chicago thing.

Yeah well, I don't know what being a registered Republican has to do with it but I have never wanted to murder anyone. Must be a Chicago thing.
I'm a NC and NY product. Chicago has nothing to do with my psyche. Maybe it was because of my hanging out with the Appalachian hill people and their shotguns and in their shacks back in the '50s. Those Hatfields and McCoys.

I'm a NC and NY product. Chicago has nothing to do with my psyche. Maybe it was because of my hanging out with the Appalachian hill people and their shotguns and in their shacks back in the '50s. Those Hatfields and McCoys.

Don't blame your wanting to murder someone on rednecks and Republicans, you got to own that one.

Don't blame your wanting to murder someone on rednecks and Republicans, you gotta own that one.
Maybe it's genes from my German ancestors who were farmers and Lutheran pastors.

Maybe it's genes from my German ancestors who were farmers and Lutheran pastors.

No, you got to own that comment.

No, you gotta own that comment.
But she was so annoying! It's her fault. She made me want to do it!

Chi-town cops ... don't call us .
Also, Chicago will be focusing on time-tested “softer” approaches to youth violence, including connecting isolated young people with adult mentors, treating violence as a public health problem, offering new jobs programs for unemployed teens, and coordinating resources for at-risk kids in schools. Basketball has become a way to get gangs to meet and greet and cooperate and socialize.

Good luck with that . You should really consider Stop and Frisk. NYC with a much bigger population has fewer murders . And before anyone who supports violations of the 2nd amendment gets on a soap box about 4th amendment violations ;stop and frisk has already been adjudicated in SCOTUS. (Terry v. Ohio)

But she was so annoying! It's her fault. She made me wanna do it!

You're just digging the hole deeper.

good luck with that . You should really consider Stop and Frisk. NYC with a much bigger population has fewer murders . And before anyone who supports violations of the 2nd amendment gets on a soap box about 4th amendment violations ;stop and frisk has already been adjudicated in SCOTUS. (Terry v. Ohio)

Its approval is very limited. So how does it stop anything? Is it just the thought they can be found out that is holding the perps at bay ?

Yes ,it's approval is indeed limited ,but successful.

There was a 19% decrease in the number of murders last year.
NYC has had 414 murders so far in 2012, down 18.5%, NYPD credits (http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-murders-18-5-year-article-1.1227060)

The use went down as the murder rate dropped.

I think it's the deterrence that makes a difference. Critics argue that it disproportionately targets minorities and minority communities. That may be true. But 2 factors should be considered . The 1st is that these areas are the high crime areas. Also it is the minority communities that are more often the victims of these murders. 90 percent of the persons murdered in New York are black or Hispanic young men, those are the people whose lives are being saved .

Hello again,

Why mess around with stop and frisk? I'd go full on police state.. That'll stop crime.. They're BOTH against the 4th Amendment, but if you're going to VIOLATE it, you might as well be EFFECTIVE..

excon

From the one that accepts violations of the 2nd .Gee why not go all out and ban all guns... That would be much more effective .

from the one that accepts violations of the 2nd .Gee why not go all out and ban all guns... That would be much more effective .
Finally! You see things my way!!

Hello again,

Why mess around with stop and frisk?? I'd go full on police state.. That'll stop crime.. They're BOTH against the 4th Amendment, but if you're gonna VIOLATE it, you might as well be EFFECTIVE..

excon

Not going to work.. not without a full on armed rebellion (that's WHY we have a 2nd amendment for in the first place). And not even most of the lefties are going to back that when the realize they aren't exempted from it.

How many rounds would a merchant need to deter this ?
Flash Mob Mayhem: Violent Groups Of Teens Leave Neighborhoods Worried « CBS New York (http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/02/04/flash-mob-mayhem-violent-groups-of-teens-leave-nyc-neighborhoods-in-disarray/)

how many rounds would a merchant need to deter this ?
Flash Mob Mayhem: Violent Groups Of Teens Leave Neighborhoods Worried « CBS New York (http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/02/04/flash-mob-mayhem-violent-groups-of-teens-leave-nyc-neighborhoods-in-disarray/)

One man with an ozizi should be enough as long as he is prepared to stand trial for multiple cases of premeditated murder. You see Tom there is self defense and there there is something else, probably one shot fired in the air is enough to stop it in its tracks but if one offender has a gun...

how many rounds would a merchant need to deter this ?
Flash Mob Mayhem: Violent Groups Of Teens Leave Neighborhoods Worried « CBS New YorkMakes me very thankful for where I live.

