Right to bear arms prevents crime

[Valve Bounce]

I think the use and or brandishing of guns in America is often a cultural thing rather than one of protecting oneself. It would take a monumental effort by the American people themselves, to change this attitude. Gun toting is so prevalent in the United States that it would be impossible to effect any change.

By the way, has anyone reading this thread watched the wonderful TV series The Wire ?

[Jag_Warrior]

By the way, has anyone reading this thread watched the wonderful TV series The Wire ?

Absolutely! One of the best TV shows ever, IMO.

BTW, can you imagine Snoop or Omar willingly laying down their gats?

My (rather twisted) idea to deal with this hardened criminal element nationwide, which I see no reason to greatly detail (evidence for declaring me insane? I don't think so!!!), involves a Federal paramilitary force of about 1000 people... ex-soldiers... preferably special forces. And they wouldn't go to a neighborhood to win hearts & minds. But when they left, there would only be stories about Crips, Bloods, Mexican Mafia, Bulldogs, Aryan Brotherhood, Pagans, Hells Angels, etc. Children would ask, "did they actually exist, or was it just a legend... these stories about Paco, Pookie and Cletus?" No one would be sure. :confused:

They claim, "we don't die... we multiply!!!" ??? Well, we'd just have to test that theory with my plan. :dozey:

[Valve Bounce]

Absolutely! One of the best TV shows ever, IMO.

BTW, can you imagine Snoop or Omar willingly laying down their gats?

My (rather twisted) idea to deal with this hardened criminal element nationwide, which I see no reason to greatly detail (evidence for declaring me insane? I don't think so!!!), involves a Federal paramilitary force of about 1000 people... ex-soldiers... preferably special forces. And they wouldn't go to a neighborhood to win hearts & minds. But when they left, there would only be stories about Crips, Bloods, Mexican Mafia, Bulldogs, Aryan Brotherhood, Pagans, Hells Angels, etc. Children would ask, "did they actually exist, or was it just a legend... these stories about Paco, Pookie and Cletus?" No one would be sure. :confused:

They claim, "we don't die... we multiply!!!" ??? Well, we'd just have to test that theory with my plan. :dozey:

You terrible, terrible man!! :eek: How do I join?? My way has something to do with shooting them between their toes: the big toes!!

By the way, The Wire has been deemed the end of watching TV as it is and watching TV via discs. The show comes on late here on ABC digital, which my ancient recorders cannot receive. Otherwise, I'd be watching and recording an episode, then re-watching the same episode on a CD player the next night.

[Jag_Warrior]

Ah! So you haven't seen it through to the end yet?! Glad I didn't say something to spoil it for you!

Which season are you on? Are you up to the one where they follow the kids through the school year? In the early 90's, I looked at rental properties from D.C. to Baltimore. That show is TOO real. Amazing writing. And I don't believe it ever won a major award over here! What a travesty! :rolleyes:

[Valve Bounce]

Ah! So you haven't seen it through to the end yet?! Glad I didn't say something to spoil it for you!

Which season are you on? Are you up to the one where they follow the kids through the school year? In the early 90's, I looked at rental properties from D.C. to Baltimore. That show is TOO real. Amazing writing. And I don't believe it ever won a major award over here! What a travesty! :rolleyes:

The female lead (cop) just got shot (and probably killed) last night. :(
Please don't tell me what's going to happen.

[chuck34]

It really depends of which portion of history you're talking about at the time. But if you happen to be specifically mentioning the period from about 1969 onwards, then it was largely a case of terrorism.
And to be perfectly blunt, a great deal of the funding for that terrorism came from US citizens either directly or through NORAID.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,946419,00.html?promoid=googlep

"I'd like to thank America for it's help in the war on terror, because if you hadn't funded the IRA for 30 years, we wouldn't know how to deal with terrorists would we? You've played the long game on that one. Good thinking."
- Al Murray, Pub Landlord

I don't want to get in a debate on all this. Can't we just leave it at this ... The US and UK have both had issues in their histories that makes the claim that the UK has been stable for 320 years while the US has not, untrue at best?

[Jag_Warrior]

The female lead (cop) just got shot (and probably killed) last night. :(
Please don't tell me what's going to happen.

