[Skell]

Skell-

I remember the debates over the gun ownership issue with Elliot. I think both sides of he argument was in-depth and presented very well. You're correct in that ideally the removal of all guns would solve a lot of the violence. However it is not practical for the US. At this point and time of our country's history asking people to turn over their guns would never would be enough. Perhaps a small percentage under a pay for fire-arms tax deduction after appraisal, but nothing near enough. Even if the government ordered the military to help out the local police forces in trying to remove fire-arms that would only cause a civil disaster, numerous funeral, initiated both by citizens otherwise fit for society, and those gang or mafia ilk. It's just not practical here in the States. The government similarly once tried the same with the prohibition of alcohol and it just produced more body bags and underground speakeasies.

Thinking about it more and more I tend to agree, hence my final comment in the previous post regarding being too far down the gun path. It would appear that the practicalities of removing guns from the streets make it simply impossible. Indeed it was impossible here. However there is statistical evidence also down under here that shows a sharp reduction in gun violence since the inception of strict guns laws.

I would just like to see something more done over there to prevent the alarming rate of mass shootings and other gun related deaths. It is just so sad and from the outside looking in it appears that nothing proactive is being done.

[Skell]

And its funny Bobby you should mention alcohol. There is a bit of problem down under here at present with alcohol fuelled violence amongst youth. Reports suggest it is linked to binge drinking culture among young people. The local council where I am from has recently tightened licour licencing laws and are enforcing a 3am lock out of all inner city drinking premises. It has caused some heated debate. It will be interesting to see if it works. But at least something is being tried.

[BABRAM]

Almost all our convenient stores nationwide now ID you if you appear to be under the age of forty. It seems a bit extreme, but I'm sure it has saved some lives. Also having curfews especially in the larger cities is a step in the right direction. Where I live, in Las Vegas, we have a juvenile curfew ordinance.

[biggsie]

Could this be a three way race -- Most people don't like Mc Cain

Most people don't like Obama -- Most people don't like Clinton's

I don't think any of them can fix the problems of this country

[George_1950]

Could this be a three way race -- Most people don't like Mc Cain

Most people don't like Obama -- Most people don't like Clinton's

I don't think any of them can fix the problems of this country

I like this answer because it exposes a problem, sort of: this country wasn't created so that someone or anyone could come along and fix it; but just the opposite. We are so far down the road of socialism/fascism that we need some kind of overhaul, a diminution, of government. But what we have are the Dem/fascist candidates that promise 'more, more, more'; and the GOP candidate who may be sleepwalking and whose party has become effete. We are needing a return to first principles: Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; not cradle to grave security.

[ordinaryguy]

I like this answer because it exposes a problem, sort of: this country wasn't created so that someone or anyone could come along and fix it; but just the opposite.

What do you mean, "just the opposite"? Why do you think it was created?

We are so far down the road of socialism/fascism that we need some kind of overhaul, a diminution, of government.

Battle cry of the Reagan Revolution: "The Government can't solve the problem, the Government IS the problem." The present Administration is the bitter harvest of that "revolution".

But what we have are the Dem/fascist candidates that promise 'more, more, more';

Your use of the "/fascist" formulation is brilliant, rhetorically speaking.

and the GOP candidate who may be sleepwalking and whose party has become effete.

Effete Republicans? Surely you jest.

We are needing a return to first principles: Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; not cradle to grave security.

After enumerating the rights mentioned, the Preamble goes on to say:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men

This is the proper and necessary function of Government, the standard against which every political party doctrine or Executive Branch policy should be measured. By that standard, this Administration has been an abject failure, in my estimation.

The real issue here is what do we owe each other as members of a collective--a Nation, a People? Saying that the answer is "Nothing" simply won't do. Individuals DO benefit from collective action, and DO owe the body politic something in exchange for those benefits, starting with respect for the rights of others. There IS such a thing as GOOD government--one that is really delivers on the promise to "secure" those rights for every citizen.

[speechlesstx]

I would just like to see something more done over there to prevent the alarming rate of mass shootings and other gun related deaths. It is just so sad and from the outside looking in it appears that nothing proactive is being done.

