Georgia governor to sign 'unprecedented' bill expanding gun rights | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/23/georgia-governor-to-sign-bill-expanding-gun-rights/)


The bill makes several changes to state law. It allows those with a license to carry to bring a gun into a bar without restriction and into some government buildings that don't have certain security measures. It also allows religious leaders to decide whether it's OK for a person with a carry license to bring a gun into their place of worship.

Under the bill, school districts would now be able, if they wanted, to allow some employees to carry a firearm under certain conditions. The bill also eliminates the fingerprinting requirement for renewing weapons carry licenses.

According to the Marietta Daily Journal, the legislation prohibits the state from creating and maintaining a database of licensed weapons carriers and repeals the state-required license for firearms dealers.
Colin Goddard, who survived the 2007 campus shooting at Virginia Tech, told Georgia Public Broadcasting he's alarmed by a provision that waives criminal prosecution of felons who use illegal firearms in the act of self-defense.
“The stand your ground expansion is truly a new type of stand your ground as we know it,” Goddard said. “To expand it in such a way to remove all carrying or possession offenses is really unprecedented.”

Georgia Governor to Sign Sweeping Gun Bill - TIME (http://time.com/73465/georgia-guns-bill-nathan-deal/)

I think right wingers in Georgia have gone crazy with this second amendment thing.

I don't see any problem with most of that... because the criminals do what they want anyway... and it's the law abiding people that have been getting screwed.

So called "gun free zones" are open invitations to criminals to do their worst knowing nobody will shoot them as long as they don't hang around long enough for the cops to finally show up.

Arguing against that in effect says people really don't have the right to defend themselves, their wives or their children against the evil element of society.

As the saying goes....when seconds count....the police are minutes away.

I have a concealed carry license and I carry most everywhere I go. I went through the background checks and all the proper channels to get mine. Here in PA, there is no law about not carrying in churches or bars or whatever...other than Federal buildings, you're clear for most anywhere. School zones are a little grey as the law is written in such a way that it makes it illegal to carry a gun in a school zone "for unlawful purposes"...I mean, ok....shouldn't that be a given anyway? I can see why this new law is looking to allow some employees to carry inside a school as they are probably trying to open it up for schools that are looking to get private security to protect the children.

The problem I do see with this law as posted here is allowing a felon to defend themselves with an illegal firearm. Why do we need that? They shouldn't have access to a gun anyway as per Federal law so the way I see it, they should be prosecuted either way.

The problem I do see with this law as posted here is allowing a felon to defend themselves with an illegal firearm.

I went to the actual bill itself. It doesn't permit "felons to defend themselves with an illegal firearm." It merely states that self defense is an absolute defense. Maybe a lawyer could twist that into allowing felons firearms ( I'm certain they'll try.) but the felon will still be guilty of umpteen other offenses anyway.

Look for yourself:
HB 875 2013-2014 Regular Session (http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en-US/display/20132014/HB/875)

All I did was go off of what Tal quoted. I see that it really is not that way. It is a case of a news station misquoting and twisting things.

The lame stream media has been doing exactly that for a very long time... I first noticed it was happening back in the early 1980's. and its only gotten worse.

The lame stream media has been doing exactly that for a very long time... I first noticed it was happening back in the early 1980's. and its only gotten worse.Yep, it was Fox News here.

Yep, it was Fox News here.

No.. this was happening right after the Dudley Do-Right show... on NBC, ABC, and CBS. 1984... FOX news didn't exist yet... nor did CNN.

No..Yes. Look up, I know you can do it. Stick to the OP.

Yes. Look up, I know you can do it. Stick to the OP.Maybe you can stick to thje OP for once. That should be a novel experience

I know you can do it. Just look at the original question. Hint: we're not talking about your days watching Dudley-do-right or cartoons.

I know you can do it. Just look at the original question. Hint: we're not talking about your days watching Dudley-do-right or cartoons.
What the hell do you know about the American News...other than what you hear from some other biased news sources, particularly back before MOST people on earth even heard of the internet? YOU watch the Canadian news... and we all know how they protect suspected murderers and serial rapists until they are actually convicted... because the criminals right to privacy exceeds the rights of the public to be aware they are at risk in Canada.

It's truly astounding how little you know about Canada. You really should leave your house and travel a bit.

It's truly astounding how little you know about Canada. You really should leave your house and travel a bit.

Goat - gotten. Move along, nothing more to see. Show's over, folks.

:D

I know enough about Canada to know how truly clueless many Canadians are about the ouside world... unlike you... I've not only been outside of my home town in my life, (2/3 of it has been in fact)... but I've spent significant parts for my life in other courtries. And yeah... I've been through a lot of eastern Canada too... my wife has a number of relatives that live there I talk to frequently enough.

what is this lunacy, truly any additional opportunities to have weapons in the community is a nonsense and a sign of rebellion. I am reminded of a line from the movie Waterworld "kill something"

How would you feel if it was a restriction on your ability to say anything about anything else... that right is no less sacred... they are BOTH constitutionally guaranteed. If one can be restricted... so can the other. THe crime rate is gong to take a drop in that state as it has in other states that favor the right of gun owners over the rights of criminals. THe highest murder and crime rates are in the places with the strictest gun control laws.