Oh, I think you're either in Season 1 or 2. That's early on. Nope, not a word from me!

So you haven't met Snoop yet? Oh, this is going to be good. Trust me, the best is yet to come! :s mokin:

[AAReagles]

26 Oct. 2009 San Francisco Chronicle:
After being beaten and allegedly raped by several men on the Richmond High School grounds after a homecoming dance, a 15-year-old girl remains hospitalized this morning. The incident happened on Saturday night.
According to reports, officers responded to Richmond High School at 1250 23rd St. just before midnight, about an hour after the dance ended, and saw several males running away, Richmond police Sgt. Bisa French said.
The officers then found the victim unconscious and suffering from "different injuries indicating she had been assaulted," French said.

It seems the victim left the dance, which is when the assault began, in an alley on the school grounds. According to KRON 4, the attacked lasted at least an hour with passersby joining in the attack or watching as it happened. So far, only one 19-year-old man has been arrested in connection with the attack. Police are looking for "at least a dozen" men, boys, students, and non-students who aided in the attack...



31 Oct 2009 LA Times:
Melody Ross, a junior in advanced-placement honors and a pole vaulter on the track team,was randomly hit by gunfire that also injured two young men, police said. It is not known if the shooting was gang-related...



4 Nov 2009 NY Daily News
The Cleveland rapist who police say lived amid the decaying bodies of 10 women he murdered was ordered held without bail Wednesday.
Anthony Sowell, 50, was arraigned Wednesday on five counts of aggravated murder stemming from the grisly discovery made by Cleveland police investigating a woman's accusations that she was raped by Sowell, a convicted sex offender, inside his home on Sept. 22.
Their search uncovered six decaying bodies of women who were strangled - and the numberswelled to10 Tuesday as police continued their investigation in Sowell's home. Police said the body count could go higher as investigators prepare to break down walls in Sowell's home in the coming days...


In my opinion, the situation is largely the same across most civilised Western democracies, whether in North America or Europe, in that possession of a gun for self-defence is not necessary. This even includes most people living in dodgy areas of big cities.

So do you still believe that?



Going off on a bit of a tangent here.
I also realize many (most?) people on here will be extremely reluctant to answer this.
Has anyone on this forum actually shot another human being or even shot at one?
I expect some military veterans may have. Even admitting to it will be difficult.
Not sure why that would be difficult; pretty simple equation really, when faced with an imminent threat, it's either you or them.

I've come close to using deadly force, once in Iraq (Desert Storm) and another time when someone was attempting to break in my apartment years ago.

It wouldn't be anything to boast about or be proud of, but I certainly wouldn't have a problem with it.



"I'd like to thank America for it's help in the war on terror, because if you hadn't funded the IRA for 30 years, we wouldn't know how to deal with terrorists would we? You've played the long game on that one. Good thinking."
- Al Murray, Pub Landlord

Yeah, he's a real riot alright. Wonder if his memory serves beyond 30 years, back to the famine that drove a major portion of the Irish over here in the first place. Such as two ancestors of mine, who were stowaways on a ship escaping the ordeal, referred to some as "The Gentlemen's Genocide."

[Eki]

26 Oct. 2009 San Francisco Chronicle:
After being beaten and allegedly raped by several men on the Richmond High School grounds after a homecoming dance, a 15-year-old girl remains hospitalized this morning. The incident happened on Saturday night.
According to reports, officers responded to Richmond High School at 1250 23rd St. just before midnight, about an hour after the dance ended, and saw several males running away, Richmond police Sgt. Bisa French said.
The officers then found the victim unconscious and suffering from "different injuries indicating she had been assaulted," French said.

It seems the victim left the dance, which is when the assault began, in an alley on the school grounds. According to KRON 4, the attacked lasted at least an hour with passersby joining in the attack or watching as it happened. So far, only one 19-year-old man has been arrested in connection with the attack. Police are looking for "at least a dozen" men, boys, students, and non-students who aided in the attack...



31 Oct 2009 LA Times:
Melody Ross, a junior in advanced-placement honors and a pole vaulter on the track team,was randomly hit by gunfire that also injured two young men, police said. It is not known if the shooting was gang-related...



