I've changed my mind : I'm for carrying guns...

[CougTek]

...So I can shoot all the motherfockers on our roads.

All those who don't know how to use they rear-view mirrors and cut my way when they drive 30 miles per hour slower ; all those bastards who don't care crossing full lines instead of waiting for hatched lines ; all those imbeciles who drives only during week-ends and who shouldn't be allowed to drive any day of the week anyway ; all the idiots who let ten cars space between them and the next in front of them, on the left way, during heavy traffic ; all the retards who follow you for a while, only to try to overtake you when you approach a slower vehicule and forcing you to shut off your cruise control ; all the sons-of-a-bitch who push in your ass and put pressure to overtake you, only to drive 2 miles/h slower than you do once they have passed, also forcing you to disengage your cruise control or to constantly play cats and dogs with them ; all the morons who slow down to [look for an accident on the other track/search in their purse/admire the landscape] and create a slowdown despite a low traffic volume ; all the tourists who don't realize that the left way is for those who want to drive faster than the middle/right way...and who stubbornly stay there no matter what you do to signal them that they have nothing to do on the left way.

To all of the above, I wish you only two things, coming together side by side from a trunked double-barel gun.

GET THE HELL OUT OF MY WAY AND LEARN HOW TO DRIVE YOUR F*CKING CAR BEFORE YOU COME BACK ON THE FREAKING ROADS AGAIN!!!

I won't be going to the grave without bringing some of those half-asses with me on the other side. If I'm going to Chicago next year, I swear I'm gonna help America by cleaning some those wastes off the road on the way back, once I'll have spent a bunch of $$$ at a weapon depot somewhere in the States.

[Mercutio]

1. What's in Chicago?
2. There really isn't a happy medium. You're either the guy who wants to go too fast or the guy who needs to get out of the way. Add to that the construction nightmare that starts in March and ends in October or November, and frankly I'm amazed we haven't added turrets to our vehicles already. :)

[CougTek]

1. What's in Chicago?
Should have said "Chicago area". If we ever do a kind of "Great Lakes area" meeting, I might come.

I'm not saying that people should all drive to the same speed, but people should behave according to the speed they want to drive. When I feel relax and I plan to drive around the speed limit, I keep the right and I look in my mirrors before changing lines. I'm also one of the chosen few who knows how to use the flashers on my car. I always try to be respectful towards people who are on a hurry. So when I need (or simply want) to drive faster, I expect the same from others. There are always morons (I remember eight this afternoon) who aren't very cooperative.

And autoban in North America (autoban is the name of highways deprived of speed limits in Germany) would be impossible because of the lack of discipline and basic driving know-how of the majority of our drivers. It infuriates me to see all those folks having driving licences.

[Santilli]

CT:
You may find that actually carrying a firearm adds a different perspective to driving, and life. Being able to follow through makes one more tolerant.
s

[Handruin]

I'll listen to hip hop sometimes, and I know it won't cure your thirst for a double barrel shot gun, but this song helps me out when I encounter those extremely frustating drivers:

Ludacris: Move Bitch (http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Move-Bitch-lyrics-Ludacris/87E62DEB28DC865648256B22002E9710)

[sechs]

As a self-professed poor driver, I see people who are worse drivers than me. I find that very worrying.

Unfortunately, statistics have shown that if you bring a weapon into a situation, its just about as likely to be used against you as by you. And even more likely to be involved in some kind of accidental death or injury.

In the future, just take the train (or whatever mass transit fits you).

[Pradeep]

As a self-professed poor driver, I see people who are worse drivers than me. I find that very worrying.

Unfortunately, statistics have shown that if you bring a weapon into a situation, its just about as likely to be used against you as by you. And even more likely to be involved in some kind of accidental death or injury.

In the future, just take the train (or whatever mass transit fits you).

Actually I believe the stats show that states that have introduced concealed carry have shown a marked drop in violent crime. More guns, less crime. You are more likely to die in a violent confrontation if you rent a house rather than the mere presence of a gun in there. Is there a risk? Sure. But there are also benefits.

That said, I definitely don't think Coug should carry caoncealed :)

[Fushigi]

Illinois actually passed a law that went into effect Jan 1 of this year. It states essentially that you can be pulled over for hovering in the left lane and keeping others from passing -- even if they're speeding. There are lots of conditions under which the law doesn't apply, though. Still, I've yet to see anyone obey it or see it enforced.

CougTek, if you ever make it to Chicagoland, let Merc or me know; we can get together for lunch or something. I'll drive. :lol: Growing up near the Indy Speedway, I drive like I lived at the track. That is, fast but safe. I use turn signals, yield to others when they want to pass, etc.

BTW, yielding to those who want to pass is only smart thinking. I mean, if there's a state trooper around the next curve, let him have the guy who wants to pass you so you can cruise on by...

[mubs]

You're my kinda guy, Fushigi. I drive like that too; fast, but safe. Many people don't seem to understand that at all, seeing it as a contradiction. When we got married and she started riding with me a lot, my wife used to stress out totally when I drove. Now she's relaxes completely, and nods off as well on longer drives.

There are too many people that drive slower than me but are magnitudes times more dangerous to themselves and others than I am. S. CA is pretty horrible when it comes to drivers; the test is a real farce. Buck wouldn't know; he seems lucky to be able to stay put in his idyllic little heaven. For most of my time here is S. CA, I've driven between 25k and 35k miles a year.

[time]

Actually I believe the stats show that states that have introduced concealed carry have shown a marked drop in violent crime. More guns, less crime. You are more likely to die in a violent confrontation if you rent a house rather than the mere presence of a gun in there.


After all, more consumption of hot chocolate is also associated with less crime and both are brought about by cold weather.

[Buck]

Buck wouldn't know; he seems lucky to be able to stay put in his idyllic little heaven.

Alas Mr. Mubs, not all of my customers visit the house. At times, I too must venture outside and hit the pavement; although I only put on about 15,000 miles a year.

I must also confirm that a good portion of drivers on the road should be prevented from driving. The lack of signaling a lane change, taking to long to make it through our desperately short green lights, chatting on the phone and not paying attention to your driving, along with a host of other driving woes drive me crazy. I have found that listening to soothing music, such as classical makes the experience less stressful. Whereas something more aggressive like Classic Rock just causes more plaque to flow through my veins.

[sechs]

Actually I believe the stats show that states that have introduced concealed carry have shown a marked drop in violent crime. More guns, less crime. You are more likely to die in a violent confrontation if you rent a house rather than the mere presence of a gun in there. Is there a risk? Sure. But there are also benefits.

To my knowledge, guns don't have a real bearing on the actual amount of crime, just what occurs. In some places where gun carrying has been introduced, people have been lulled into a false sense of safety -- and entered into more dangerous situations -- where they or someone else was inevitably killed or injured.

Canada has more guns than people, but has a lower violent crime rate. The United Kingdom has virtually no guns and has a lower crime rate.

[Santilli]

Hmmm. My understanding in Florida was that as soon as right to carry was passed, violent crime decreased. I believe it's the same with any other state, as well.

I also think it increases crime in states without right to carry laws.
I once did a study of violent crime liklyhood in different areas, using the FBI violent crime figures, and dividing by number of people in the area.

Oakland was a 1 in 14 chance every year, of violent crime. SF 1 in 17.
LA 1 in 19. SD 1 in 22.

Another trickle down effect is the more states with concealed carry, the more criminals flock to areas they are not likely to get shot in. Kalifornia comes to mind.

England's gun crime has been rising, since the laws stop the law abiding criminals from getting guns, not the criminals.

Put simply, that's the problem with most gun laws.

More focus should be placed on catching criminals using guns, and not depriving law abiding citizens of their right to protect themselves.

By the way, just because you carry a gun, it doesn't mean you are immune from being stupid, and getting yourself into a dangerous situation you can't get out of. It does, however, reduce the number of situations that become dangerous, if you know what you are doing.

s

[sechs]

Great news. Most people are stupid and don't know what they're doing.

Is it better to protect people from the millions of stupid people, or protect people from the thousands of criminals?

[ddrueding]

I drove about 42k in the last 12 months, and about the same in the years before that. I used to be one of the faster cars on the road, all with complete safety and consideration. This includes signalling, waiting for cars to get out of the way without tailgaiting, and passing on the right only when they are being an absolute ass.

I have stepped back my driving habits lately, as my licence needs to lose about 10-15 points or so...

I recently was behind a car in the fast lane doing the speed limit on an otherwise empty road when I noticied a sticker on his bumper:

"Highway Pace Car" :evil:

This is my nemesis, those that go out of their way to enforce stupid laws on others simply for the sake of being an ass. I saw the opportunity and had to reason myself out of killing him at an oncoming guardrail.

I think the song that I most associate with road rage would be "Bad Habit" by Offspring


Hey man you know, i'm really ok
The gun in my hand will tell you the same
But when I'm in my car
Don't give me no crap
Cause the slightest thing and I just might snap

[mubs]

ddrueding, IIRC you're the guy that raced (going triple digits) a cute chick in a Mercedes on an interstate Fwy?

[Santilli]

Sechs:
The great thing about living now is we have tried the liberal, against the 2nd amendment crap, in many states, and it just hasn't worked. Crime has gone up.

Carry states, crime goes down. It's funny but if you really research accidential, or stupid shootings, the numbers are incredibly small.
For some reason, when people realize that a life is at risk with a gun, and they are accountable, 99.999% become very careful.

As much as our media trys to blow a few accidents out of proportion, they just aren't there. Firearms prevent, or minimize, potential crime, also.
I can think of 3 incidents in the last 10 years where I know the presence of a gun stopped a violent crime. I can also think of another that almost cost me my life, since I was unable to defend myself, as a guy, for no reason that related to me, pulled a Walther PPK/s and hit me over the head with it.

Try having your life at the whim of 3 drunk, cracked out assholes, mad at someone else, and mistakenly thinking you are the asshole's friend, and they want to take it out on you.

If you want to be helpless, and trust to their mercy, go right ahead.
s

[Santilli]

A conservative is a liberal that gets robbed.

[ddrueding]

ddrueding, IIRC you're the guy that raced (going triple digits) a cute chick in a Mercedes on an interstate Fwy?

Yup. Hwy 101 between San Francisco and Monterey; about 95 miles.

[Pradeep]

To my knowledge, guns don't have a real bearing on the actual amount of crime, just what occurs. In some places where gun carrying has been introduced, people have been lulled into a false sense of safety -- and entered into more dangerous situations -- where they or someone else was inevitably killed or injured.

Canada has more guns than people, but has a lower violent crime rate. The United Kingdom has virtually no guns and has a lower crime rate.

I don't know about Canada, but at least in the UK the rate of violent crime (non gun-related) is actually higher than the US. The rates for home invasions, assault etc is higher there, in the safe "gun-free" utopia many would try and advocate for the US. Cartridge-firing handguns have been banned there for years now, yet gun crime is at an all time high. The criminals have reign over the streets, and houses, of innocent and now unarmed UK'ians.

Plus if you happen to hurt one of the poor, defenseless criminals that might happen to accidentally break into your house in the middle of the night, chances are you would be going to jail, and the criminal would get a slap on the wrist and walk free. Same in Aus. At least in most of the US, the rights of the home-dweller are far more clear.

[time]

Bullshit. Even with the drop in US violent crime over the last three decades, rates are still 2.5 times higher than the UK. I checked.

The UK handgun ban came about because people were alarmed at the growing popularity. This is blamed on modern cultural influences, i.e. American, that glamorize guns and desensitize people about using them. The ban was an attempt to limit the supply; the five-year mandatory jail term for carrying is a rather crude attempt to limit the demand.

Gun laws have no hope in the US because:

a) there are already more than anyone could possibly want
b) they are only on a state by state basis. This is a joke.

The US already has nearly one in every 40 citizens in prison, so it's kinda tough to crack down even harder. :roll:

[sechs]

Unfortunately, we live in the United States of America, not the United People of America.

[Pradeep]

Bullshit. Even with the drop in US violent crime over the last three decades, rates are still 2.5 times higher than the UK. I checked.

The UK handgun ban came about because people were alarmed at the growing popularity. This is blamed on modern cultural influences, i.e. American, that glamorize guns and desensitize people about using them. The ban was an attempt to limit the supply; the five-year mandatory jail term for carrying is a rather crude attempt to limit the demand.

Gun laws have no hope in the US because:

a) there are already more than anyone could possibly want
b) they are only on a state by state basis. This is a joke.

The US already has nearly one in every 40 citizens in prison, so it's kinda tough to crack down even harder. :roll:

John Lott's work has held up fantastically well compared to the fraud that has been exposed from the like of "Dr" Kellerman etc. If you believe there can be no causal link between more guns and less crime, then you can't have it both ways and then argue that there is a link between less guns and less crime. Look, Australia had had a bunch of gun bannings in recent years. Yet the rate of violent crime continues to rise. Sure you are slightly less likely to be shot to death, but hey, guess what, now you are more likely to be stabbed/beaten etc. Yay. What a great win for a "safer Australia". When you start passing laws based on emotions and forget about any scientific basis/reasoning, then the country has lost out big time.