Tal, what parts do you find so objectionable that you dont thing it should be allowed? Im not comfrotable with allowing a person to carry when in a bar. But I dont mind if it is an eatery that also serves drinks as part of its business. Also dropping the fingerprint requirement isnt that bad because you dont have to go through the whole process to renew a drivers license and its about the same thing.

Uber tough gun laws and look what it does for this city !




Chicago police face overwhelming gun crime as 45 people shot over weekend | World news | theguardian.com (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/21/chicago-police-overwhelming-gun-violence-nine-killed)

More Than 40 People Were Shot In Chicago Over Easter Weekend And The Feds Are Stepping In (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/21/federal-unit-chicago-crim_n_5187398.html)

How would you feel if it was a restriction on your ability to say anything about anything else... that right is no less sacred... they are BOTH constitutionally guaranteed. If one can be restricted... so can the other. THe crime rate is gong to take a drop in that state as it has in other states that favor the right of gun owners over the rights of criminals. THe highest murder and crime rates are in the places with the strictest gun control laws.

I see nothing there that improves law and order just a licence to kill, the whole philosophy of this thing is a nonsense, just a successful marketing campaign by the NRA. This is macho culture at its worst. You want to kill or be killed keep going down this path, I prefer to live in peace

I see nothing there that improves law and order just a licence to kill, the whole philosophy of this thing is a nonsense, just a successful marketing campaign by the NRA. This is macho culture at its worst. You want to kill or be killed keep going down this path, I prefer to live in peace

Criminals deserve to die... someone breaks into my house... I have the god given and legal right to ensure they never get a second chance to do it again.

That is a concept people who do not have that right can not understand. THey feel it's their duty to hand over everything and sit back and watch while their wife and children get raped then killed. WIthut doing anythig because they would be violating the rights of the rapist and murderer.

I do not feel that way... nor did the founders of this country... thank god.

Nobody is against defending your home against a criminal. The lunacy of this law is The Governor and the NRA deem its so important to expand gun rights, while not expanding Medicare for its poorest citizens. I mean having a gun in church, is more important that creating jobs in hospitals, saving the state BIG BUCKS, and treating its working poor citizens with dignity and respect. Its utter lunacy to give more rights to people who have guns already while letting poor people who don't even care about YOUR guns worry about taking a kid to a doctor, and not being able to go themselves.

That's why I started this thread, to show the hypocrisy of the priorities of the right wingers in power who all they can think about is their rights to guns, while refusing to give their citizens a fair shake. I mean is it a coincidence the same states that expand gun rights don't expand medicaid?

That's crazy.

Expand what... those are all rights we should have always KEPT to begine with... and would have if some gun grabbing liberal had not denyed outr constitutional rights to begin with.

Let the welfare bums get off their butts and work... there are over 20,000,000 illeghals that can find work... so can they.

If they want dignity... they will cat like human adults and earn a living. I don't HAVE to respect anyone leaching off the system because they are lazy.

I certainly don't have to treat a criminal that thinks they are more entitled to the thinks I actually went to work to earn and pay for take from me by any means.

I have a RIGHT to not support the lazy... I have a right to live free of crime... I have the right to not have to see the trash welfare bums and drug users pollute the planet with.

THey have a fair shake... it requires they get up in the morning.. shower dress is something presentable... and go out and get a job like everyone else does.

Beyond that... they aren't entitled to squat.

Round up the roughly 20 million illegals....march them across the border at gunpoint...and presto.....jobs for everyone without one overnight.

Round up the roughly 20 million illegals....march them ac;ross the border attention gunpoint...and presto.....jobs for everyone without one overnight.
Clean motel rooms? Pick fruits and vegetables? Work at a carwash? Scrub who knows what off the floors at nursing homes? No one I know.

all this talk of rights but who gave you the right to carry a gun in a church, your own constitution says you cannot make laws governing religion, so no guns in church no matter what your stupid legislature says. Your education is wasted on you, you cannot understand the written language

You want to kill someone who enters your home illegally on the pretex you feel threatened, this isn't about rights, it is about being a vigilante, about bloodlust. Noone says you shouldn't defend yourself in a life threating situation, but beyond that is just lawlessness and playing God

Criminals deserve to die... someone breaks into my house... I have the god given and legal right to ensure they never get a second chance to do it again.


No, you have a natural right to defend yourself, not a God given right.

Nobody is against defending your home against a criminal. The lunacy of this law is The Governor and the NRA deem its so important to expand gun rights, while not expanding Medicare for its poorest citizens. I mean having a gun in church, is more important that creating jobs in hospitals, saving the state BIG BUCKS, and treating its working poor citizens with dignity and respect. Its utter lunacy to give more rights to people who have guns already while letting poor people who don't even care about YOUR guns worry about taking a kid to a doctor, and not being able to go themselves.

That's why I started this thread, to show the hypocrisy of the priorities of the right wingers in power who all they can think about is their rights to guns, while refusing to give their citizens a fair shake. I mean is it a coincidence the same states that expand gun rights don't expand medicaid?

That's crazy.

The crux of this discussion is the philosophy of governance. This law is a step in government getting out of the citizens' way while the alternatives in this particular post are examples of government intruding into commerce.

Expand what... those are all rights we should have always KEPT to begine with... and would have if some gun grabbing liberal had not denyed outr constitutional rights to begin with.