4 Nov 2009 NY Daily News
The Cleveland rapist who police say lived amid the decaying bodies of 10 women he murdered was ordered held without bail Wednesday.
Anthony Sowell, 50, was arraigned Wednesday on five counts of aggravated murder stemming from the grisly discovery made by Cleveland police investigating a woman's accusations that she was raped by Sowell, a convicted sex offender, inside his home on Sept. 22.
Their search uncovered six decaying bodies of women who were strangled - and the numberswelled to10 Tuesday as police continued their investigation in Sowell's home. Police said the body count could go higher as investigators prepare to break down walls in Sowell's home in the coming days...



So do you still believe that?



Not sure why that would be difficult; pretty simple equation really, when faced with an imminent threat, it's either you or them.

I've come close to using deadly force, once in Iraq (Desert Storm) and another time when someone was attempting to break in my apartment years ago.

It wouldn't be anything to boast about or be proud of, but I certainly wouldn't have a problem with it.




Yeah, he's a real riot alright. Wonder if his memory serves beyond 30 years, back to the famine that drove a major portion of the Irish over here in the first place. Such as two ancestors of mine, who were stowaways on a ship escaping the ordeal, referred to some as "The Gentlemen's Genocide."
Are you advocating use of guns in highschools? And what good another gun would have done in a gang-related shooting except more dead bodies?

[AAReagles]

I am for the entitlement of individuals to protect themselves, their families and property. Which for the most part I would figure why others like myself continue to defend the right for legal gun ownership.

And yes, I do advocate for guns to be on school campuses as well, for reasons such as this:

http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/local&id=6083383

And I'm sorry man, but when a kid picks up a gun, knife (or in this case a bat), and decides to use it, he becomes an adult. Like it or not.

[Valve Bounce]

I am for the entitlement of individuals to protect themselves, their families and property. Which for the most part I would figure why others like myself continue to defend the right for legal gun ownership.

And yes, I do advocate for guns to be on school campuses as well, for reasons such as this:

http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/local&id=6083383

And I'm sorry man, but when a kid picks up a gun, knife (or in this case a bat), and decides to use it, he becomes an adult. Like it or not.

The whole argument centres around one word:DEFEND. Unfortunately, a gun is more often used as a weapon of offense than defense, and this is where people get shot. So, in a situation like HK where there are more than 13 million (back in 1998) people and guns are not permitted, then gun related violence is almost non existent.

I wonder why!! :confused:

[Captain VXR]

Yes, I've heard of the Indian Wars. Like I said we could go back and fourth on this all day.

So what about "The Troubles" then if Northern Ireland being split off was a cure?

The troubles were bad because a few 1000 died. A war could have killed millions, far more devastating

[AAReagles]

The whole argument centres around one word:DEFEND. Unfortunately, a gun is more often used as a weapon of offense than defense, and this is where people get shot. So, in a situation like HK where there are more than 13 million (back in 1998) people and guns are not permitted, then gun related violence is almost non existent.

I wonder why!! :confused:

You already answered your own question by simply comparing Hong Kong with the US

1) The US has more people which subsequently means there are more problems, such as crime. Hence people like Howard Unruh (Camden, NJ - 1949) and Charles Whitman (Austin, Texas - 1966) were an exception to violent occurences in society here in the states, not the norm as it has been during the last two decades, in which the population has noticeably increased.

2) The US is the Mecca Of Materialism, an entitlement society so to speak. Which is why it didn't surprise me to hear about kids killing other kids for '8-Ball' jackets and Nike shoes. For my fellow Yanks, no explanation is necessary, just look around at the 'gotta-have-it-now' society we live in.

3) The US is too lenient on violent offenders and murderers. Correct me if I am wrong, but it's my understanding that the laws in HK aren't much different from other S. Eastern Pacific countries; they mean business when someone is sentenced.

4) The US, as ever, has disparity issues, which is how various gangs of numerous different cultures evolved in this country. Translation: racial intolerance and/or social-economical injustice leads to criminal activity as a supplement for inadequate legal income. Or worse, riots. As Los Angeles discovered in 1992, and as France found out recently.

5) The US is, as perhaps to some degree is HK along with other developed (not "civilized") countries, a pharmaceutical formulated society, with pills being dispensed for just about anything people have an ailment for - from depression to impotence. And we all know how well Xanax worked out for some folks who went off. Which of course means that...