Actually the UK handgun ban was a knee-jerk reaction to the Dunblane massacre, in which a nutcase with a pistol permit killed I think 16 children and their teacher. Now that is a horrific thing, made even sadder by the fact the authorities had been repeatedly warned that the guy was unstable. They did nothing, and a massacre ensued. The same knee-jerk reaction that happened after Port Arthur when pretty much all semi rifles and shotguns were banned, and then again at Monash when two people were killed by a licensed pistol owner (how this guy who apparently couldn't speak a word of English passed the mandatory safety courses and became a member of a pistol club has still not been answered by Victoria Police). See in the UK and Australia the actions of one single person can affect the lives of millions of people. In the US there is a far greater onus on personal responsibility. If one person does something wrong, by all means prosecute him to the full extent of the law. But they don't penalise millions of law-abiding citizens at the same time.

I am glad that I now live in a country where States rights are not held up to financial blackmail as Little Johnnie Howard does all the freaking time to the states of Australia. "Do what I say or I'll be cutting your funding". Why bother having state governments at all if the PM can just run amok, willy nilly? Otherwise the people of Tas etc just get what is best for the people of Mel, Syd, and Brisbane, where most of the votes are. King John of Kirribili. *shivers* And don't get me started on the poor bastards in the Territories, how about the Feds overriding the people of the Northern Territory who decided to allow voluntary euthanasia.

There's a lot I love about Aus. The people, the beer, the controlled cost of prescriptions and Medicare (free healthcare for all). But I'm glad I left the growing socialism that pervades the governments.[/b]

[time]

John Lott's work has held up fantastically well compared to the fraud that has been exposed from the like of "Dr" Kellerman etc.
Sorry, I don't read this stuff. I'm guessing you read my earlier link where a professor of mathematics reviews Lott?


Sure you are slightly less likely to be shot to death, but hey, guess what, now you are more likely to be stabbed/beaten etc.
Fine by me. I definitely prefer my chances of survival after being beaten rather than shot.


Actually the UK handgun ban was a knee-jerk reaction to the Dunblane massacre, in which a nutcase with a pistol permit killed I think 16 children and their teacher.
Yes and no. The increase in gun crime had been worrying the populace for years, but governments always seize a moment in the public eye to act - same with Howard.


I am glad that I now live in a country where States rights are not held up to financial blackmail as Little Johnnie Howard does all the freaking time to the states of Australia. "Do what I say or I'll be cutting your funding". Why bother having state governments at all if the PM can just run amok, willy nilly? Otherwise the people of Tas etc just get what is best for the people of Mel, Syd, and Brisbane, where most of the votes are. King John of Kirribili. *shivers* And don't get me started on the poor bastards in the Territories, how about the Feds overriding the people of the Northern Territory who decided to allow voluntary euthanasia.
The Australian Commonwealth Government doesn't have the same power over states that the US Federal Government does. That's why they frequently resort to financial blackmail instead of just passing their own legislation. Of course, many people argue that State Governments in Australia should just be abolished, but like you, I fear the monolithic beaucracy that would ensue.


There's a lot I love about Aus. The people, the beer, the controlled cost of prescriptions and Medicare (free healthcare for all). But I'm glad I left the growing socialism that pervades the governments.[/b]
Well, you must have been living elsewhere for longer than I thought if you think there is free healthcare for all. :) And although I agree in principle with you, I'm far more concerned with the intrusive government of the States than the Feds - believe it or not. Look at the actions of Bob Carr and his cohorts, for example.

[Pradeep]

Well, you must have been living elsewhere for longer than I thought if you think there is free healthcare for all. :) And although I agree in principle with you, I'm far more concerned with the intrusive government of the States than the Feds - believe it or not. Look at the actions of Bob Carr and his cohorts, for example.

Well having seen the price of medical insurance in the US, Australia is definitely free by comparison. If my wife didn't get most of it paid by her employer, coverage for a family of four would cost us over US$600 per month. A reasonable morgage payment. That's still with a co-pay on prescriptions that could be up to $40 bucks for a 30 day supply. And $20 each time you see the doc.

I agree that the rise in gun crime was worrying the population, but taking guns out of the hands of the law-abiding who didn't commit crimes with them in the first place was a pure publicity stunt. Have you seen the organised crime shootings in Sydney recently? They are mowing each other down in the street in broad daylight! What will happen after all guns are banned from law-abiding citizens? What will be the next step? I know there are people that want to ban knives. God forbid you would want a knife in the kitchen or something. Think of the battered wives who would be saved if their drunken abusive husbands couldn't reach out to the knife on the kitchen counter. Anyway you get my point. To me a gun is a tool, just like a knife or a car or a golf club. It can be used for good or bad. Ban stupid people, not the tool.

The fact is you are far more likely to be injured/killed in a car crash than being the victim of a gun crime. Cars are designed to transport people, and yet they cause far more death and carnage than legally held guns, whose only purpose some would argue is to kill things. Anyway, here's to the Aussie Olympic shooting team, hope they have a good one in Athens this year :)

[sechs]

If you believe there can be no causal link between more guns and less crime, then you can't have it both ways and then argue that there is a link between less guns and less crime.

Actually, yes you can. Guns don't cause crime, but people without guns are less likely to commit a crime. Therefore, fewer guns leads to fewer crimes.

[Pradeep]

Criminals commit crimes, whether they have a gun or not. I've never opened up a gun case and suddenly the gun whispered to me *hey man, wanna rob a bank today*. There are people out there who can/do kill with their bare hands. The most dangerous weapon of all is the human mind. Would fewer guns in criminal hands reduce the number of criminal shootings? No doubt. Now common sense would seem to say that yes, less guns, no matter who owned them previously, would reduce gun crime. But as criminals don't follow laws in the first place, more draconian gun laws will not affect the number of criminals with guns, and gun crime. It's been shown in the UK, and in Australia. Real life results. Crime rate has far more to do with societal factors such as unemployment rate etc, than the number of guns in circulation.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

[sechs]

Is it easier to kill with your bear hands or a gun?

Guns can empower people to commit crimes that they otherwise would not.

[Santilli]

You really don't get it. The laws DO NOT AFFECT THE AVALIABILITY OF GUNS TO CRIMINALS.

THE LAWS SIMPLY LIMIT LAW ABIDING CITIZENS FROM HAVING GUNS.

S

[Mercutio]

I would contend that there are very few legitimate reasons for ANYONE to have a gun (unlike, say, a joint. Or a hooker). Having a gun == criminal?

Fine by me.

[sechs]

You really don't get it. The laws DO NOT AFFECT THE AVALIABILITY OF GUNS TO CRIMINALS.

THE LAWS SIMPLY LIMIT LAW ABIDING CITIZENS FROM HAVING GUNS.

S

I get it. In fact, I have it. I get it all of the time. You clearly do not know what "it" is.

If there are fewer guns to be had, then fewer guns are in the hands of criminals. Furthurmore, it's pretty obvious that, if a law-abiding citizen cannot have a gun of some type, and someone has such a gun, the someone is a criminal.

Also, what does a law-abiding citizen need (not want) a gun for?

[Pradeep]

[If there are fewer guns to be had, then fewer guns are in the hands of criminals. Furthurmore, it's pretty obvious that, if a law-abiding citizen cannot have a gun of some type, and someone has such a gun, the someone is a criminal.

Also, what does a law-abiding citizen need (not want) a gun for?

OK, let us assume that in Australia, there were for example 5 million gun owners. There were also 500,000 criminals who possesed guns (whether stolen, manufactured in a workshop, etc). The government then banned all guns from private ownership. 5 million law-abiding citizens handed their guns in for destruction (let us forget that somehow some of these guns that were handed in to police were later found in circulation on the street). It seems to me that there are still 500,000 criminals with guns walking around? I guess I must be missing something.

In the US (and other countries) criminals who want guns already have them. If we were at the Big Bang stage and no matter existed, perhaps we could have banned guns back then, and then you could be in a gun-free nirvana. But we aren't back there, and so we aren't gun-free.

Fortunately the Constitution doesn't require us to need a reason to possess a gun. Just the same as you don't have to show a need for free speech. They are both rights. Keep in mind that driving a car is a privilege. Do you really need a car? Can't take a bus? Think of the children....

[Pradeep]

Guns can empower people to commit crimes that they otherwise would not.

Guns can also empower potential victims to defend themselves when previously they would have been at the mercy of criminals.

[Santilli]

If there are fewer guns to be had, then fewer guns are in the hands of criminals. Furthurmore, it's pretty obvious that, if a law-abiding citizen cannot have a gun of some type, and someone has such a gun, the someone is a criminal.

There is this thing callled Mexico to our south. It also has no gun laws. Like America, only the police, and the criminals have guns. The criminals
help supply some of the biggest gangs that have existed in the United States with guns, and drugs. One gang, I think it's the 13's or something like that, has over 5 million members, in 13 states.
They supply both guns, and drugs, to those 5 million members. We can see how successful we have been at banning liquor, drugs, and guns.
Only the law abiding people don't have em.

These gangs are not going to go away, as long as incredible money is going to be made selling drugs, and now guns. You see if you ban guns, then they become a more valuable commodity, and you just make sure they will be imported from Mexico, or other locations.
There are well over 20 huge gangs, based in Mexico, that supply guns, drugs, people, prostitutes, anything you want.

We can't stop PEOPLE from illegally entering the country. What in the world makes you think we can stop PEOPLE with guns, or drugs? Guns are much smaller, lighter, and easier to conceall. Likewise drugs.
s

[Santilli]

OH yes.
Did I mention that if we catch these guys for drug, or gun violations we put them in Federal pens, or Pelican Bay.
Pelican Bay was designed to try and stop one of the heads of a giant Mexican gang, from running his operations from inside the prisons. It didn't work. His death was the only thing that stopped it.
All you end up with is the gangs being run from prisons, and, since most of the time our prosecutors fear for their lifes, and don't want to try the gang guys for the death penalty, the gang guys end up in prison, rich, and running the drug trade from their cells, with all their buddies, and the prisons along with it.

Did I mention that the gangs well out number our police? That the gang members will kill you, your family, the prosecutor, the judge,any police officers that testify, and their families, and as many jurors as neccessary to get off?

When you see a slashing, horrible murder, you can pretty much count on a Mexican mob trying to send a message to a competitor, purchaser that didn't pay, etc.

s

[Howell]

Is it easier to kill with your bear hands or a gun?

Guns can empower people to commit crimes that they otherwise would not.

You imply that moral people choose to commit crimes upon coming under the "empowering" influence of a firearm. This assigns way too much mystical power to the firearm. This is not "The One Ring" we are talking about.

The average criminal performs a basic risk assesment of a situation. If neither the criminal nor the victim has a firearm they are on equal footing. If either the criminal or the victim has a firearm the risk to the possessor goes down. If they both have firearms they are once again on equal footing.

Criminals still have criminal tendencies whether or not they decide it is in their best interests to at on them.

[sechs]

True. But there are non-criminals who have criminal tendencies, but never act on them. Guns clearly can be an enabler in these cases.

[Handruin]

True. But there are non-criminals who have criminal tendencies, but never act on them. Guns clearly can be an enabler in these cases.

Yes, but so can a bat, or a crow bar.

[ddrueding]

True. But there are non-criminals who have criminal tendencies, but never act on them. Guns clearly can be an enabler in these cases.

Yes, but so can a bat, or a crow bar.

...unless you are in a state where your victim may be carrying ;)

"Never bring a knife to a gun fight."

Unless you can convince the criminals to stop using guns, my application for a concealed weapon continues.

[Howell]

True. But there are non-criminals who have criminal tendencies, but never act on them. Guns clearly can be an enabler in these cases.

I submit that they are only still non-criminals because they have not yet commited a criminal act, by definition. :) And they have not commited a criminal act yet because the risk/reward ratio was not enough in their favor. The criminal tendency remains.

[Santilli]

Oh Great. Was it Hobbes that has such a similar low view of the human basic being?

s

[Mercutio]

That is correct.

[sechs]

And they have not commited a criminal act yet because the risk/reward ratio was not enough in their favor. The criminal tendency remains.

Right.

have gun -> lower risk -> criminal

no gun -> higher risk -> noncriminal

[Santilli]

Right.

have gun -> lower risk -> criminal

no gun -> higher risk -> noncriminal

Thank you for distilling the anti-Constitution group into a nut shell.
It's easy. Just reject everything the founding father's believed in, and tried to combat, and believe man is inherently evil, and you can justify your position.

Just such people were why people came to the Americas to escape such
beliefs.
s

[sechs]

My people didn't come to America, let alone to escape anything. Actually, it's more likely that *your* people took *my* people's land and then slaughtered them needlessly -- with guns no less. If that's combating what "our founding father's believed in," then I want no part of it.

Take your blinders off and look at the world. You might see something.