Smoothy, please understand the difference here. The right to keep and bear arms is not a natural right, it can be regarded a legal right or civil right. Either way it isn't a natural right. The government of the day is entitled to modify this right, provided they don't abolish the right.

Nobody is against defending your home against a criminal. The lunacy of this law is The Governor and the NRA deem its so important to expand gun rights, while not expanding Medicare for its poorest citizens. I mean having a gun in church, is more important that creating jobs in hospitals, saving the state BIG BUCKS, and treating its working poor citizens with dignity and respect. Its utter lunacy to give more rights to people who have guns already while letting poor people who don't even care about YOUR guns worry about taking a kid to a doctor, and not being able to go themselves.

That's why I started this thread, to show the hypocrisy of the priorities of the right wingers in power who all they can think about is their rights to guns, while refusing to give their citizens a fair shake. I mean is it a coincidence the same states that expand gun rights don't expand medicaid?

That's crazy.

How much is the cost of this law going to cost the State of Georgia? By expanding medicare the money may or may not be there. That is a decision that has to be made by the State. I find it lunacy to have no limits on spending regaurdless of who is doing it. We as private citizens can not spend beyond our limits. Why would you demand your government to do so?

The right to keep and bear arms is not a natural right.

Another point to disagree on. The right to self-defense is the most basic natural right. The bear and you both have a right to life, according to the theory of Natural Rights. Whose right to eat takes priority? The one who can most ably defend it. If you have a tool, that would be you, and you have dinner. Without tools, the bear has the full stomach.

Now feel free to nit-pick and stretch the example out to non-relevance.

Smoothy, please understand the difference here. The right to keep and bear arms is not a natural right, it can be regarded a legal right or civil right. Either way it isn't a natural right. The government of the day is entitled to modify this right, provided they don't abolish the right.

I fail to see they have the right to legislate murder by gun. Governments exist to preserve order not create opportunity for mayhem. You need to examine why the right to bear arms exists, it is directly associated with military service, but this is conveniently forgotten. The right to bear arms has been continually expanded which suggests the government has abdicated it's responsibility to protect its citizens. You have more police forces than any other nation and yet you demand arms to keep order. Don't you see that something is wrong, you have a self fulfilling prophesy

Smoothy, please understand the difference here. The right to keep and bear arms is not a natural right, it can be regarded a legal right or civil right. Either way it isn't a natural right. The government of the day is entitled to modify this right, provided they don't abolish the right.


It is a natural right... it is also a legal right and a codified constitutional right.

The government is NOT entitled to take away that right... because the controlling documents for the government, our Constitution... clearly and specifically spell them out as a right. Not as a priveledge. And its #2 on the list with all the other basic rights we are entitled to.

It is a natural right... it is also a legal right and a codified constitutional right.

The government is NOT entitled to take away that right... because the controlling documents for the government, our Constitution... clearly and specifically spell them out as a right. Not as a priveledge. And its #2 on the list with all the other basic rights we are entitled to.



Correct. That's what I said.

Thanks for making my point, since there has been NO move to take any ones guns, so your rights have not been infringed upon, you just think they have, and fear any changes so you expand your rights and talk about the ones who also want THEIR rights (Under the constitution no less... not just the one amendment YOU guys like) expanded, defined, AND PROTECTED. Can't conservatives, and guys like you enjoy your rights without undermining someone else's? Obviously NOT.

Back to the facts of the subject about Georges law (Thanks Cats for putting in the link so it can be READ), because imbedded into the law is a prohibition of localities to govern their own communities with respect to guns, and more onerous, the ability to hold accountable in a court of law for anyone other than the governor against gun manufacturers, sellers, by the citizens of Georgia. Now tell me how the right to sue being eliminated has anything to do with a right to bear arms?

Further, resisting the federal money for expansion has not only left hundreds of thousands uninsured, but blows a big hole into the state budget unnecessaraly. I mean how is that even fiscally responsible? So while you holler about your rights, it would behoove you to recognize the rights of your fellow citizens as well.

More than half the citizens want nothing to do with guns, don't care, but we all want to be safe, and secure, while enjoying the fruits of the country we live in. This is the lunacy and hypocrisy of the conservative plan of action, you think you can pick who deserves the rights you hold precious, and who doesn't.

Doesn't work that way. Its "Liberty, and justice for all", not just your like minded buddies.

I fail to see they have the right to legislate murder by gun. Governments exist to preserve order not create opportunity for mayhem. You need to examine why the right to bear arms exists, it is directly associated with military service, but this is conveniently forgotten. The right to bear arms has been continually expanded which suggests the government has abdicated it's responsibility to protect its citizens. You have more police forces than any other nation and yet you demand arms to keep order. Don't you see that something is wrong, you have a self fulfilling prophesy

Absolutely incorrect. The right to bear arms did not come from government service. It originated from the right to self defense against among other things ,a goverment that would oppress. It is no small coincidence that the Revolution began with the Brit attempt to disarm the colonials.

No, you have a natural right to defend yourself, not a God given right.
a distinction without a difference.

a distinction without a difference.

Nonsense. I went through that ages ago with you. The whole idea of the Enlightenment , Locke and the Founders was to make that very distinction.

Perhaps a caption can better comment:

45958

Back to the facts of the subject about Georges law (Thanks Cats for putting in the link so it can be READ), because imbedded into the law is a prohibition of localities to govern their own communities with respect to guns, and more onerous, the ability to hold accountable in a court of law for anyone other than the governor against gun manufacturers, sellers, by the citizens of Georgia. Now tell me how the right to sue being eliminated has anything to do with a right to bear arms?