Skell, I don't see it as a gun problem, I see it as a cultural problem - but that's another discussion. ;)

[speechlesstx]

ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper counts 8 "misremberings" by Bill Clinton on Evita's Bosnia trip:

From the Fact Check Desk: Former President Bill Clinton's Defense of His Wife's Bosnia Sniper-Fire Story

April 10, 2008 9:35 PM

Former President Bill Clinton offered this bit of revisionist history of his wife's Bosnia story in Jasper, Ind. today, one riddled with a veritable sniper fire of errors -- ones necessitating footnotes.

Watch the former President's misstatement-riddled explanation for his wife HERE.

"She took a terrible beating in the press for a few days," he said, per ABC News' Sarah Amos, "because she was exhausted at 11 o'clock at night (1) and she started talking about Bosnia and she misstated the circumstances under which she landed in Bosnia. (2)

"Did you all see all that? And oh, they acted like she was practically Mata Hari," he said -- referring to the Dutch exotic dancer accused by the French of spying for the Germans and executed by a firing squad during World War I -- "like she was making up all this stuff.

"And then the president of Bosnia said, 'Well, it was quite dangerous when she came, there were snipers in the hills all around,' (3) And then Gen. Wes Clarke, who was there trying to make the peace among the Bosnians, said 'Yeah, it was dangerous, let me remind you three of the Americans who were on my peace-keeping team were killed because they had to take a dangerous road 'cause they couldn't go the regular way.'

"And she had to go up into the cockpit with our daughter, in a bullet-proof area, and all the other people had to sit on their bullet-proof flak jackets (4) because it was dangerous. So she immediately (5) said 'OK, I misremembered that, they didn't cancel the welcoming ceremony, but it was pretty dangerous.' "

In Boonville, Ind. also today, he told a different version, saying his wife, "one time late at night (1) when she was exhausted, she misstated and immediately (5) apologized (6) for it, what happened to her in Bosnia in 1995. (7) Did y'all see all that? Oh, they blew it up. Let me just tell you.

"The president of Bosnia and Gen. Wesley Clark -- who was there making peace where we'd lost three peacekeepers who had to ride on a dangerous mountain road because it was too dangerous to go the regular, safe way -- both defended her because they pointed out that when her plane landed in Bosnia, she had to go up to the bulletproof part of the plane, in the front. Everybody else had to put their flak jackets underneath the seat (4) in case they got shot at. And everywhere they went they were covered by Apache helicopters.

"So they just abbreviated the arrival ceremony. Now I say that because what really has mattered is that even then she was interested in our troops. And I think she was the first First Lady since Eleanor Roosevelt to go into a combat zone. (8) And you woulda thought, you know, that she'd robbed a bank the way they carried on about this."

(1) Her most glaringly wrong telling of the tale, on March 17, 2008, was in the morning.

(2) She actually told versions of the story several times. (And none was at night.)

(3) In an e-mail to journalist Eric Jansson, former acting Bosnian president Ejup Ganic said "we didn't expect snipers," though, "we still believed that some positions on the hills were occupied by radical Serbs, so I was worried about the overall safety."

(4) Not according to the pilot Colonel William "Goose" Changose (Ret.), who said, "nobody under my watch has ever directed anyone to sit on their flak jackets. ... We do not direct people to sit on their flak jackets."

(5) It wasn't immediate at all -- it was 11 days later, first in an editorial board meeting with the Philadelphia Inquirer/Philadelphia Daily News, then later in a press availability.

(6) She never apologized.

(7) It was 1996, not 1995.

(8) He qualified it with "I think," but then-first lady Pat Nixon went to a combat zone in Saigon, Vietnam, in July

LOL, I wonder when Hillary is going to fire Bill from her campaign.

[svatnsdal]

All I can say is, no matter what country you're in, no political human can ever tell the truth! That's how they all get into power! They lie like crazy, they tell you what you want to hear, then when you vote them there, they do what they always wanted to.
I always think any human who believes a political person will never know the difference between the truth and a lie.

[loopy123]

How do you know when a polition is telling a lie??

Their lips move.