[Santilli]

Yes. I see some one that appears to want to discuss a topic, but doesn't really want to look at evidence, or another point of view.
Nor do they want to look at the 2nd amendment.
It's ok.
That's the nature of the country. If I believe in the First Amendment I have to put up with people who call themselves liberals, but whose actions and discussions resemble a more totalitarian group.

Thank God for this country, and the principles it was founded on.

s

[Santilli]

The history of mankind has been one people making war, and taking from another people, save sometimes, not, in this century.

Industry standard is to conquer others, and take what they have. It's been going on from the start of time. It started with rocks and spears, now it's guns, bombs, rockets, etc. Soon it will be lasers, etc. and no one will care about guns.

Yes, the atrocities of prior peoples, and centuries, are truly horrible when viewed with today's eyes.

Keep in mind that the only reason you can have these feelings and disscussions in this country is one, and only one reason: We have superior fire power, which enables us to protect our way of life, against all others, this last two centuries, at least. If not for that, we would still be an English, or french Colony, or speaking German, Japanese, or Italian.

Those guns you so despise are the reason you have the freedom you have in this country.

It must be difficult facing the fact that the freedom you have is created by something that you view as having taken away your ancestors freedom.

gs

[Howell]

Oh Great. Was it Hobbes that has such a similar low view of the human basic being?

s

Never heard of him. What's he all about?

[Howell]

The history of mankind has been one people making war, and taking from another people, save sometimes, not, in this century.

In this century more people have been killed by there own governments.

[mubs]

Question: Is something that was relevant 200 years ago still relevant today?

I ask because while the founding fathers were amazingly far sighted and brilliant beyond comprehension, they lived in a different time. I'm just raising the possibility that while guns were needed back then, they're not today, they're wanted.

[time]

I'm just raising the possibility that while guns were needed back then, they're not today, they're wanted.
This is a demonstrably true statement. There haven't been many of these, just mindless wordplays. Although one could argue that in the cities, the need was never there.

The frontier's long gone, folks. When will the NRA accept this? (Don't worry, it's a rhetorical question. ;))

[flagreen]

Well that raises an interesting point. Does the second amendment give us the right to bare arms? Or does it merely recognize our God given right to defend ourselves and attempt to protect us from government infringement upon that right?

As with of all of the first ten amendments (the Bill of Rights) the second amendment was drafted and ratified to protect us from the government. These ten amendments do not grant us any rights per se but rather protect us from government interference in the exercising of our rights as endowed us by our Creator.

Therefore how can government take a right away from us which does not emanate from government to begin with?

Rights which emanate from our Creator (or are basic "human rights" for you atheists out there) are timeless are they not?

[sechs]

The second amendment is about the ability of citizen-soldiers to have the tools that they need to do their jobs. It was specifically aimed stopping the federal government from disarming these people, as the British had done.

In a narrow construction, the second amendment does not say that everyone has the right to have a gun. It also does not stop the government from limiting what kinds of arms can be had or introducing a procurement process.

In my opinion, there are no basic rights. All rights are agreed upon by a society.

[time]

The history of mankind has been one people making war, and taking from another people, save sometimes, not, in this century.

Industry standard is to conquer others, and take what they have. It's been going on from the start of time. It started with rocks and spears, now it's guns, bombs, rockets, etc. Soon it will be lasers, etc. and no one will care about guns.
Well, we all needed that history lesson, didn't we boys and girls? :)


Yes, the atrocities of prior peoples, and centuries, are truly horrible when viewed with today's eyes.

I dunno. I think modern atrocities like dropping bombs that kill 100,000 innocent people are also truly horrible.


Keep in mind that the only reason you can have these feelings and disscussions in this country is one, and only one reason: We have superior fire power, which enables us to protect our way of life, against all others, this last two centuries, at least.

I could be picky and point out several things here - okay, let's do it! Firstly, there are plenty of countries with very little firepower who have managed to retain their way of life.

Secondly, the US did not have superior firepower for most of those two centuries. Japan and Germany did (except for the rise of the US Airforce in the latter stages of WWII), but they were fighting battles on several fronts and had been doing so for years before the US joined in. The British have practically never had superior firepower, but it didn't seem to discourage them much.

Thirdly, all that firepower counted for nought on 9/11/2001, and it's not achieving much in post-Saddam Iraq.


Those guns you so despise are the reason you have the freedom you have in this country.

It's not guns I despise ... Seriously, are your arguments so barren that you need to confuse military defense with neighbours shooting each other after one too many beers?

Some points: Criminals are not a different species. Anyone can become a criminal, but it sure doesn't mean they have a cache of guns. Apparently, one in six US citizens has a criminal record.

Gun control in the US is probably a lost cause, but that's not the case everywhere else. The very fact that converting replicas has become such a popular illegal cottage industry in the UK shows that the laws have had a very real impact on the availability of guns. In such countries, a principle source of guns for criminals is theft from law-abiding citizens. That's one reason people want to keep the numbers low.

As for guns creating crime, I can't see how they would increase the overall crime rate. What they can do is increase the severity of an attack to the point where someone loses their life.

If I was a mugger and there was a good chance my victim was carrying, I would be more likely to belt them over the head first and demand money later. And make sure I was tooled up as well, ready to shoot at the slightest provocation. I certainly wouldn't saunter up and politely wait for them to pull out a gun. :roll: Same deal with home invasions. You guys just watch too many movies.

The fact is, the problem with guns is a cultural one. They're considered acceptable to carry around and even to worship. A bit like cigarettes. There's an organized and noisy bunch of people who insist that there's nothing wrong with them, that it's their right to kill themselves and others.

This will hurt collectors and aficionados, but guns need to be considered socially unacceptable. Laws that make them illegal for most people help achieve that. Society hangs together because almost everyone fears the disapproval of others, whether it be their mom or a peer group of fellow drug dealers.

[flagreen]

sechs,

Well a reasonable argument can be made that militias are no longer needed. However I would point out that the Second Amendment ( A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed ) does indeed recognize that the right of the people to keep and bare arms does not emanate from this amendment but rather exists apart from it.

Further the Nineth Amendment ( The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people ) clearly acknowedges that the rights of the people do not emanate from the Constitution but rather are inherent.

[Howell]

The history of mankind has been one people making war, and taking from another people, save sometimes, not, in this century.

In this century more people have been killed by there own governments.

I left off part of my thought.

Far more people have been killed by their own government in the last century than in the rest of recorded history combined.

Certainly this speaks to the need of a populace to defend itself and is certainy relevant today.

[Howell]

In my opinion, there are no basic rights. All rights are agreed upon by a society.

So you disagree with the founders?

[mubs]

Therefore how can government take a right away from us which does not emanate from government to begin with?

sechs wrote:
In my opinion, there are no basic rights. All rights are agreed upon by a society.

So you disagree with the founders?

Jeeze! Are you guys saying "somebody", whether it's the Govt. or the founding fathers "gave" you your rights???

I'm totally with sechs on this one; "All rights are agreed upon by a society." Where did the founding fathers come from? Who does the Govt. represent?

[flagreen]

Jeeze! Are you guys saying "somebody", whether it's the Govt. or the founding fathers "gave" you your rights???

I'm totally with sechs on this one; "All rights are agreed upon by a society." Where did the founding fathers come from? Who does the Govt. represent?
No we are not saying that "somebody" gave us our rights. What we are saying is that we are born with them. And this is recognized by the Constiution.

[flagreen]

I'm totally with sechs on this one; "All rights are agreed upon by a society." Where did the founding fathers come from? Who does the Govt. represent?
The Government is a creation of the Constitution. The government represents the people.

While I respect your right and that of sechs to disagree with the idea of there being any inalienable rights which we are all born with, the Constiution is founded upon this principle. Therefore that is the way it is until we hold another constitutional convention when ever that may be.

[Howell]

inalienable (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=inalienable)


"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable 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 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." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315

TJ holds that the rights existed before the creation of the government. Is not government in other words society organized and codified?

Thomas Jefferson on Politics & Government (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff0100.htm)

[Santilli]

quote][/sechs wrote:
In my opinion, there are no basic rights. All rights are agreed upon by a society.


So you disagree with the founders?


Hobbes, again.

The argument about the validity of an 'old' document, like the founding fathers etc. pivots on one point, as does the belief in rights.

BELIEF IN GOD. Some of us believe the founders incapable of, at that time, coming up with such a document without Divine help. Hence it's
unlikely survival, over such a period.

Likewise, if you believe in God, as Thomas Jefferson did, but a very different God then most, one that gives us certain rights, prior to social contract, ala Rousseau.

If you don't believe in God, that man is a heathen animal, and is governed by instincts, with little free will, then the documents become 'old', useless, and the nature of man bad, therefore the views of
no rights, and protect us from ourselves.

Now, the God that you believe in, can affect your perception of the above, as well...

s

I'm kind of curious: what government killed more people then the Axis powers, combining world war I & II?

[quote]Well a reasonable argument can be made that militias are no longer needed. However I would point out that the Second Amendment ( A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed ) does indeed recognize that the right of the people to keep and bare arms does not emanate from this amendment but rather exists apart from it.

Further the Nineth Amendment ( The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people ) clearly acknowedges that the rights of the people do not emanate from the Constitution but rather are inherent.

It's difficult to swallow this if you don't believe in God.

No one has addressed the very real fact of our lack of control over our own borders, the results of prior prohibitions of alcohol, and, how much control do you guys want to give to the Mexican Mafia over our ability to control our own country?

This by the way, is a very big deal in law enforcement.

s

[mubs]

Thanks Howell. You said very well what I was trying to convey.

[sechs]

In my opinion, there are no basic rights. All rights are agreed upon by a society.

So you disagree with the founders?

In what sense? These were just a bunch of guys who agreed that people ought to have certain rights and called them inherent.

One should also remember that some of these men held other humans in involutary servitude. Not exactly that kind of people that anyone, these days, would choose to make their government for them.

[flagreen]

The ultimate intent of all rights whether inherent or otherwise is survival of the species. Hence it would seem to me that the right of self-defense would be on the same level as that of the right to pursue food, clothing, and shelter. Therefore any group of people attempting to establish the rights of the people must recognize such a fundamental right as that of the right to defend oneself.

[Mercutio]

So you disagree with the founders?

Is there anything wrong with disagreeing with them?

[Santilli]

In what sense? These were just a bunch of guys who agreed that people ought to have certain rights and called them inherent.

One should also remember that some of these men held other humans in involutary servitude. Not exactly that kind of people that anyone, these days, would choose to make their government for them.

Some of us believe people are more then just people, and, in certain situations can mirror their Creator.

I see why you have such a hard time with the concepts discussed by the founders.

s

[Santilli]

Try this as a baby step.

Can you believe that the group of the founders, putting their heads together, in disscussion, could come up with ideas better then anyone of them on their own, through the dialectic process?

I realize that's a difficult concept, because that requires LISTENING TO what someone else has to say. Obviously a difficult concept, and that their maybe other ideas then your own on the subject.

s

[Mercutio]

This might sound silly, but can we divorce the idea of guns from the notion of self-defence? I don't think I can defend myself with a gun, especially given all thing things that might, in theory, kill me. Things I couldn't shoot.

I certainly don't see guns as essential to protecting myself.

[Mercutio]

Try this as a baby step.

Can you believe that the group of the founders, putting their heads together, in disscussion, could come up with ideas better then anyone of them on their own, through the dialectic process?


Obviously there was "better" to be had. Slavery lasted another 100 years. African slaves were 3/5ths of a person. Women had no rights. And they weren't clear enough about the whole "well regulated militia" thing. There wasn't strong enough language WRT state's rights, so every time there's been a major socio-political change in this country, a bunch of backwards southern politicians stand up and start bitching about the 9th Amendment.

[sechs]

Some of us believe people are more then just people, and, in certain situations can mirror their Creator.

Maybe you could go on to explain how our "founding fathers" are somehow better than everyone else's? Perhaps you could also tell us how their "creator" is superior to anybody else's.

[mubs]

I'm itching to say many things, but won't. This argument is completely pointless. I should have followed the advice of the wise ones in a similar earlier thread and kept my trap shut.

[Santilli]

NO?
You mean you aren't going to convince us there is, or is not a God??

S

[timwhit]

WTF does god have to do with guns? I wish the US could do something like Canada and have low crime rates and lots of guns. I have nothing bad to say about hunting with guns.

It seems to me that gangs are far more to blame than guns are. Why are there over 600 murders a year in Chicago? Gangs. Gary? Gangs. Anywhere else in the US? Most likely gangs.

Don't think that gangs can't kill without guns? You must be stupid. People have been killing each other for thousands of years before gun powder was ever invented.

[time]

Yeah, but a battleaxe just isn't the "in" accessory these days.

[CityK]

Q. What is the likelihood of a face to face confrontation where the gentlemenly attacker allows you to take ten paces and then draw your sidearm?