Where are you reading this? It says no such thing. I looked through section 1-9 starting at line number 659.

It just defines how it is to take place and doesnt remove any rights from its citizens.

Direct from the law as posted:

(2) The authority to bring suit and right to recover against any weapons, firearms, or
679 ammunition manufacturer, trade association, or dealer by or on behalf of any
680 governmental unit created by or pursuant to an Act of the General Assembly or the
681 Constitution, or any department, agency, or authority thereof, for damages, abatement,
682 or injunctive relief resulting from or relating to the lawful design, manufacture,
683 marketing, or sale of weapons, firearms, or ammunition to the public shall be reserved
684 exclusively to the state. This paragraph shall not prohibit a political subdivision or local
685 government authority from bringing an action against a weapons, firearms, or
686 ammunition manufacturer or dealer for breach of contract or express warranty as to
687 weapons, firearms, or ammunition purchased by the political subdivision or local
688 government authority.

Nonsense. I went through that ages ago with you. The whole idea of the Enlightenment , Locke and the Founders was to make that very distinction.

Tom,let me briefly go through it yet again.

Natural rights are those right that are inalienable. They are the rights man naturally acquired while living in a society that was prior to there being any institutional arrangements. Locke called this living in a state of nature.In other words, prior to there being any sort of social contract.

Tom,let me briefly go through it yet again.

Natural rights are those right that are inalienable. They are the rights man naturally acquired while living in a society that was prior to there being any institutional arrangements. Locke called this living in a state of nature.In other words, prior to there being any sort of social contract.

Locke's theories are all well and good . But I also strongly believe in Aquinas's view that natural law is an aspect of divine providence.

Locke's theories are all well and good . But I also strongly believe in Aquinas's view that natural law is an aspect of divine providence.


That's fine, but Aquinas wasn't an Enlightenment thinker. Locke, Madison, Jefferson et al. were

They may have been enlightened thinkers but practical reality limited them in there time giving such a narrow view of there on world. Those enlightened thinkers of the day still held that rights and freedom only belonged to those they bestowed it on and set limits, BY LAW, to exclude specific others from having full protection under the law.

Their enlightenment only went as far as their own self interests. That hardly follows a divine path, and indeed was less than the others that were not so divine. Their thinking was more entitlement than enlightenment and served their own self interests. They in effect didn't give up a damn thing for the greater good except guarantee their own power and influence. Obviously that was their intention in the first place.

Tal ,the enlightenment thinkers said that all rights are endowed by a creator and are universal. Locke ,Jefferson were not acting on anything that could be defined as self interest ...instead .. Jefferson and all the founders put it all on the line for their beliefs and their country . Had they lost ,the hangman await.

At the time the only endowment of rights by the creator only extended to landed white guys. That's not self serving?

Few of us escape our time and place. Jefferson knew slavery was wrong ,but also knew there was no hope of uniting the nation if slavery was abolished in the states during his times ..(and yes he lacked the moral character and courage to do what he knew was right regarding his own ). He also predicted that slavery would be abolished within a generation because the youth of America had had "sucked in the principles of liberty as if it were their mother's milk."

I'll say it again .... all the founders risked their lives ,liberty ,and fortunes in the Revolution. They could've easily sat it out as many Americans of wealth did . (and not all the founders were landed rich guys either .... Samuel Adams had to borrow clothing to attend the Continental Congress.

More proof the private citizen needs MORE guns...not fewer.

This just screams civil rights violation...............




https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/more-right-wing-lunacy-790335-5.html#post3644171.

Springdale Arkansas Police Recruitment Video Shows Cops in Military-Style Ghillie Suits

Posted on April 25, 2014 (http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/04/25/springdale-arkansas-police-recruitment-video-shows-cops-military-style-ghillie-suits/) by Paul Joseph Watson (http://www.dcclothesline.com/author/paul-joseph-watson/)
Disturbing sign of militarization of domestic law enforcement


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smqZ108ZwAo&feature=player_embedded
A recruitment video for the Springdale Police (http://www.dcclothesline.com/tag/police/) Department in Arkansas shows cops dressed in military (http://www.dcclothesline.com/tag/military/)-style ghillie suits armed with sniper rifles emerging out of the ground.
This suit is only usually worn by hunters and soldiers in order to evade detection when targeting prey or a dangerous enemy.
Just who is the Springdale Police Department planning on hunting? This is yet another disturbing sign of the increasing militarization of domestic law enforcement (http://www.dcclothesline.com/2013/08/20/dangerous-trend-of-increasing-militarization-of-u-s-police/).

*********************
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison (http://www.dcclothesline.com/tag/prison/) Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News (http://www.dcclothesline.com/tag/news/).
http://www.dcclothesline.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/ghillie-suit-2-600x450.jpg (http://www.dcclothesline.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/ghillie-suit-2.jpg)

I am not slamming your sacred heroes just recognizing that they had to deal with the situation as it was. As do we now have to deal with the situation as it is. And right now fringe loony's, be they Christian, Muslims, or atheists are the enemy of a free people everywhere, and dangerous with a loaded gun in their hands.

be they Christian, Muslims, or atheists are the enemy of a free people everywhere, and dangerous with a loaded gun in their hands.