6) The US has a drug culture, incorporating a reckless attitude of "if it feels good, do it" at any cost, thriving since the 1960's. Something that I don't believe HK is too tolerant on. Or perhaps was, for all I know.

7) The US provides few employment opportunities for ex-cons and foster children. HK probably has the same problem, but with not as many people in the system... living of course, in the Mecca of Materialism. Which is all too tempting to (re)turn to crime when so many of the 'have-nots' live amongst a society of the 'haves', while constantly being bombarded with enticing advertisements.

So you see, it goes a little beyond 'gun culture', as you referred to it earlier.

Do I believe anyone needs multiple firearms? No. But I do believe that as long as someone who lives a responsible lifestyle is entitled to his rights in this country.

I can't discriminate any more against that than I would on the issue of abortion (which I am generally opposed to), especially when it could mean the difference of life and death on either issue.

[Valve Bounce]

You already answered your own question by simply comparing Hong Kong with the US

1) The US has more people which subsequently means there are more problems, such as crime. Hence people like Howard Unruh (Camden, NJ - 1949) and Charles Whitman (Austin, Texas - 1966) were an exception to violent occurences in society here in the states, not the norm as it has been during the last two decades, in which the population has noticeably increased.

2) The US is the Mecca Of Materialism, an entitlement society so to speak. Which is why it didn't surprise me to hear about kids killing other kids for '8-Ball' jackets and Nike shoes. For my fellow Yanks, no explanation is necessary, just look around at the 'gotta-have-it-now' society we live in.

3) The US is too lenient on violent offenders and murderers. Correct me if I am wrong, but it's my understanding that the laws in HK aren't much different from other S. Eastern Pacific countries; they mean business when someone is sentenced.

4) The US, as ever, has disparity issues, which is how various gangs of numerous different cultures evolved in this country. Translation: racial intolerance and/or social-economical injustice leads to criminal activity as a supplement for inadequate legal income. Or worse, riots. As Los Angeles discovered in 1992, and as France found out recently.

5) The US is, as perhaps to some degree is HK along with other developed (not "civilized") countries, a pharmaceutical formulated society, with pills being dispensed for just about anything people have an ailment for - from depression to impotence. And we all know how well Xanax worked out for some folks who went off. Which of course means that...

6) The US has a drug culture, incorporating a reckless attitude of "if it feels good, do it" at any cost, thriving since the 1960's. Something that I don't believe HK is too tolerant on. Or perhaps was, for all I know.

7) The US provides few employment opportunities for ex-cons and foster children. HK probably has the same problem, but with not as many people in the system... living of course, in the Mecca of Materialism. Which is all too tempting to (re)turn to crime when so many of the 'have-nots' live amongst a society of the 'haves', while constantly being bombarded with enticing advertisements.

So you see, it goes a little beyond 'gun culture', as you referred to it earlier.

Do I believe anyone needs multiple firearms? No. But I do believe that as long as someone who lives a responsible lifestyle is entitled to his rights in this country.

I can't discriminate any more against that than I would on the issue of abortion (which I am generally opposed to), especially when it could mean the difference of life and death on either issue.

Let me try to answer your post.

1. The population in HK lives in a much more confined/congested areas than in the US, especially in the high rise townships like Tai Po, Shatin, Tsuen Wan, and Tuen Mun among others. But apart from this, I really don't see what the total population of a country has to do with the multitude of problems related to gun proliferation - it is a problem related to your gun laws. I am assuming that the US has a ratio of police enforcement to be not inferior to that of HK, but if it does, then one wonders why!

2. I suppose if there weren't guns freely available to all these teenage criminals, then the crimes would not be so prevalent.

3. I am not sure how the laws in HK are administered in relation to other SE Pacific countries - I don't see the connection between say the administration of Laws between HK and Samoa, or PNG, or the Philippines or Indonesia, but that in itself is no excuse for any leniency of treatment of offenders; that is something "bilonga" USA.

4. I can only opine that your gun laws or lack of same contributes to this problem.

5. I really don't understand where the dispense of pills has anything to do with the proliferation of guns in the US.

6. From what my ex-colleague told me, his son (who was an addict) told him that if he wanted drugs, any drugs, he just rolled up to any Seven Eleven in Wan Chai. Again, I really don't see any reason here to support the proliferation of guns.