Q. How is the right to bear arms going to save you as your shot by an attacker who fires through your front door, or through your front window from a car on the street while you sit in your living room watching TV, or while your shot from behind while standing in line at fastfood resturant, or while your crossing a parking lot on your way to an ATM etc etc.

Last time I checked, callous and reckless behaviour has never given law abiding citizens a chance. These people do not follow rules of engagement.
Arguing that allowing law abiding citizens to pack concealed firearms will bring the game to a level playing field is naive.

[Santilli]

Well, let's see.
I'm in a bowling alley bathroom, and three guys, drunk and high, decide to beat me up for fun, or kill me, because they think I'm a friend of the guy at the desk, that just kicked them out, who I hate.
Also being white had a lot to do with it.

I've trained for a very long time and I'm not real worried, until this guy pulls a Walther PPK/S and hits me over the head with it.

I survived, but, at that point in time, my old Detonics would have been a welcomed friend.

Recently, walking down the street at night, for a walk in one of our local parks. No one around, but, good neighborhood, safest around, pretty much, unless you go gated community. Beat up Mercedes drives by(bad guys drive, and have cars), sees me, my girlfriend, and my cat. They go through a stop sign, pull an illegal u turn, pull up next to us, and I see 4 skin heads with hoods on. I make a certain gesture, and the guy runs by, keeping his distance, we keep walking quickly, and he jumps back in the Mercedes, and they drive off. If not , I'm pretty sure, I would be beat up, robbed, or dead right now.

As you get older, and your sense of immortality starts to dwindle, perhaps you'll understand this comment,

"God made us all. Sam Colt made us equal."


It seems to me that gangs are far more to blame than guns are. Why are there over 600 murders a year in Chicago? Gangs. Gary? Gangs. Anywhere else in the US? Most likely gangs.

Timwhit: This is the problem. People think don't identify what the real problem is, and point at a straw man. They attack the strawman, pass legislation banning 50 caliber rifles, or some such bullshit, and think they are protecting themselves.

In that same area, two gangs run rampant, based in West Pittsburg, CA, the 13's, and 14's. They do just enough to stay under the radar of the Federal guys, one of whom I know, who prosecute guns and drugs in the area, who have much bigger gangs to go after.

http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/judges.nsf/0/98850e100cd5f43788256d660075e895/$FILE/Sapp%20MD.pdf

The above was an enforcer for a REAL big, bad, gang.

I've had about 8 months of hands on experience of trying to put the bad guys in jail, who have done violent crime. They NEVER had a problem getting a gun.

http://www.camemorial.org/k9/sendy.htm

I argued for the SFDA's office to keep Mr. Wolf in prison, in front of Judge Louie. He had a medical record about 40 pages long, in and out of institutions, a rap sheet that was
incredible, and he killed this beautiful dog, and shot an officer.

By law, it was illegal for him to have a gun. The number of cases where
guns are present, despite the law saying the person shouldn't have one is about 100%. I never saw a case where the shooter was legally entitled to have the gun.

Where did they get them? On the street, brought in and sold, along with everything else, from Mexico, by gangs.

Young kids, 17 -18 brought in, caught, selling drugs provided by the Mexican gangs.
Want to cry? Watch two young kids, illegals, dreaming of the US, who can't get a job, brought in, sent out to sell drugs, caught, and any future, legal hopes of entry into the US dashed. Course this doesn't stop them.
They go south, and come right back.



Arguing that allowing law abiding citizens to pack concealed firearms will bring the game to a level playing field is naive.

It's not naive. Many crimes are stopped by the presence of firearms.
Criminals, in my experience, are opportunists that strike when presented with the chance, or, innocent people just end up in the wrong place and the wrong time, because the criminal is there. They do have cars, and they do travel. Short of living in a gated community, with armed dogs, and police patrolling, in other words giving up your freedom, you are not going to be perfectly safe, ever.

In San Francisco, you have a 1 of 17 chance, per year, of being the victim of a violent crime in San Francisco. Being aware of this, and being armed, simply reduces your chance of being the wounded fish the shark eats.

s

[Santilli]

How about having this happen to your girlfriend?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/06/06/state0148EDT0244.DTL

[mubs]

NO?
You mean you aren't going to convince us there is, or is not a God??

S
No. Unlike some people here, neither am I a bigot, nor do I have a desperate need to prove I'm right and others are wrong.

[CougTek]

Keep in mind that the only reason you can have these feelings and disscussions in this country is one, and only one reason: We have superior fire power, which enables us to protect our way of life, against all others, this last two centuries, at least. If not for that, we would still be an English, or french Colony, or speaking German, Japanese, or Italian.

Those guns you so despise are the reason you have the freedom you have in this country.

It must be difficult facing the fact that the freedom you have is created by something that you view as having taken away your ancestors freedom.
This is so, SO retarded, full of shit and stereotyped on the popular image of the arrogant and lout American bloke that I'm not even sure it deserves an answer.

Weapons for the civilians are forbidden or restricted a lot more than in the U.S. in most european countries as well as in Québec and our amount of violent crimes is an order of magnitude lower than in the States. Wake up. It's not the gun that makes the man.

I was only venting in the post that started this thread. Just looking at how irresponsible most people are with their cars, I wouldn't give them guns for sure. I've never needed one here and I consider myself to be a very quarrelsome man. The only reason you American fellows feel you need guns is because your country has allowed to put too many firearms in the hands of people who should never have had the right to own one to begin with. Firearms are the internal cancer of United States. Well, that and the bunch of morons who defend their spreading as well as many other now-obsolete principles that your damn funding Fathers stated for the world they lived in more than two centuries ago.

The world evolves, but apparently a good half of the Americans don't realize it.


The last comment was only to those for whom the hat fits. I don't hate all Americans, only the constipated types.

[Pradeep]

[ Weapons for the civilians are forbidden or restricted a lot more than in the U.S. in most european countries as well as in Québec and our amount of violent crimes is an order of magnitude lower than in the States. Wake up. It's not the gun that makes the man.


Coug would you care to explain the situtation in Switzerland? Millions of guns in the hands of citizens, and crime rates are pretty low. In fact many men of military age have army issued select fire rifles in their houses/apartments. Perhaps compulsory military service and an emphasis on personal responsibility have something to do with it?

A gun is a tool. A machine made of metal and wood. Nothing mysterious. It requires an operator. No wonderous power attached (except for those who claim they are "evil")

[Santilli]

This is so, SO retarded, full of shit and stereotyped on the popular image of the arrogant and lout American bloke that I'm not even sure it deserves an answer.

I agree it's retarded, but, it's also true. The people with the guns get to write the rules. Ask the majority of the world, and I think you will find that true. First lesson you learn in International politics, 101. Feel free to show me how I'm wrong with the History of the USSR, China, Japan, Germany, Italy, etc.



Weapons for the civilians are forbidden or restricted a lot more than in the U.S. in most european countries as well as in Québec and our amount of violent crimes is an order of magnitude lower than in the States. Wake up. It's not the gun that makes the man.

I suspect your lack of crime has more to do with cold weather, less dense population problems, and a lack of drug use, in comparision to the US. And, perhaps better driving.

It's our own fault. With our drug trade comes the gangs and guns. With our open borders, come our gangs and guns.

With our over population comes low wages, high cost of living, and resorting to illegal means to make money.

That said, terrorism in Spain, and European countries punches some pretty God Damn big holes in your lower crime theory.


The only reason you American fellows feel you need guns is because your country has allowed to put too many firearms in the hands of people who should never have had the right to own one to begin with.

When our country resembled Canada's population density, it wasn't so much of a problem. Our problem is huge immigration, and open borders, high cost of living, and getting taxed up the arse, not to mention gangs that have greater income then most countries bleeding us dry with our drug problems, and our inability to combat it, or unwillingness to combat it, since it would make us bad people with our lower neighbors, and other countries.

Our country has gone from one that was relatively isolated, to one that with new age transportation, is a square, with 4 open lines. We haven't been willing to make the effort to close down our borders, since the cheap labor keeps our oligarchy in power, and they like it, along with running our government.
The above Europe certainly leads us in, but, immigration of thugs, from Eastern Europe, into areas like Italy, is becoming a serious problem for the Euro countries, with rising crime, driving away tourism.

However, the Italian police are more numerous, and carry machine guns openly. This does tend to make enforcing situations easier, since they are nearly para-military, as are most of the European police forces.

s
PS: Since I've been actively involved in this war, perhaps I might have a slightly different view of it then some arm chair quarterbacks...

[Santilli]

I forgot to add that many European countries don't waste resources on the crap we try and stop. Prostitution, and drugs, in a couple Euro countries are legal. Why bother fighting that war, when bigger ones are around?
Germany and other countries are on top of terrorism, since they don't waste resources on victimless crimes, and, they destroy the incentives we have for the drug barons to deal in this country.

Declare victory, and move on would be good for this country.

We won the war on drugs, make them legal, and forget about it.

s

[sechs]

In light of recent events:

Bowling for Columbine

Yes, Michael Moore is a bleeding-heart liberal, but perhaps people will listen to Matt Stone, instead.

[CougTek]

I missed that previously, but...

Guns can also empower potential victims to defend themselves when previously they would have been at the mercy of criminals.
Using a weapon efficiently requires skills. Aim, shoot and kill is only for good guys in movies. Common people, especially those with a "victim" mentality, are just as likely to hurt someone just walking by than their agressor under a stressful situation. Criminals are more likely to have at least some kind of training with their weapons, if any, so in a case with both the agressor and the victim having similar guns, I would bet on the criminal's chances anyway.

I agree that firearms are just tools, but since common people have great deals of problems using many basic tools, giving them a tool that grants them the power of life and death over someone else worries my little self a tad.


One last thing...

On a personal side, I'm far more confident in my chances of overwhelming any given opponent(s) in a place where guns are out of the equation. I'm built and look insane enough to keep the great majority of bums in their right mind from attacking me here, no matter where and when I go. But in a place where any delinquent halfing has the right to carry a "tool" that can give him the edge over me, I wouldn't be as secured to take a walk. Blades and bats are fine by me, but I'm not bullet-proof. I hate the idea of dying to the hands of an inferior foe with a technology toy.

[Santilli]

Criminals are more likely to have at least some kind of training with their weapons, if any, so in a case with both the agressor and the victim having similar guns, I would bet on the criminal's chances anyway.


No. They do have the advantage of being able to strike first. It's not a good idea for a criminal to take their illegal gun to a firing range, and, it's very difficult to find places to legally use a firearm, at least in the crowded US.


I agree that firearms are just tools, but since common people have great deals of problems using many basic tools, giving them a tool that grants them the power of life and death over someone else worries my little self a tad.

We are ready do this, with terrible consequences. It's called a driver license and cars.

However, the gun deaths by accident or otherwise are nothing compared to the number of highway deaths. Turn it over, and you realize it's amazing how well guns are handled by the citizens of the US.

[Santilli]

On a personal side, I'm far more confident in my chances of overwhelming any given opponent(s) in a place where guns are out of the equation. I'm built and look insane enough to keep the great majority of bums in their right mind from attacking me here, no matter where and when I go. But in a place where any delinquent halfing has the right to carry a "tool" that can give him the edge over me, I wouldn't be as secured to take a walk. Blades and bats are fine by me, but I'm not bullet-proof. I hate the idea of dying to the hands of an inferior foe with a technology toy.

So, only people like yourself are entitled to feel in anyway secure against personal attacks?

God created man. Sam Colt made us equal.

That cuts both ways. CT, you'll feel better about it when you get older, and loose that physical ability, or it's diminished by injury, or age.

s

[sechs]

God created man. Sam Colt made us equal.

Get thee back to Texas, where thy may shoot across the 16-lane highway at thine enemies!

[Santilli]

http://chezjacq.com/fackler.htm

pretty funny.


Firearms in America: The Facts

Martin L. Fackler, MD Monday, Dec. 25, 2000

I must confess to being a member of a very dangerous group. I am a physician: We cause more than 100,000 deaths per year in the USA by mistakes and various degrees of carelessness in treating our patients. Why does society tolerate us?

[Santilli]

Because we save far more patients than we kill. Firearms are entirely analogous. Although used in far fewer deaths* - they are used to prevent about 75 crimes for each death. Firearms, like physicians, prevent far more deaths than they cause. (Gary Kleck, "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America," Hawthorne, N.Y., Aldine de Gruyter Publisher, 1991)

Consider the implications of the fact that firearms save many more lives than they take. That means decreasing the number of firearms would actually cause an increase in violentcrime and deaths from firearms.

This inverse relationship between the number of firearms in the hands of the public and the amount of violent crime has, in fact, been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. (John R. Lott Jr., "More Guns Less Crime," University of Chicago Press, 1998)

[Santilli]

No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to the rather startling conclusion that the use of firearms in crime was very much less when there were no controls of any sort. . Half a century of strict controls on pistols has ended, perversely, with a far greater use of this class of weapons in crime than ever before.