I don't recall seeing many Christians flying planeloads of people into buildings. The last atheist I recall with anything loaded other than their mouth was Guy Fawkes. At least not self-professed. Jihadis, yes, are a danger because they preach barbarism.

I am not slamming your sacred heroes
Sure sounds like it to me .

Their thinking was more entitlement than enlightenment and served their own self interests. They in effect didn't give up a damn thing for the greater good except guarantee their own power and influence. Obviously that was their intention in the first place.

Just pointing out the start of the truly entitled class of this country. They still exist and even have the temerity to vilify others if they dare to intrude on their exclusive domain. More to the subject, Georgia didn't close any gun show loopholes. Nor provide for detection or enforcement.

Georgia sees what's happening over in Arkansas with the Jack booted thugs parading as Police officers that think they are training for a Guerilla war that hasn't happened... but perhaps the Emporer intends to not leave his post and that's why all the ammunition purchaces and why the so-called "protectors" are dressing and training for some foreign war they aren't ever going to participate in... unless they are planning on having one against American citizens.

I think the governor and the representatives of Georgia are more interested in kissing the boots of the NRA than actually protecting it's citizens. It is election season, and he was lousy during the snow storm.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2014 - Georgia Governor - Deal vs. Carter (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/governor/ga/georgia_governor_deal_vs_carter-3461.html#polls)

2nd amendment stuff plays well in Georgia.

THe NRA actually does have the PEOPLE in their interests..and unlike people like George Soros and those on his payrol...the NRA gets its money from the real Americans, the gun grabbers are not true Americans. They first want to disarm the population, then take away the rest of the rights when they are certain nobody car fight back.

They first want to disarm the population, then take away the rest of the rights when they are certain nobody car fight back.

That's how it's always worked in the past.

Please elaborate Cats, because the English and Australians don't have issues with not having guns, and most other countries aren't worried about the black helicopters or dictators either. Why do we have such fear of another Hitler? So far we have only had a problem with isolationists, and criminals so to be frank the fear of your own government is a ginned up excuse not to obey the law.

Hi tal you make a good point, only in the US does this paranoia exist. Admittantly your society does appear to be more violent than ours but the use of firearms is as likely to get you dead as protect you. If guns protected you, you would not have so many gun related deaths each year. I get the point that in the past you had a very dangerous environment, perhaps more dangerous than ours and the need existed, but now you see the dangers as even greater because the restraint has gone.

What we have demonstrated successfully is you don't need an armed population to have a peacfull population and you don't need an armed population for a peaceful handover of power after elections, and you don't need an armed population to have a low body count

Gee... I seem to remember my parents generation having to bail out BOTH those countries. Both of which actually never had any constitutional right to arm themselves for self protection.


Incidentally the UK crime rates are way too high for them to be prancing around claiming to be "safe". Lack of a gun isn't a deterant to criminals to commit crimes....they use knoves, clubs, explosives, battery acid....anything else that can cause bodily harm.

I hardly think Austrailia is crime free either.

Please elaborate Cats, because the English and Australians don't have issues with not having guns, and most other countries aren't worried about the black helicopters or dictators either. Why do we have such fear of another Hitler? So far we have only had a problem with isolationists, and criminals so to be frank the fear of your own government is a ginned up excuse not to obey the law.

Uganda, Myanmar, China, Cuba, the Soviet Union, and yes, Nazi Germany: all disarmed their citizenry prior to the genocides in those countries. Mexico is now run by drug lords, thanks to a disarmed populace.
Gun Facts and Quotes (http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/gun_facts.html)

Gee... I seem to remember my parents generation having to bail out BOTH those countries. Both of which actually never had any constitutional right to arm themselves for self protection.


Incidentally the UK crime rates are way too high for them to be prancing around claiming to be "safe". Lack of a gun isn't a deterant to criminals to commit crimes....they use knoves, clubs, explosives, battery acid....anything else that can cause bodily harm.

I hardly think Austrailia is crime free either.

What is it you thought you were bailing us out from while you sat on your duffs and watched. You entered both wars as a matter of convenience because you were attacked so don't give us that bail you out crap. you did what you did because it suited you. Your help was gratefully received at the time but you would have let us go to hell in a hand basket if it suited you, oh saviour of the world

As far as weapons in general are concerned yes a frenzied mind will use anything but if you don't provide them with the expedience of a gun our experience is that less people get hurt. Australia is not crime free but the incidence of violent crime is much lower than in the US, this is documented, also gun related crime is rare and associated with the criminal classes. You have exported your problems all over the world but we resist

Please elaborate Cats, because the English and Australians don't have issues with not having guns, and most other countries aren't worried about the black helicopters or dictators either. Why do we have such fear of another Hitler? So far we have only had a problem with isolationists, and criminals so to be frank the fear of your own government is a ginned up excuse not to obey the law.

Maybe you havent been keeping up with the news lately. Let me run some of it down in short form. Since the Libs have taken over and managed to run roughshot over the constitution and seem to think they ARE the higher power and know whats best for the great unwashed. It tends to make people nervous. That is why so many are so diligent and vocal today about our government. Do you really think that they (the government) knows better how to run your life then you do?