I agree karma we should be thankfull for such mercies

Unfortunately their problem won't be solved by more guns or less guns.

one man with an ozizi should be enough as long as he is prepared to stand trial for multiple cases of premeditated murder. You see Tom there is self defense and there there is something else, probably one shot fired in the air is enough to stop it in its tracks but if one offender has a gun......

That wouldn't be premeditated murder... that would be self defense... HUGE difference between the two.

Very few places does the attacker HAVE to even have a weapon before you can use deadly force to protect yourself or property.

That wouldn't be premeditated murder...that would be self defense....HUGE difference between the two.


Have you intentionally left something out of the sentence? Is there something that doesn't need to be included in this sentence?

Ellipsis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipsis)

Unfortunately their problem won't be solved by more guns or less guns.

And what will solve all the problems in Canada?

And what will solve all the problems in Canada?

You can start a thread for that if you wish. I'm not sure how any of our issues affect your gun control debate. We do have problems with low maple syrup production last year and the coming one.

You can start a thread for that if you wish. I'm not sure how any of our issues affect your gun control debate. We do have problems with low maple syrup production last year and the coming one.

And I have no idea how your constant digs at the US is productive for anything other than keeping your ego inflated.

It wasn't a dig at the US. It was a rational opinion of what the solution does or does not entail.

Does more guns fix the violence problem? Does less guns fix it?

Keeping guns out of criminal hands is the problem,and straw purchases outside the cities that ban those guns is what needs an immediate fix. Many mayors including in Chicago have recognized these conditions as making their problem a bigger one. Poverty is another. Probably the biggest driver for losing youth to alternative lifestyles that do more harm than good.

I may be for parents having MORE influence over choices by their kids, but lets face it, those parents indeed fall short themselves and often face failed support systems within their communities that adds to an already bad problem. I mean kids know when they are not being supervised properly, and when they are left to their own devices regularly, its easy to see
How they can be led astray,or seek out what an absent parent does not provide.

If you think that more guns and less government is the answer, you are asking for disaster. Its much more complex than spending less on people and more for business, and small government. That may sound perfect if you already have something to build on but leaves behind those who have had nothing to build on or look forward to for generations.

It use to be a thoughtful balance between the right and left, now the right is adamant that we go all the way their way for a weak effective government, and profits before people. And only a few, including the right wingers can survive in such an environment.

Keeping guns out of criminal hands is the problemI think that ship has sailed. There are enough guns in circulation in the US to make that option almost impossible to successfully work.

Keeping guns out of criminal hands is the problem,and straw purchases outside the cities that ban thosse guns is what needs an immediate fix. Many mayors including in Chicago have recognized these conditions as making their problem a bigger one. Poverty is another.

Dude, you raise Chicago as an example?

Have you intentionally left something out of the sentence? Is there something that doesn't need to be included in this sentence?

Ellipsis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipsis)

Yeah. The fact that lefties really don't care much about what the law is, or what the Constitution or BIll of Rights says. They will say anything they want because in their imaginary world anything they want at that immediate moment is what they feel it SHOULD be.


I think that ship has sailed. There are enough guns in circulation in the US to make that option almost impossible to successfully work.

You actually believe that crap? At the volumes they ship drugs to keep you brothers and sisters satisfied you think guns wouldn't be able to be moved with the same degree of efficiency? Or that under or unemployed mechanics, metalworkers and machinists couldn't make them domestically?

THe reality is if you took metalshop in high school and didn't flunk out with basic metalworking tools Joe Average could easily fabricate a crude but effective machine gun with hand tools and scrap metal... with a fully functioning supressor.

THe reality is if you took metalshop in high school and didn't flunk out with basic metalworking tools Joe Average could easily fabricate a crude but effective machine gun with hand tools and scrap metal... with a fully functioning supressor.Funny that, I don't remember many news reports that say the murder was committed with a homemade gun. LOL. More nonsense.

THe reality is if you took metalshop in high school and didn't flunk out with basic metalworking tools Joe Average could easily fabricate a crude but effective machine gun with hand tools and scrap metal.....with a fully functioning supressor.

Or a 3D printer...

Or a 3D printer... It uses somewhat malleable plastic but I guess that could be used as mold.