In Tasmania, Australia, on 28 April 1996, a lone gunman killed 35 and wounded 21 at the Port Arthur Historic Site. The Australian legislature reacted by outlawing self-loading rifles and pump as well as self-loading shotguns. One year after the massive confiscation of guns the effects of this action became clear. Every category of violent crime had increased; the most striking was a 300 percent increase in assaults against the elderly.

Those demented persons who have expressed their frustration by a shooting spree have apparently retained enough good sense to choose places where those shot would almost certainly be unarmed: a schoolyard in Stockton, Calif., the Columbine High School, a Jewish day care center in Los Angeles, a Long Island Rail Road car (due to the highly restrictive ban on handgun carry permits in New York).

The emotional reaction to these incidents, attempting to make certain places "gun free" zones, for example, revealed a striking lack of rational thought. Apparently those pushing for "gun free" zones failed to recognize that the perpetrators of these incidents chose their sites specifically because they were already essentially "gun free" areas - practically guaranteeing no armed resistance to foil their plans.

Such gun-restrictive proposals are a certain recipe for making the situation worse. Lott's studies have shown that such mass shootings essentially disappear in states that pass laws allowing qualified citizens to carry concealed handguns (The American Enterprise, July- August, 1998).

Consider the steadily decreasing rate of violent crime over the past eight years. An article in USA Today (K Johnson, 9 Oct 00, 3A) reported "Gun injuries in crimes fall 40% in 5 years." This stark decline has occurred concomitantly with a constant rise in the number of firearms in the hands of the American public.

This strongly supports the "more guns less crime" relationship verified by Kleck, Lott, history, and common sense. This steady decrease has brought the current percentage of gun violence in the USA to its lowest rate in the past three to four decades. One would expect the anti-gun groups to be pleased and to moderate their goals.

Instead, apparently rankled by the facts proving their theories dead wrong, they are promoting increasingly prohibitive gun laws with ever-increasing zeal. Could it be that the media attention bestowed upon their cause has become addictive? Certainly, legislators have found the free TV time given to their anti-gun tirades something they cannot live without.

I suggest that a reason for the decreasing crime rate, caused in part by the increasing number of guns, lies, perversely and ironically, in the counterproductive exaggerations and incessant repetitions, by the TV media, of each and every bloody shooting they can find.

This has frightened and misled the public into believing the threat from guns is ever increasing, rather than decreasing sharply, and has whetted their appetites for firearms to defend themselves. Thus the public has bought more firearms -which has further decreased the violence from firearms.

[Santilli]

Consider firearm registration: being increasingly promoted by nearly all anti-gun groups - and politicians. These promoters neglect to explain why or how they expect firearm registration to prevent future violence; especially since, historically, such restrictive laws have always proven ineffective or counterproductive - most often causing a marked increase in violent crime, as shown in the examples given above. We already know how honest, formerly law-abiding, citizens will react to irrational laws requiring them to register their firearms.

California has taught us. After Purdy's shooting spree on the Stockton schoolyard in 1989, the Californian legislature passed a law requiring the registration of all "assault rifles." In the emotional frenzy following that shooting incident, everybody expected legislators to pass such a restrictive law.

What happened? The price of "assault rifles" tripled in California. Many tens of thousands of these rifles poured into California before the law went into effect. Then came the time for registration. Very few "assault rifle" owners chose to obey the law.

It is uncertain how many criminals were created by this irrational law, but most estimate that fewer than 10 percent of the "assault rifles" in California were registered. If an estimated several hundred thousand "assault rifle" owners in California chose to become criminals rather than obey an irrational law, how many gun owners nationwide can we expect to do the same if required to register their guns?

Most of the facts explained above are unknown to the majority of the American public. The pro-gun political activists spend so much time harping on the Second Amendment that they tend to overlook the factual proof that decreasing the number of guns increases violence, and vice-versa.

Additionally, I believe that most Americans consider their right to protect themselves and their families a far more fundamental right than the Second Amendment.

Many honest gun owners are now frightened. They have every reason to be. Few of the facts outlined above have been revealed by a media that, instead, gives full play to the emotionally based appeals and flagrant exaggerations of the anti-gun groups.

These gun owners fear that they will be forced into a difficult moral decision: Do they obey a law requiring them to register their firearms, when they are fully aware of the irrationality and counterproductive nature of such a law? Or are they morally obligated to disobey such an unjust law -and thus become a criminal? Our forefathers faced a similar moral dilemma. Had most of them chosen to obey, we would still be a colony of England.

We must separate, dispassionately, the clearly established facts about firearms in the USA from emotionally based opinions, exaggerations, and falsehoods. No rational approach to any problem is possible until this is done.

I worry that irrational restrictive measures, such as mandated gun registration, will result in a massive backlash of civil disobedience - not by drug-dazed teenagers, but by sober, honest, and mature adults who are well-armed and proficient in the use of their weapons. That could tear this country apart.

[Santilli]

*Footnote. When anti-gun activists list the number of deaths per year from firearms, they neglect to mention that 60 percent of the 30,000 figure they often use are suicides. They also fail to mention that at least three-quarters of the 12,000 homicides are criminals killing other criminals in disputes over illicit drugs, or police shooting criminals engaged in felonies. Subtracting those, we are left with no more than 3,000 deaths that I think most would consider truly lamentable.

[Stereodude]

Thanks for fighting the good fight Santilli against all the bleeding heart liberals here.

Here are a few thoughts...

1) If guns aren't essential to defense and protection why is nearly every crime spree brought to a close by the arrival of guns on the scene in the hands of the "good guys"?

2) Why can't anyone figure out that the US has a problem with violence because of the citizens, not the guns? Everyone is simply reaping what the Liberal Left has sewn into society with the extraction of God, removal of personal responsibility, and general lack of respect and value for other human beings.

[Stereodude]

Obviously there was "better" to be had. Slavery lasted another 100 years. African slaves were 3/5ths of a person. Women had no rights. And they weren't clear enough about the whole "well regulated militia" thing. There wasn't strong enough language WRT state's rights, so every time there's been a major socio-political change in this country, a bunch of backwards southern politicians stand up and start bitching about the 9th Amendment.
I hate to break it to you, but the "problems" you cite with the document are not with the document, but with the people reading it.

The Consitution didn't say women couldn't vote. Society applied their standards to the document.

The flaw is with the readers of the document, not the writers. The constitution could be unammended to contain only the constitution and the bill of rights and it would work perfectly.

[Stereodude]

WTF does god have to do with guns? I wish the US could do something like Canada and have low crime rates and lots of guns. I have nothing bad to say about hunting with guns.

It seems to me that gangs are far more to blame than guns are. Why are there over 600 murders a year in Chicago? Gangs. Gary? Gangs. Anywhere else in the US? Most likely gangs.

Don't think that gangs can't kill without guns? You must be stupid. People have been killing each other for thousands of years before gun powder was ever invented.
You answered your own question. God and religion has everything to do with this discussion.

The people are the problem (as you note). The people are depraved... Why are they depraved? A lack of God maybe?

[Stereodude]

quote]I'm kind of curious: what government killed more people then the Axis powers, combining world war I & II?
Well, if you look at the German's killing Jews and Stalin killing other Russians, I think you will see what he's talking about.

If those two groups of people had been armed things might not have gone quite the way they did.

[Santilli]

Stalin killed about 20 million people. Hitler about 6 million Jews.

50 Million people died in WWII alone, IIRC.

Funny no one wants to address Dr. Fackler on this point:


Quote:
*Footnote. When anti-gun activists list the number of deaths per year from firearms, they neglect to mention that 60 percent of the 30,000 figure they often use are suicides. They also fail to mention that at least three-quarters of the 12,000 homicides are criminals killing other criminals in disputes over illicit drugs, or police shooting criminals engaged in felonies. Subtracting those, we are left with no more than 3,000 deaths that I think most would consider truly lamentable.

I can understand the suicide stuff, in certain cases. My uncle was a competitive bicycle racer, and some disease cost him one leg.
The disease spread, and he was going to loose the other league.

At that point, he killed himself.


I find it intresting that 3 thousand deaths create such strong sentiment.
Certainly the deprivation of the second amendment rights, for 3000 killings a year is absurd. As Fackler points out, doctors kill 100,000 people a year due to malpractice.

Strange.

s

[Mercutio]

I hate to break it to you, but the "problems" you cite with the document are not with the document, but with the people reading it.

The Consitution didn't say women couldn't vote. Society applied their standards to the document.

The flaw is with the readers of the document, not the writers. The constitution could be unammended to contain only the constitution and the bill of rights and it would work perfectly.

So the part about slaves being 3/5 of a person is the fault of my interpretation? 'Cause 60% seems like a pretty hard figure to me. Not a lot of wiggle room there. And the continual use of the gender specific pronoun "Men"? Are you suggesting that the founders really meant "...and women and people of nonspecific or indeterminant gender".



1) If guns aren't essential to defense and protection why is nearly every crime spree brought to a close by the arrival of guns on the scene in the hands of the "good guys"?

I think you watch too many movies.
Now, what about the threats to my being that are more likely to end my life than the Charles Bronson wet-dream Creep with a Gun? How does having a gun help me against the nutjobs on the highway who can't obey traffic laws? How does having a gun help me against Mad Cow disease or Heart Disease or any of the other things that are thousands of times more likely to harm me than a criminal with a gun.

In Santilli's example, he got hit on the head with a gun, and claims that if he'd had a firearm, they wouldn't've hit him. That's true. ''Cause if they saw the gun, they would've shot him instead. Is a gun going to deter a criminal? I kind of doubt it. If you present a gun before a criminal who is also armed, I think the most likely outcome is that he'll shoot first, since you've just become an imminent threat to his life.



2) Why can't anyone figure out that the US has a problem with violence because of the citizens, not the guns? Everyone is simply reaping what the Liberal Left has sewn into society with the extraction of God, removal of personal responsibility, and general lack of respect and value for other human beings.

OK, let's get rid of all the citizens then! We can import some Canadians. They'll be much better behaved with their firearms, bring us socialized medicine, fair labor practices and they'll say "eh" a lot. I for one would like to welcome our new Canadian overlords. Plus, they won't talk about god all the time.
Now, I don't know what document you've been reading, but the Bill of Rights I'm familiar with seems to indicate that Church and State are seperate institutions. Which means that whatever whacky shit you believe about your particular form of invisible, all-powerful higher power should not receive any sanction or endorsement from civil authorities.
If you want to live in a country where invisible powers have an hand in government, either build a time machine and go live in the Reagan's America, or spend some time in Iran,
I think it's great that in the late 20th century the US was made safe for those of us who don't worship in the Catholic/Protestant tradition, what with those laws being on the books for 170 years or so.

Anyway... personal responsibility? Related to Christian religion? Like, the Catholic faith, which says that if you confess, do penence and take communion, you're absolved of your sin?

I think you're barking up the wrong tree there.

God - your god, mubs' god(s), my (lack of) god - are all different entities, with very different strictures and mores. The kind of education you're suggesting that people today don't have does not, and by its very nature cannot come from this state. It needs to come from the teachings of parents, community/religious leaders outside the state] or from introspeciton on the moral and ethical issues that provide the reasons for those values. Seriously, who would get to decide what "respect and value for human beings" meant? Next thing you know there'd be some dumbass claiming that zygote created in the union of a couple of unmarried 12-year-old drug addicts is a person, while the unmarried 12-year-old addicts themselves were not ('cause that's just how certain people in this horrible place think).

In short, I disagree with you in every possible way. Try again soon.

[Stereodude]

Merc gets the poor reading comprehension award...




I hate to break it to you, but the "problems" you cite with the document are not with the document, but with the people reading it.

The Consitution didn't say women couldn't vote. Society applied their standards to the document.

The flaw is with the readers of the document, not the writers. The constitution could be unammended to contain only the constitution and the bill of rights and it would work perfectly.

So the part about slaves being 3/5 of a person is the fault of my interpretation? 'Cause 60% seems like a pretty hard figure to me. Not a lot of wiggle room there. And the continual use of the gender specific pronoun "Men"? Are you suggesting that the founders really meant "...and women and people of nonspecific or indeterminant gender".
The 3/5ths was a compromise to get the southern slaveholding states to sign the document. It was also in regard to counting slaves for representation, not for assigning the worth of a particular human. Furthermore, if there are no slaves currently in the US, then the whole 3/5ths thing is kinda moot now isn't it?

And I am absolutely suggesting the founding fathers really meant men and women together. Would you also try to suggest that the work "mankind" only refers to men?



1) If guns aren't essential to defense and protection why is nearly every crime spree brought to a close by the arrival of guns on the scene in the hands of the "good guys"?

I think you watch too many movies.
Now, what about the threats to my being that are more likely to end my life than the Charles Bronson wet-dream Creep with a Gun? How does having a gun help me against the nutjobs on the highway who can't obey traffic laws? How does having a gun help me against Mad Cow disease or Heart Disease or any of the other things that are thousands of times more likely to harm me than a criminal with a gun.
I was talking about the cops. As in those guys with guns you call when a crime has been perpetrated against you. When someone takes hostages, what do you do? You call in SWAT who shows up with even bigger and more guns than even normal cops have.