From Wikki:
For some scholars[who? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words)], a dictatorship is a form of government that has the power to govern without the consent of those being governed (similar to authoritarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism)), while totalitarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism) describes a state that regulates nearly every aspect of the public and private behavior of its people. In other words, dictatorship concerns the source of the governing power and totalitarianism concerns the scope of the governing power. In this sense, dictatorship (government without people's consent) is a contrast to democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy) (government whose power comes from people) and totalitarianism (government controls every aspect of people's lives) opposes pluralism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralism_(political_philosophy)) (government allows multiple lifestyles and opinions).

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


Libs want to fit people into boxes because once boxed in it is much easier to control. Think about that with all this stuff going on that is suppose to be good for you and really isnt.

What is it you thought you were bailing us out from while you sat on your duffs and watched. You entered both wars as a matter of convenience because you were attacked so don't give us that bail you out crap. you did what you did because it suited you. Your help was gratefully received at the time but you would have let us go to hell in a hand basket if it suited you, oh saviour of the world

As far as weapons in general are concerned yes a frenzied mind will use anything but if you don't provide them with the expedience of a gun our experience is that less people get hurt. Australia is not crime free but the incidence of violent crime is much lower than in the US, this is documented, also gun related crime is rare and associated with the criminal classes.


You'd be speaking Japanese today... and the UK would be speaking German if we had stayed out of that war. If Obama was president then... he would have been appologizing to Michinomiya Hirohito for being attacked. And would have told Adolf Hitler...he would have more 'flexibility" after the elections.

Do you really think that they (the government) knows better how to run your life then you do?

.

the point of government, which seems to escape you, is to govern, which involves bringing about change to address social issues. I know some people hate change particularly if it comes with personal cost but inevitably we all have to accept change, it is part of life. Now you can go kicking and screaming with a "they will never take my freedom away" or you can embrace what is happening and work constructively to make it better. In a democracy things happen which we don't like and we get the opportunity to register our disgust at the ballot box. The point of not having an armed population is abundantly clear in the Ukraine right now, they have failed to embrace change and the gun rules

You'd be speaking Japanese today... and the UK would be speaking German if we had stayed out of that war. If Obama was president then... he would have been appologizing to Michinomiya Hirohito for being attacked. And would have told Adolf Hitler...he would have more 'flexibility" after the elections.

The Japanese were never going to invade Australia, they only had a couple of regiments in Papua New Guinea and I seem to remember that Hitler never actually invaded England long before you came into the war. Australia had one million military personnel in WWII and was the sixth largest armed force engaged in the conflict

You believe what you want about Obama, maybe he is like Neville Chamberlain, you do get them. You keep telling yourself those lies and live in past glories. Having an armed population didn't protect you from the Japanese, it doesn't even protect you from the mexicans

the point of government, which seems to escape you, is to govern, which involves bringing about change to address social issues. I know some people hate change particularly if it comes with personal cost but inevitably we all have to accept change, it is part of life. Now you can go kicking and screaming with a "they will never take my freedom away" or you can embrace what is happening and work constructively to make it better. In a democracy things happen which we don't like and we get the opportunity to register our disgust at the ballot box. The point of not having an armed population is abundantly clear in the Ukraine right now, they have failed to embrace change and the gun rules

I know what government is suppose to be doing. But the point of what I wrote is about what this government isnt doing for the people and only for itself and its croneys. The libs want to label what the dont agree with and smear with name calling tactics until they pitch such a hissy fit they get their way. They are also giving away money at record levels and still not working toward the common good. They are attempting to strip away the constitution and mold it to their political needs. The list is endless.

being on the wrong side of politics is maddening, we all experience it from time to time. Right now in this nation we are trying to undo the problems created by a left wing government so we understand the angst, however we must also understand that government only does these things because it had the support of the majority at least part of the time

If you had a system where compromise rather than obstructionism was a tool then you might achieve more but in a polarised electorate all you have is emotive issues

The Japanese were never going to invade Australia, they only had a couple of regiments in Papua New Guinea and I seem to remember that Hitler never actually invaded England long before you came into the war. Australia had one million military personnel in WWII and was the sixth largest armed force engaged in the conflict

You believe what you want about Obama, maybe he is like Neville Chamberlain, you do get them. You keep telling yourself those lies and live in past glories. Having an armed population didn't protect you from the Japanese, it doesn't even protect you from the mexicans

Tell that to the people in states that border the Mexican border... I think they would find trouble in that statement. Because where those illegals go... crime follows.

We had 12,209,238 military personnel in WW2 to your 1 million (assuming that's a rough number)

The National WWII Museum | New Orleans: Learn: For Students: WWII by the Numbers: US Military (http://www.nationalww2museum.org/learn/education/for-students/ww2-history/ww2-by-the-numbers/us-military.html)

THe Japanese war machine and the German one both would not have been brought to an end without our being there. THe Germans basically overran Europe and North Africa.. and would have overran the UK without our help.

THe Japanese basically had the run of the Pacific Theater in the beginning too. They were knocking on your door.

http://x3.fjcdn.com/comments/Vietnam+War+I+m+pretty+sure+this+is+about+the+Japa nese+_e32080f59a02746d1451c9105c50479f.jpg

The first defeat the Japanese faced on land was at Milne Bay, we were lucky but nevertheless they weren't in sufficent numbers to prevail so much for run of the theatre, there is such a thing as over confidence and extending your lines too far, a lesson the British learned in Malaya and sadly so did we. the Japs had what they wanted the oil fields in the dutch east indies.

I'm not saying greater numbers wern't needed for victory although in Europe, left to the task, the soviets would have eventually prevailed. Hitler forgot you need more than guns to win a war. It was a world war for a reason but it was a world war before you got there. If the Japanese hadn't made the mistake of attacking you, you would have sat on your duff a little longer, but MacArthur having his butt kicked in the Phillipines would have brought you in without Pearl Harbour. The Japanese didn't fear your armed population they feared your aircraft carriers

The Japanese didn't fear your armed population they feared your aircraft carriers

Actually, they were concerned with OUR logistics capabilities, as Admiral Yamamoto so succinctly put:
Anyone who has seen the auto factories in Detroit and the oil fields in Texas knows that Japan lacks the national power for a naval race with America. (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/i/isorokuyam610905.html)
Isoroku Yamamoto (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/i/isorokuyam610905.html)

As far as the armed populace:
You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass. (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/i/isorokuyam610904.html)
Isoroku Yamamoto (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/i/isorokuyam610904.html)

The Japanese Navy proposed creating bases on Australia's Northern Pacific region. They instead decided to isolate Australia by occupying South Pacific islands. The fear of a Japanese invasion was real enough however and explains Aussie's alliance with the US .

The Japanese decided to attack south instead of north against Russia after they got their a$$es whupped at Khalkhin Gol by Soviet tank commander Zhukov .
The decision by the Japanese to go south allowed Zhukov to use all his resources in the defenses of Lenigrad and Moscow .

Come on, Tom, Australia was a convenient staging post in the South Pacific, Yes after Britian showed it's true colours and the US entered the war we became allies in the war against Japan, prior to that you could care less about us and were prepared to sacrifice northern Australia once Generalissimo McAthur got here. I doubt Japan ever intended to take on Russia, even though they were an old enemy, the Japanese followed the idea of fighting the battles you could win, their one mistake was to bring the US into the war

I know what government is suppose to be doing. But the point of what I wrote is about what this government isnt doing for the people and only for itself and its croneys. The libs want to label what the dont agree with and smear with name calling tactics until they pitch such a hissy fit they get their way. They are also giving away money at record levels and still not working toward the common good. They are attempting to strip away the constitution and mold it to their political needs. The list is endless.

That's a rather broad statement, which may be inaccurate on its face as it pertains to the name calling which started 5 years ago and droned on incessantly since from the right, no matter the issue, and the court loses sustained not only in state courts as well as federal and national, and the evidence certainly points to error in the conservative interpretation of the constitution.

Afraid your feelings don't accurately reflect the facts and conservative policy is NOT shared by a majority of the American people as reflected by the last election cycle. That may change in the next cycle but for now seems all you got on the right is hype and rhetoric that hasn't turned into sufficient majority votes.

Just saying your view on the intent of ancient man (the founding fathers) is as skewed as you say ours is. Your notions on the common good differs greatly from ours, obviously.

check out the battle of Khalkhin Gol .It was annihilation. Yes the Japanese orginally planned to take on Russia. Germany begged them to do so ;but they had gotten their tail's whipped in 1939. Politically, the Japanese military was always divided between the Northern Expansion Doctrine (in which the Japanese Empire would expand north into Siberia) and the Southern Expansion Doctrine (in which the Japanese Empire would instead focus on South-East Asia and the greater Pacific). Their defeat at Khalkhin Gol discredited the Northern Expansion Doctrine.

Had a look at the record Tom, the Japanese army in Manchuria acted independently and obviously underestimated soviet strength. the doctrine you speak of was a local military plan, not the idea of the imperial planners. What that battle did was to get a pact between the soviets and Japan which freed both for other theatres. Big difference between 1939 and 1941 and what it did do was cause the Japs to take on the US and Britain. I think they actually did the Russians a favour by allowing them to perfect their tactics. In the big picture of WWII it was really the opening shots

and what it did do was cause the Japs to take on the US and Britain.
I think that's what I've been saying . To go with a Southern Doctrine meant that a clash with the US was inevidible . Reading a good book now on the topic Called 'Japan 1941 Countdown to Infamy ' by Eri Hotta . It explores the logic of the Pearl Harbor attack from the Japanese leadership perspective.

In the big picture of WWII it was really the opening shots The Japanese war in China was really the opening shots ....although it could be argued that the die was cast with Teddy Roosevelt's diplomatic mistakes( encouraging Japanese imperialism) .

the name calling which started 5 years ago and droned on incessantly since from the right,

Been going on a lot longer than that.

Washingtonpost.com Special Report: Clinton Accused (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/hillary012898.htm)

The whole name calling bit has a long and storied history in politics.

When politics were truly ugly: Jefferson vs. Adams » Opinion » The Edmond Sun (http://www.edmondsun.com/opinion/x2039223485/When-politics-were-truly-ugly-Jefferson-vs-Adams)


conservative policy is NOT shared by a majority of the American people as reflected by the last election cycle.

Yet the cycle previous to that showed that conservative policy was precisely what the electorate wanted.

US midterm election results herald new political era as Republicans take House | World news | theguardian.com (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/nov/03/us-midterm-election-results-tea-party)

As the meme says: "When the right showed their true colors, we voted in the left. When the left showed their true colors, we voted in the right." Or maybe I got that reversed.