Apparently you didn't read the Bill of Rights. Please show me where it says anything about a seperation of Church and State. It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Taken literally (as you want to take the other parts of the document you don't agree with), it prevents congress from making Catholicism, or Baptist, or whatever else the official religion of the US. It also prevents the gov't from stopping the Catholics, Baptists, or any other group from meeting/practicing their religion.

I'm glad you disagree with me. That only further strengthens my resolve that I am right. You are a liberal and you are so very, very, very wrong about this and pretty much every other social and political issue. If you don't like the US feel free to move to Canada or one of the socialist countries in the EU.

[sechs]

Actually, if you read *really* carefully, it says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"; not, "Congress shall make no law establishing a state religion."

[Stereodude]

Actually, if you read *really* carefully, it says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"; not, "Congress shall make no law establishing a state religion."
I'm well aware of what it says.

Since you seem to want to attempt to claim my interepretation of the english is wrong, lets take a look at it.


Main Entry: 2respect
Function: transitive verb
1 a : to consider worthy of high regard : ESTEEM b : to refrain from interfering with
2 : to have reference to : CONCERN
synonym see REGARD


Main Entry: es·tab·lish·ment
Pronunciation: is-'ta-blish-m&nt
Function: noun
1 : something established : as a : a settled arrangement; especially : a code of laws b : ESTABLISHED CHURCH c : a permanent civil or military organization d : a place of business or residence with its furnishings and staff e : a public or private institution
2 : an established order of society: as a often capitalized : a group of social, economic, and political leaders who form a ruling class (as of a nation) b often capitalized : a controlling group <the literary establishment>
3 a : the act of establishing b : the state of being established

So we could re-write it as, "Congress shall make no law concerning/regarding a settled arrangement/civil organization of religion"

Now, please enlighten me how you and Merc's can take those same words and get some misconstrued section about "seperation of Church and State" or more specifically "ban God from everything"? Furthermore, how do you explain that deeply religious people would have penned a document that specifically excluded the very foundation for their beliefs from their new gov't?

How does it feel to be a wrong, condescending, elitist snob?

[sechs]

Ad hominem attack.

You lose!

[flagreen]

Ad hominem attack.

You lose!
Well that's a neat way to avoid having to respond to his points I guess.... but that's about all it is.


Stereodude - Well said.

[sechs]

Calling someone names is hardly an argument. If you think that's well said, then that says a lot about you, as well.

[Mercutio]

I'll use very small words, so it'll be easier for you:

When the state makes rules regarding the practice of one religion or other, it is favoring or disfavoring that religion. Holding to the words you've so helpfully defined for us, doing so would in fact be an establishment, one way or the other. This is why religious matters are properly kept seperate from secular matters.

Did that make sense?

Do you understand that not everyone believes as you? That there are people out there who think that the Semetic concept of a higher power is a bunch of hooey? That some of those people worship nature, or Zoroaster or Ganesh, or maybe nothing at all? And that maybe, just maybe, discussion or invokation of that Semetic God, might be seen as more than more than a little prejudicial those people, here in a place where all men (and women and other) are equal?

As far as the history lesson wrt Founders and religious beliefs: One of the key concepts in the revolution was to step away from rule by divine mandate. France, England and Spain at the time all had rulers who claimed that their authority to rule came from the will of God (and thus, that the rulers and nobility of the day were therefore superior to the common folk). Stating that All Men are Created Equal was therefore a strike against that supposed divine mandate. Likewise, many nations at that time DID (and often still do) have laws with regard to religion. The King of England (the guy we rebelled against) is the head of the Anglican Church, remember, and religious rules frequently carried force of law. Furthermore, on the continent, France's de facto civil authority were Catholic Cardinals , Spain's Inquisitors were used to target enemies of the (Hapsburg?) ruling powers, and in the regions of modern Germany, one's religion was decided by the whim of the graf who conquered your province most recently.
Are you seeing a pattern yet?
The rulers of the day either used religious authority as a tool to achieve their own oppressive ends.
By making no law respecting an establishment of religion, the founders gave up a tool that had been misused for centuries by European heads of state, and by doing so created a government of the people for the people (as opposed to Government by the Purported will of God by a bunch of Inbred Parasites).

As far as founders and religion, a sizeable fraction of the total were deisits, rather than christians - men who believe in a non-interventionist creator rather than the God of the Hebrew people, and I'd hazard to guess that a fairly large chunk were Masons, a group with its own spirituality distinct from that taught in the churches of the day.

[flagreen]

Calling someone names is hardly an argument. If you think that's well said, then that says a lot about you, as well.
I wasn't talking about the ad hominem when I said "well said". The man wrote so much more than just that.

Why not just ignore the ad hominem and respond to the points he made if you disagree? You're more than capable of putting together a good argument to support your opinions from what I've seen. I seldom agree with you but that doesn't mean that I don't know a good argument when I see it.

[flagreen]

Mercutio,


When the state makes rules regarding the practice of one religion or other, it is favoring or disfavoring that religion.
Can you give us an example of a "rule" which was made by the federal government which favored a religion?

[sechs]

I wasn't talking about the ad hominem when I said "well said".

That's not what you wrote. Just scroll up and check.



Why not just ignore the ad hominem and respond to the points he made if you disagree?

I will not encourage such behavior. If a man wishes to make an ass of himself, I will call him on it and be on my way.

[sechs]

Can you give us an example of a "rule" which was made by the federal government which favored a religion?

Would not such a law be unconstitutional, per our previous "discussions?" No such law, then, should exist.

[Mercutio]

Mercutio,


When the state makes rules regarding the practice of one religion or other, it is favoring or disfavoring that religion.
Can you give us an example of a "rule" which was made by the federal government which favored a religion?

My money says "In god we trust."
When I'm bored I've been known to cross those words out of my bills. I certainly don't trust whatever god is involved in this.

Christmas is a federal holiday. Why?

Ever been to court? The standard oath ends "So help me God." and is sworn with one's hand on a Bible. Yes, the state can accomodate someone who doesn't want to say that oath, but why not just make everyone say the oath that doesn't involve the christian holy book?

When I was in grade school, in the little hick town where I grew up, days started with a prayer, and because one of the teachers was a minister's wife, there was observably different treatment for the kids who went to her church. Now, that sort of thing was illegal in 1982 or so, but it still happened, and as the seven year old who wasn't raised in that tradition, at all, it was an uncomfortable thing.

You might say that in each case that no specific "god" is mentioned, so in theory, the "god" our money is talking about could be the god of the christians, the god of the jews, the god of islam. But it's awfully naive to think it's anything other than former.

As a purely civil matter, it we have laws in this country that don't make a whole lot of sense, except in that the cater to someone's particular religious beliefs. In Indiana, I can't buy alcohol on Sunday, for example. Religious beliefs are/were also cited in laws regarding the availability of abortions and prophylactics, interracial marriage, same-sex unions and domestic partnerships, divorce, women's rights, sex- and science education... do I need to go on?
Granted, most of these laws are enacted at the state level, but IIRC, most states pretty much verbatim copy that first amendment to the bill of rights into their own state constitutions.

[flagreen]

Can you give us an example of a "rule" which was made by the federal government which favored a religion?

Would not such a law be unconstitutional, per our previous "discussions?" No such law, then, should exist.
That's what I was thinking. I can't think of a single instance where this has been done in the U.S.. What has been done though and what is constitutional is the passing of laws which favor all religions. The tax code for instance. So why is prayer in school for all religions not constitutional?




That's not what you wrote. Just scroll up and check.
Looking back I can see why you think that. I should have done more than double space between my comments to you and to Stereodude in that post to indicate there was no relationship between the two. At any rate my intent was to complement Stereodude on everything but the ad hominem.

[Santilli]

Briefly, the Constitution is designed to limit only the Federal government, not the state governments. Only through the 14th amendment was the Bill of Rights extended to the states, and then only selectively.

The Founding Father's intentions are made pretty clear in The Federalist Papers.

They did not want any Federal religion, nor any restriction on anyone to practice their own religion. In other words, the design of the land at the time was 13 strong states, with a limited federal government. The states could make laws, in fact all rights not reserved specifically to the Federal Government, are reserved for the states(11th amendment).

The concept was people of like minds could live and govern their own state, and have their own religion in that state. The Constitution was NOT designed to limit states from making laws concerning religion, because they
believed those who lived in an area, of common belief, could, and should, make lows that extended those religious mores and ethics, into law.

In other words, it makes little sense to believe in laws, mores, and ethics designed by your Creator, and not impliment them into law.

The 14th amendment was only passed to make southern states align with the northern beliefs on slavery, and economics. Even after it's passing, the
Slaughterhouse Cases, IIRC, in 1873, sort of over ruled the amendment.

Suffice to say that the current state of affairs was changed by a few key events.
The revolutionary war created two camps. One who fought in it, George Washington, and Company, who believed that the Federal government had to be strong enough to raise tax and an army, since they had nearly starved, and had a very hard time buying clothing and arms. etc.
Also, as I have stated before, without enough military power to protect your nation, we would be speaking either English, Spanish, or French.

Others did not believe the trade off was worth it.


In Santilli's example, he got hit on the head with a gun, and claims that if he'd had a firearm, they wouldn't've hit him. That's true. ''Cause if they saw the gun, they would've shot him instead. Is a gun going to deter a criminal? I kind of doubt it. If you present a gun before a criminal who is also armed, I think the most likely outcome is that he'll shoot first, since you've just become an imminent threat to his life.

Since I was there, you don't mind if I give you a bit of insight?
I was in the bathroom, and knew when the three entered, they were up to something. If I had a 45 at the time, I could have backed to the wall, pulled the gun, and told them to get the hell out. Or, I could have fired a shot. 3 to one odds are sufficent, in that situation in particular, to justify some pretty extreme actions, and remedies.

Instead, I tried to push through the three of them, and started yelling.
I figured I was better off in the middle, so I could hit them, and know I was hitting a bad guy. I threw them off enough so one, the leader, pulled the gun. At that point, he pointed it up, and not at me, but used it to hit me over the head. I pretended to be hurt, and sank down, out of reach, but ready to spring, if he pointed the gun at me. I kept yelling. Since their little game wasn't going the way they wanted, they decided it was time to leave.

The guy never pointed the gun at me, and from my low leg position, I was in striking distance of all three. Still, my choices were severely limited, and it was only by the grace of God that he didn't shoot me, or, it could have been the 20 plus years of training for such situations that threw them off,
not giving them the expected reactions they wanted.

I know this sounds weird, but after going 15 rounds with the World Heavyweight Karate Champion, Dennis Alexio, slightly prior, I was not particularly worried about their ability to do harm with their fists. I figured that if I had too, I could do really severe damage, in a very short period of time. I was concerned about the presence of weapons, since that changes the game. When you are threatened with a knife, or gun, you have little choice but to do as much damage as you can, as quickly as you can. I know that appears to support your position, but, I would rather have the chioces that a firearm would have presented, rather then been at a severe disadvantage, 3 to one, and they have a gun.
With my back to the wall, I was quite aware of what they had in mind for me, and, given a gun, I could have avoided the stiches on my head.

s

[Stereodude]

Do you understand that not everyone believes as you? That there are people out there who think that the Semetic concept of a higher power is a bunch of hooey? That some of those people worship nature, or Zoroaster or Ganesh, or maybe nothing at all? And that maybe, just maybe, discussion or invokation of that Semetic God, might be seen as more than more than a little prejudicial those people, here in a place where all men (and women and other) are equal?
I know they do. And that doesn't make them any less wrong. But, that's the neat thing about the US. People have the right to be wrong.

[Stereodude]

My money says "In god we trust."
When I'm bored I've been known to cross those words out of my bills. I certainly don't trust whatever god is involved in this.

Christmas is a federal holiday. Why?

Ever been to court? The standard oath ends "So help me God." and is sworn with one's hand on a Bible. Yes, the state can accomodate someone who doesn't want to say that oath, but why not just make everyone say the oath that doesn't involve the christian holy book?

When I was in grade school, in the little hick town where I grew up, days started with a prayer, and because one of the teachers was a minister's wife, there was observably different treatment for the kids who went to her church. Now, that sort of thing was illegal in 1982 or so, but it still happened, and as the seven year old who wasn't raised in that tradition, at all, it was an uncomfortable thing.

You might say that in each case that no specific "god" is mentioned, so in theory, the "god" our money is talking about could be the god of the christians, the god of the jews, the god of islam. But it's awfully naive to think it's anything other than former.

As a purely civil matter, it we have laws in this country that don't make a whole lot of sense, except in that the cater to someone's particular religious beliefs. In Indiana, I can't buy alcohol on Sunday, for example. Religious beliefs are/were also cited in laws regarding the availability of abortions and prophylactics, interracial marriage, same-sex unions and domestic partnerships, divorce, women's rights, sex- and science education... do I need to go on?
Granted, most of these laws are enacted at the state level, but IIRC, most states pretty much verbatim copy that first amendment to the bill of rights into their own state constitutions.
We live in a representative republic, and much to the chagrin of people like yourself you are in the minority. As such it's not surprising that the laws and traditions of this country reflect the values of the majority. Either way, I fail to see how any of the single cases you reference are violation of the first ammendment. Either Congress did not enable the act (law) you are complaining about, or it doesn't interfere with someone's ability to practice his religion, nor is it a federally mandated religion (which is what it says).

[Stereodude]

Ad hominem attack.
It's not an Ad hominem attack. It's a fairly accurate portrayal of a liberal.

Face it. You are a liberal. Liberal's are inherently elitest and condescending. They have to be. You assume the federal gov't (if doing thing the way you want) could do a better job at everything than people can themselves. It doesn't matter if it's how to raise your child, health care, welfare, etc. That by it's very nature makes you condescending and elitist. As for the wrong part, that's my opinion, and last time I checked I'm still entitled to it.

[CougTek]

Religion is viewed as right by the idiots, wrong by the wises and useful by the rulers.

...or something like that.

Ever noticed how G.W. Bush always uses "God" to justify his abuses?

And regarding our own little Stereodude, well...

I've never voted for the Liberals in my country, but reading some of the comments here, I cannot help but being condescending :

You are a liberal and you are so very, very, very wrong about this and pretty much every other social and political issue.

And that doesn't make them any less wrong. But, that's the neat thing about the US. People have the right to be wrong.
I suppose this isn't condescending? In my own very humble opinion, a gullible 23 years old with a peon mentality depecting me and people thinking similarly as unilaterally "wrong" is quite "condescending" and shows a serious "elitist" character from the person making the comment.

By your own definition, I guess you're a bloody Liberal too, dude.


BTW, in order to become a U.S. citizen, you have to agree with the "Pledge of Allegiance" :

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Now, if this isn't "an example of a rule which was made by the federal government" to favor a particular religion, I don't know what this is. In theory, no one not believing in any God can become a U.S. citizen. That's the pinnacle of elitism. Strike three to your freedom of thoughts.

[Santilli]

"Liberals" are currently the ultimate lie. I was, and am still accused, of being liberal. Liberal, since I'm old enough to have been around when the start of the movement really got going, was originally a term applied to socialists, etc.
True liberalism, in the early 60's implied a tolerance to listen, and learn, from all points of view. It also clearly stated that "liberals" were listening to all input, and value it logically. In other words, liberal meant what it means in the dictionary.

Conservative was someone that was fixed in their ways, and would not listen, much less change.

I was in Bezerkely as a jr. high school student, and summers as a high school student, from 65-72. My mother loved the art school at UCB, and each year we would move from conservative-racist areas inland, to Bezerkly for the summer.

I was, and for that matter, still am, VERY liberal, believing in trying new ideas, new concepts, etc. and looking at the past established status quo, vs. the ideals we believed in. I was, and still am, against Korea, and Vietnam, and any other conflict where we were stupid enough to try and fight 4000 miles away, in a country that borders on 2 billion chinese, who want the same thing we did in Cuba, a buffer zone.

Not to mention that the country, Vietnam, had been through 20-100 years of war, and they were very good at it.

That said, as I grew in the area, somethings became really evident.
These 'Liberals" would not listen to others ideas when they conflicted with their own, and despite all logical arguments, nothing stopped their dogmatism. Nor did they adhere to their alleged liberalism, willing to know, and befriend, other races.
Race was a classic, since I have ALWAYS been anti-racism. Probably since
my mother firmly believed that all people were created equal, under God, and even though I had little religious training, at the time, we did function
on the concept that all were individuals, and would be judged on their merits. This was not the case inland, for either blacks, or whites.

I remember in 8th grade, after growing up in a mixed racial situation, playing basketball in Pittsburg, CA. A black guy wanted to play, and since, for a long time, my friends, and teamates had been black, and I respected your game, not your color, I had no problem. However, the guys in Pittsburg, Italian, and other European groups, and banned together, because , unlike Berkeley, they did not allow others to push them around, and, during that period, certain black gang elements took advantage of the situations to dominate, and intmidate, other races. That was not the case in Pittsburg.
In other words, the white backlash to people abusing the concepts of equality, to gain advantage, had already started.

From the liberalism of the time, came a resentment that started with abuse,
and it's grown in this area. Blacks, likewise, have become more racist then prior.

I was bowling in a league in Albany, and took a beautiful black teamate to Pleasant Hill's now defunct bowling alley. Despite the fact that I bowled with the best guy in the house, and knew the lady at the door quite well, the girl was treated like shit by the local kids that night, and all I could do was aplogize for being such an idiot, taking her there. This, in 1996, long after I thought we had fought, and won the war against racism, an entire
new generation of racist have either come from parents, or, from being discriminated against by government. When you use the Devils tools, you end up with the Devil's results, and that's exactly what has happened with affirmitive action.

Likewise, I was beaten over the head by three black guys, who didn't know me from adam, just because I had to kiss ass with the asshole white guy at the desk, because he was the manager, and at his whim, myself, and 3 other black teammates bowled for free, since we were in a league there.

The guy kicked them out, for being drunk, and, when he did it, I just happened to be at the desk, trying to get his sorry ass to turn our lanes back on. Since I was the only white guy in the place, besides the manager,
and they couldn't get him, they figured beat up the other white guy, when he went to the bathroom.

I did not know of them, and, I had never had any contact with any of them.

These are isolated examples, but, you can see a bit of a growth of conservative thought. I believe in treating others as you would like to be treated, and forgiving.

Given these situations, and others, robbery in particular comes to mind,
little by little, I quit justifying bad actions, by minorities, and started looking at the actions, and the people, and connecting them.

When you start doing this, you start getting called all kinds of names.

We get fed a lot of shit about people are all all right, it's just their actions that are bad. Bull.

I'm sure, as with animals, you get genetic defects. Children at 5 that feel no remorse, or feeling, about beating or killing others.

Actually, special education experience has allowed me to realize that all that justification garbage about poor kids is bull. The bottom line is, despite any disability, they have to know what is right, and what is wrong, and that their actions require consequences. The blame for actions have to go on the actor, not on society, but, the society must deal with all equally, or, the people given preference end up with harm in the long run.

All the liberal justification stuff did was create a sense of entitlement in our society.

Common to education is the adage that if you are faced with a difficult situation, tolerance is golden. Bull. The children KNOW what they are doing is wrong, it's just they get away with it, due to their being justified by others, and allowed to continue.

As long as this situation exists, the problems persist.

We have, since the early 60's tried all this liberal crap, and a lot of it just doesn't work. People are figuring it out, slowly but surely.

Somehow, those divorced from actually having to deal with their liberal ideals, those who are not in the trenches, dealing with Day treatment violent children, etc. come up with all these fluffy ideas about how it should be, and what will work. Those of us who do the work, have another ideal.
And here is the conflict. To really deal with the problems, you have to be continually able to test, reevaluate, and decide if what you did works, change, and go on.

Often I find, superiors are what I call facist-liberals. They have their own ideas, are unwilling to hear any contrary position, and will fire you, and try and cut your balls off, regardless if you have a valid point or not.

My favorite example of this kind of thinking is Bev Hansen, principal at Mt. Diablo High School. I was the head of the Black Student Union at the time, and the prior year, I had opened up the gym for the black kids to play, along with others that signed up, during lunch, and, at times, after school.

Considered a 'liberal educator" she refused to listen to both myself, and the local security and police, about the merits of my program, and denied us access to the gym, even though I had run it the prior year, with no problems.

This was the same woman who closed all bathrooms, except two, on a campus of 2500, because we had two bathrooms terrorized in response to her idiotic policies. I tried to present our position, but, this 'liberal' inacted a policy that attacked only one group, the BSU.

The biggest joke of the year was when a vice-principal asked me if I would sponsor, and open the gym for the volleyball team, mainly orientals, at lunch...

:evil:

This kind of facism, under the name of liberalism, is what creates a really
hatred for facists, using the liberal name, to further their own intolerance.
s

[Santilli]

To take it one step more, 'liberals' have become lemmings as well. Rather then looking at all data, history etc. they now look at 'conservatives' and bandy against someone, rather then for a position.

Bush is a great example. He spends money like a drunken liberal, giving millions to peoples that really need to die, so that their land and countries can survive.

They take pot shots at Bush for everything he does, failing to balance merits, etc. against failings.

I could go into a multi-level analyisis of the war in Iraq, but I won't.
Let me keep it simple. Saddam was a psycho tyrant, and, he has had a history that Stalin would be proud of. He should have been killed long ago, but slipped the bullet, thanks to liberals saying we shouldn't kill terrorist heads of states, or any heads of state.

Finally we get rid of him, and people complain their is no exit strategy, etc.
Well, we went into a muslim country, killed a murdering bastard, who
violated all his countries mores. If we pull out today, we will leave the place as it has been, with 3 different factions fighting for control of the area, all muslims, and the Kurds. Go to the CIA website for brake down on who is trying to control the country.

We should pull out today, and we would leave them better then we found them.

REgardless of what happens, any country without a dictator that is a Hitler, Stalin, or Saddam is much better off then prior.

s

[Santilli]

Finally, the best example I can think of currently is the all so obvious
silence addressing the valid issues brought up by Dr. Martin Fackler about gun control.

The real saddness is that it's obvious the anit-gun people have no intrest in information or honest discussion, or they would address his very valid points, or, at least admit that he makes valid points, and factor them into their opinions.

That's not the case here. I consider this sort of failure to address, or failure to accept alternate points of view on the subject intellectual dishonesty.
If you are a liberal, you should be willing to listen, discuss, and value all view points, in the hope that the dialectic process will improve your understanding, and others understanding of complex issues.

If you are not a liberal, just admit that you are either a facist-liberal, one who believes in only what they think is right, regardless of facts, socialist, whatever, or some other, non-dialectic process belieiving group.
Don't hide behind a label, failing to address the issues, or discuss them.

Also, don't waste your time, and others, listening to your rhetorical dogma that is presented a s a valid position, in a discussion.

However, I should revise that. Discussion requires listening and participation. What I see here is rhetoric, followed by total lack of communication, masked in a variety of trolls, designed to take the focus off
the lack of addressing facts presented, slightly different then the 'liberals'
belief.

s

[Mercutio]

We live in a representative republic, and much to the chagrin of people like yourself you are in the minority. As such it's not surprising that the laws and traditions of this country reflect the values of the majority. Either way, I fail to see how any of the single cases you reference are violation of the first ammendment. Either Congress did not enable the act (law) you are complaining about, or it doesn't interfere with someone's ability to practice his religion, nor is it a federally mandated religion (which is what it says).

Sigh.

So what you're saying is, because I'm not part of the majority, there's no reason to serve my interests as a citizen of the representative republic.
I'd say that says a lot about you and your beliefs.
See, if we went very far down the path that viewpoint leads us, we would get to a place where handicapped people wouldn't have reserved parking spaces. Can you accept that something like that is in fact a good thing?
At a previous point in our history, not protecting the rights of minorities led to "separate but equal" - different entrances, water fountains and rules for voting for people of different colors.
That's an easy one. It's pretty hard to say "I'm in favor of segregation" in 2004. But up to the 1960s (and perhaps later, the deeper you go into the South), that did in fact represent a majority viewpoint.

So: I have a number of objections to religious expressions that exist because of actions by our federal government. One of those is the somewhat offensive phrase "One Nation, Under God" on the pray^H^H^H^Hpledge of alliegiance public schoolchildren and freshly-minted citizens are taught to say. The "Under God" bit was added by act of Congress, and serves as a patent endorsement of a Judeo-Christian god. We aren't one nation under Ganesh or Allah, after all!
That one phrase isn't needed. The pledge works fine without it, but by including it, we're making thousands of people swear an oath that they
can't even fully believe! You don't think that's harmful?

Would you feel at all bound if you were forced to swear an oath to Krishna?

(Actually, here's a secret to finding empathy: Put yourself in someone else's shoes for a minute. Ask yourself, "How would I feel if...", then pretend it actually happened.)

Me? I think I'd rather have a pledge that either recognizes more deities, or perhaps a pledge that doesn't recognize any divine power, and therefore doesn't force someone to say something counter to the beliefs his or her parents taught him or her.

But maybe that's just me.

With regard to the differences between US "liberal" and "conservative", and without the name-calling some people resorted to...

What I see from the right wing in the US is an "I got mine" attitude that really seems to be sold with the expectation of some kind of future of wealth that can't possibly be for the vast majority of its adherents, or on maintaining "values" straight out of the Eisenhower administration (and/or the Bible. I'm not sure if there's a difference).
It's really funny to run into a republican die-hard making $12 an hour in a factory job, trying to explain how repealing the estate tax is going to benefit him and his children.