As the meme says: "When the right showed their true colors, we voted in the left. When the left showed their true colors, we voted in the right." Or maybe I got that reversed.You got it right. It's an endemic problem in both parties. They tell you what you want to hear during the election campaign, once in they then proceed to do the bidding of those that line their pockets. They retire rich people and live lavish lifestyles... you don't get that luxury.

That's a rather broad statement, which may be inaccurate on its face as it pertains to the name calling which started 5 years ago and droned on incessantly since from the right, no matter the issue, and the court loses sustained not only in state courts as well as federal and national, and the evidence certainly points to error in the conservative interpretation of the constitution.

Afraid your feelings don't accurately reflect the facts and conservative policy is NOT shared by a majority of the American people as reflected by the last election cycle. That may change in the next cycle but for now seems all you got on the right is hype and rhetoric that hasn't turned into sufficient majority votes.

Just saying your view on the intent of ancient man (the founding fathers) is as skewed as you say ours is. Your notions on the common good differs greatly from ours, obviously.

Enlighten me on some of the facts that I seem to be missing out on. I dont recall all the labels being made before libs started screaming them just because a person has an opposing veiw. This push on health care is much to do about nothing when you consider that most of the people that have it can't afford to get sick and now are out monies that could have been used for actual health care. Remember those shovel ready jobs?

I let the facts speak for itself. Im not into sugar coating it or trying to change it afterwards. We still have record unemployment going on. We still have a housing crisis. We still are spending money way beyond what we take in.

yes it is difficult to cut the cloth when your policies don't fit, I expect China looked like a good idea once to counter the Russians, not such a good idea now, still you still have India and Pakistan to exploit next. You should take a leaf out of the chinese book and build public housing, toll roads and beautiful bridges

You should take a leaf out of the chinese book and build public housing, toll roads and beautiful bridges

Been there, done that.


Public Housing: Home - The Cabrini-Green Projects (http://cabrini-green.com/)

Toll Roads:The I-95 Exit Guide | Highway, Bridge and Tunnel Tolls (http://www.i95exitguide.com/tolls/index.php)

Beautiful bridges: Bridge to nowhere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridge_to_Nowhere)


Just about got the sky cleaned up from doing it. Still working on the water.

ah but you have to admire the chinese scale, it takes care of unemployment and provides growth, but it costs money. they have mortgaged their future and it may work out for them

THey use their complete lack of safety in the workplace as a form of population control. How many CHinese workers die per day during a major construction project? Nobody cares so records aren't kept.

But you are different full of concern for the individual

Yeah... damn my western values.

re toll roads .. The emperor is opening the door to tolling the interstate system. They used to fund the highway system with gas taxes. But as fuel efficiencies increased ,they are finding that the funding comes up short. So now they are looking for more creative ways. With the advent of EZ PASS ,they can toll just about anything .

as a comment because I don't have personal experience of your road system, tolls are a effective way of providing inferstructure, (user pays principle) and as long as toll roads are maintained at a high standard and reasonable price they are cost effective for the motorist reducing transit times and fuel consumption. In China toll roads are used as a control mechanism as every journey is logged and every intercity journey is taxed, it's a thought, no need for the NSA to spy

here in NY the toll system is oppressive. An independent trucker can pay a toll of up to $102 /per trip across the George Washington Bridge from New Jersey to NYC .

For me to travel from the Hudson Valley to Long Island takes . $26 dollars to cross over the George Washington Bridge and the Throgs Neck Bridge . If you travel the full length of the NY Thruway (an interstate road ) ,you pay another $25 . NY City has some bridges across the East River and Harlem River that were toll free. But they are experimenting now with using cameras to record the cars crossing ,and then they submit a bill through the mail . So now it cost $5 to cross the Henry Hudson Bridge. I'm sure once they iron out the details ,the rest of the bridges will be similarily tolled.
NYC voted down Nanny Bloomy's idea to charge congestion toll rates in down town Manhattan. But I'm sure that plan aint off the table yet.

Well our tolls arn't as impressive as yours and our toll roads work well with the drawback that you need to possess an E-tag to use them economically. Not fun for long distance travellers who can't join in. One thought though, with tolls like that it is no wonder your economy is sluggish that is an extortinate level of extra taxation

indeed . Thousands of trucks have to cross the bridges to get in and around NYC daily . The toll cost get passed on to the cost of doing business which in return gets passed on to the consumer.

and your point is. just think if they used rail they could avoid the cost

Ever been to Manhattan? It's a LOT bigger than you think. And rail access into it isn't a viable option, what rail exists is the subway... designed for moving people not the merchandise and materials needed for the area. You still have to move the product to the end user. Without trucks... it would be a ghost town inside a week.

No I haven't had the pleasure, but that's what you get for putting a major city on a island. I understand Manhatten is large even the street numbering system tells you that. Given the volume those trucks must gridlock your transport system, look Sydney isn't much better, it might as well be on an island, it is actually on a peninsula so I understand the problem

For grins... the World trade center site in lower Manhattan to Central park might take you an hour or more to walk one way and you would be feeling it after you did. I've done it once... I took the subway the next time. Which actually is not very hard to figure out.

I've only been there three times......I figure thats enough to last me for the rest of my life.

Yep all big cities are like that