Putting aside some of the conservative statements about "values", which are scary to me all on their own (a lot of the fiscal-type conservatives are kind of scared/embarassed about the religious right-types, too), I think the biggest thing that bothers me about the conservative philosophy is its willingness to cede certain rights and controls to big businesses, organizations which ultimately have no responsibilities to citizens or employees or even customers.

Another issue I have - and this may just be my impression from all the abrasive talking heads who get 95% of the media exposure - but the right seems to have a pretty strong tradition of anti-intellectualism, something I generally find appalling. I see this with lot of religious right types especially. Maybe because conservative christians are less likely to have attended college? Regardless, it's hard to watch Fox News for 15 minutes without hearing something derisive about "ivory tower eggheads".

Conservative Republicans also seem to be very exclusionary, going out of their way to distance themselves from minorities even within their own party. There are exceptions - they're pretty happy with Clarence Thomas, for instance (who, by the way, almost never speaks during Supreme Court hearings and, IIRC, votes in line with Scalia something like 95% of the time), but by opposing the social programs (e.g affirmative action, Drug Treatment, rather than enforcement, programs) that might help poor urban minorities lift themselves up, they really lose any hope of gaining ground in those communities. And imagine how happy members of "The Log Cabin Republicans" must be since the president announced that he's all for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

I can see where Fiscal Conservatives are coming from. Not wanting to spend money on social programs or regulatory agencies, wanting lower taxes for their friends in high tax brackets - I don't agree with it, but I can understand it.
However, the minute someone starts talking about returning the nation to Jesus, I'm gone. In my experience, people who take that tack are utterly unable to comprehend that there are other people - many of US Citizens, who don't believe or wish to act in complete accordance with their morality. I've found that it's almost impossible to communicate with anyone advocating that point of view.

[Mercutio]

We live in a representative republic, and much to the chagrin of people like yourself you are in the minority. As such it's not surprising that the laws and traditions of this country reflect the values of the majority. Either way, I fail to see how any of the single cases you reference are violation of the first ammendment. Either Congress did not enable the act (law) you are complaining about, or it doesn't interfere with someone's ability to practice his religion, nor is it a federally mandated religion (which is what it says).

Sigh.

So what you're saying is, because I'm not part of the majority, there's no reason to serve my interests as a citizen of the representative republic.
I'd say that says a lot about you and your beliefs.
See, if we went very far down the path that viewpoint leads us, we would get to a place where handicapped people wouldn't have reserved parking spaces. Can you accept that something like that is in fact a good thing?
At a previous point in our history, not protecting the rights of minorities led to "separate but equal" - different entrances, water fountains and rules for voting for people of different colors.
That's an easy one. It's pretty hard to say "I'm in favor of segregation" in 2004. But up to the 1960s (and perhaps later, the deeper you go into the South), that did in fact represent a majority viewpoint.

So: I have a number of objections to religious expressions that exist because of actions by our federal government. One of those is the somewhat offensive phrase "One Nation, Under God" on the pray^H^H^H^Hpledge of alliegiance public schoolchildren and freshly-minted citizens are taught to say. The "Under God" bit was added by act of Congress, and serves as a patent endorsement of a Judeo-Christian god. We aren't one nation under Ganesh or Allah, after all!
That one phrase isn't needed. The pledge works fine without it, but by including it, we're making thousands of people swear an oath that they
can't even fully believe! You don't think that's harmful?

Would you feel at all bound if you were forced to swear an oath to Krishna?

(Actually, here's a secret to finding empathy: Put yourself in someone else's shoes for a minute. Ask yourself, "How would I feel if...", then pretend it actually happened.)

Me? I think I'd rather have a pledge that either recognizes more deities, or perhaps a pledge that doesn't recognize any divine power, and therefore doesn't force someone to say something counter to the beliefs his or her parents taught him or her.

But maybe that's just me.

With regard to the differences between US "liberal" and "conservative", and without the name-calling some people resorted to...

What I see from the right wing in the US is an "I got mine" attitude that really seems to be sold with the expectation of some kind of future of wealth that can't possibly be for the vast majority of its adherents, or on maintaining "values" straight out of the Eisenhower administration (and/or the Bible. I'm not sure if there's a difference).
It's really funny to run into a republican die-hard making $12 an hour in a factory job, trying to explain how repealing the estate tax is going to benefit him and his children.

Putting aside some of the conservative statements about "values", which are scary to me all on their own (a lot of the fiscal-type conservatives are kind of scared/embarassed about the religious right-types, too), I think the biggest thing that bothers me about the conservative philosophy is its willingness to cede certain rights and controls to big businesses, organizations which ultimately have no responsibilities to citizens or employees or even customers.

Another issue I have - and this may just be my impression from all the abrasive talking heads who get 95% of the media exposure - but the right seems to have a pretty strong tradition of anti-intellectualism, something I generally find appalling. I see this with lot of religious right types especially. Maybe because conservative christians are less likely to have attended college? Regardless, it's hard to watch Fox News for 15 minutes without hearing something derisive about "ivory tower eggheads".

Conservative Republicans also seem to be very exclusionary, going out of their way to distance themselves from minorities even within their own party. There are exceptions - they're pretty happy with Clarence Thomas, for instance (who, by the way, almost never speaks during Supreme Court hearings and, IIRC, votes in line with Scalia something like 95% of the time), but by opposing the social programs (e.g affirmative action, Drug Treatment, rather than enforcement, programs) that might help poor urban minorities lift themselves up, they really lose any hope of gaining ground in those communities. And imagine how happy members of "The Log Cabin Republicans" must be since the president announced that he's all for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

I can see where Fiscal Conservatives are coming from. Not wanting to spend money on social programs or regulatory agencies, wanting lower taxes for their friends in high tax brackets - I don't agree with it, but I can understand it.
However, the minute someone starts talking about returning the nation to Jesus, I'm gone. In my experience, people who take that tack are utterly unable to comprehend that there are other people - many of US Citizens, who don't believe or wish to act in complete accordance with their morality. I've found that it's almost impossible to communicate with anyone advocating that point of view.

[Santilli]

Sigh is right.

The intentions of the founders was to design a system of government that would not be overthrown by mob rule, like the Greeks.
They designed the state system to allow the Federal Government very little control over the states. The irony is slavery pretty much forced the errosion of the states protection of the minority, extending, by the 14th amendment, the Bill of Rights over the states. This allowed massive Federal influence, where, if not for slavery, it would not have existed.

As for the act of God by Congress, I believe that falls in the very limited areas where they can influence the concept of God, currency.

As for having to pledge to God, concerning oaths to the United States, for those who don't believe in God, it is objectionable, but not considering the freedoms they are given here, vs. other countries. It's also intentionally, an non-denomenational God, so that it can be each to their own, including Allah, etc.

As for your objections to the moral values from the Bible, one could certainly argue that's what this country is founded on. While I don't agree with some of the baggage that comes with it, and I believe the real problem with the term liberal is that rather then being willing to accept, and try new ideas, liberals have become just as dogmatic, and in fact worse, then the republicans they object to, and, at least around here,
have no tolerance for contrary views, having become just as reactionary
as the conservatives they originally despised.

I can easily see someone like myself, that believes in the original concept of a limited federal government, feeling that NO money should go to the federal government, since it is misused and wasted by Congress.

Originally the great debate was over the right to tax for a national militia. Now it's over financing the world's militia, and health care, while neglecting our own. I'm sick of paying 140 grand a year for a Senator that's worth 40 million dollars, who wants to give my feeble wages to sick African dictators, in the name of aides relief.

I think the only valid point you hav is the laizze faire approach to government and big business. The ONLY valid excuse for government intervention is the problem of regulating large businesses, that take control of different areas of government, using money to buy congress people, and use it to their own ends. This situation can, and may, lead to the destruction of the US, if allowed to go to it's logical end, see the depression for details.

As for your comments about ivrory tower egg heads, it's, at least in this state, because of the total lack of conservative professors. They are RUN OFF campuses here by the ultra-liberals, hunted down like Witches in the Salem Witch hunts, and fired. You have to be here to really go through it to understand how horrible it is, and how intolerant of differing opinions these facists are. Suffice to say, if you write the wrong side of a political argument, you can, and will, be run out of the school. Happened to me at the University of San Francisco Law School. A bunch of facist-liberals unionized and have taken over the law school, IIRC since about 1975. The end result is an anti-religious law school, on a Jesuit Campus :evil:

Truly a horrible place, if you go to law school to be around Jesuits, or like minded people.

As for your arguments about conservative republicans, that was the entire point of the state system. You could setup Utah as a Mormon state, be among like minded people, and create laws based on your religous beliefs, as long as they did not run afoul of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

Clarence Thomas is really funny, since he did a very good job of keeping his mouth shut, and, once in for life, now is acting as he sees fit, despite all the influence and pressure applied against him.

"Affirmative action"= use the Devils' tools, and you end up with the Devils' results.
Our current problem isn't treating drug addicts. It's massive Mexican gangs, importing huge amounts of cocaine, heroin, etc. into this country from Mexico, along with many automatic weapons, and anything else they can make money on. Closing our borders IS the first priority, period, not to mention the threat of terrorism.

And, finally, this may sound funny coming from a teacher with a J.D. but I don't want a bunch of free loading federal, or state government employees living off my meager income, or even my rich friends' incomes. The beauty of Kalifornia is for the last 20 years, so much money has been made off the tech boom, that the state has had a lot of money. The only problem is, that has resulted in now tax shortages, as the taxes have driven the companies to other countries to manufacture products, so they have cheap labor, and no taxes.

I really like the Texas model, where the government is open for three months, and the wages are shit. Teachers could do the work, or whoever.

The point being, it's better off having people spend the money they make, and inovate, creating computer companies, etc. then it is having the federal or state government soak out 75 cents of every tax dollar, and then give it to Mugabe in Africa in the name of aides research.

It's called trickle down economics. Rich people employee poorer people, with their money, with no government in the middle, and both parties profit.

As for your problem about people who want to return to a nation of Jesus, that was never the intention of the founders, period.
It's also a true test of your liberalism, since the true test of one is to listen to all points of view, and all points made in each area, and balance their varacity, and validity, even if their position makes your skin crawl.

Sort of the same way I feel about our federal government, run by a bunch of rich lawyers, who are making themselves richer, and fatter, spending money like drunken democrats.

s

[Santilli]

"

Dear Friend:


I recently met with local transit and rail officials in Oakland
to discuss the measures we need to take to better protect
public transportation travelers from terrorist attacks. The
attacks in Madrid that killed almost 200 people are a stark
reminder that rail lines could become targets in the U.S. I
have been working on two bills to better secure our rail lines:
the Rail Security Act and my own Railroad and Mass
Transportation Public Protection Program Act.


Increasingly, people are opting to use public transportation as
their primary route to work or to school. Hundreds of
thousands of riders in Northern California board rail travel
systems like AC Transit, Caltrain, and BART everyday. To
better ensure the safety of rail travel, I recently introduced
the Railroad and Mass Transportation Public Protection Program
Act, which would authorize federal grants over the next five
years for more police officers and canine units and improved
surveillance equipment on Amtrak and local transit systems. My
bill would also set aside funds each year for railroad and mass
transportation security grants.


I am also working for the passage of the Rail Security Act of
2004 which would direct funds for security improvements on
passenger and freight rail in the coming year. During recent
consideration of the bill I offered amendments, which were
adopted, to shift more rail security funding to California, to
ensure that local governments that operate stations could
receive security funding and to increase funding for
communications equipment, canine patrols and other security
features. I also sponsored a successful amendment that would
require a report on the extent to which roads and highways are
made inaccessible to emergency responders because of rail
crossings.


Our nation has taken important steps to make airline travel
more secure. We must also improve the security of rail travel.
Together, the Rail Security Act and the Railroad and Mass
Transportation Public Protection Program Act will go a long way
toward increasing that security. In the weeks ahead, I will be
working with Senators and House members from both parties to
pass these vitally important bills.


If you have questions or ideas about these bills, or about any
other matter, I hope you will contact me at
http://boxer.senate.gov/contact/webform.cfm


Sincerely,


Barbara Boxer
United States Senator
"

THIS IS THE KIND OF CRAP THAT DRIVES THINKING PEOPLE NUTS.

OK, Barb. How about this? Follow the Constitution that allows the people, under the second amendment, the right to bear arms? You know, that funny little document that is what is supposed to represent the government, and that you SWORE to uphold, when you signed in?

See, what you are going to do, is setup an agency to protect us, using our tax dollars, that like Bart, is going to be the highest priced, worst solution to a problem that the founders figured out long ago.

All your garbage solution is going to do, is, like metal detectors at the Oakland Arena, insure that citizens are unable to carry weapons, making it a 100% sure thing for any criminal in the parking lot, to mug and rob anyone they want, in the intrest of your making yourself feel better about your prior bills depriving the citizens of your state from being able to defend themselves.

The insidious plan here is to replace your right to protect yourself, with Big Brother's inefficent, very expensive, alleged right to protect you.

For reference, keep in mind these are the same people that control the security on the Kalifornia-Mexico border...

s