7. The lack of guns just makes such people less dangerous, so again, this argues counter to the gun laws of the USA.

[Jag_Warrior]

Guns are vitually illegal here in the UK...

Something that just crossed my mind... what are the legal penalties if someone is caught with an illegal firearm in the UK? Let's say someone is caught with a pistol. What would be the penalty for that conviction? And then, let's say someone is caught with a submachine gun. What would be the penalty for that conviction? Any difference in the sentences??? I've never heard anyone say, so I'm just curious.

I mean, I know cocaine is illegal in the UK. But from a CNBC World report I recently saw, there is still a cocaine problem in and around The City. So it seems that simply making something illegal isn't the (only) answer. Somehow, there must be some deeper reason why some things are illegal and people are more willing NOT to have anything to do with them. It's already illegal to possess an unregistered submachine gun here. Yet organized crime and street gangs here are still (somehow) willing and able to get them. We have very stiff federal penalties. But they don't seem to care.

Anyway, it's just interesting to me that much of the crime that we have here seems so much more brutal than the crime I read about in western Europe. In many gangs here, in order to be a member or advance, you have to kill someone. Whether you shoot them, stab them, choke them or beat them to death... as long as they are dead, you get your patch or tattoo.

Just random thoughts...

[Easy Drifter]

Handguns in Canada have been under very tight controls since 1935 and have to be registered. It is hard to get a possession licence and extremely hard to get a carry permit.
We also have a major problem with gang bangers and they sure as heck are neither using legal handguns nor long guns. It is possible for the gangers to rent guns and buy the bullets. When the gun comes back they get a credit for any unused ammo!
It is not unusual for a gang member who is out on bail or parole with a lifetime ban on weapon possession to be picked up carrying. Our legal (I can't call it judicial anymore) system is so screwed that they usually get bail yet again!
Our judges are appointed by the Govt. and most were appointed in years past by very left leaning Liberal Govts. The current Federal Govt. is less likely to appoint the 'bleeding heart' judges but most are still the old group.
It is so bad the crimminals seem to have more rights than the victims!

[Eki]

Handguns in Canada have been under very tight controls since 1935 and have to be registered. It is hard to get a possession licence and extremely hard to get a carry permit.
We also have a major problem with gang bangers and they sure as heck are neither using legal handguns nor long guns. It is possible for the gangers to rent guns and buy the bullets. When the gun comes back they get a credit for any unused ammo!
It is not unusual for a gang member who is out on bail or parole with a lifetime ban on weapon possession to be picked up carrying. Our legal (I can't call it judicial anymore) system is so screwed that they usually get bail yet again!
Our judges are appointed by the Govt. and most were appointed in years past by very left leaning Liberal Govts. The current Federal Govt. is less likely to appoint the 'bleeding heart' judges but most are still the old group.
It is so bad the crimminals seem to have more rights than the victims!
In gang related shoot-outs both sides usually have guns. Do you believe that they would stop if also by-standers had guns? If they aren't scared of each others, why would they be scared of by-standers?

[Jag_Warrior]

I guess I've found the answer to my question. Really now! :rolleyes:

Ex-soldier faces jail for handing in gun (http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html)

[Easy Drifter]

I do not know how you equated my comments about the situation in Canada's big cities to saying everyone should carry guns.
Just another example of your twisting facts and peoples' comments to suit your own nefarious purposes.
Secondly in a very large percentage of the shootings the ones being shot at are not carrying guns. Note what I said about renting guns.
There also have been several cases where totally innocent bystanders have been shot. Most of the gangbangers just blaze away. They are as likely to hit a bystander as the person they are trying to shoot.
Unless you really know how to use a handgun, especially automatics, after the first shot the bullets tend to go all over due to the recoil. You need training and experience to deal with that. These morons just blaze away.
Strange how Switzerland has few shootings where every male has a gun in his house. Maybe the fact that they are well trained in their use has something to do with it.

[Eki]

There also have been several cases where totally innocent bystanders have been shot. .
And how would innocent bystanders havig guns would help there? Accidentally shooting more innocent bystanders in addition to an occasional gang member, especially if they aren't adequately trained to use their guns?



Most of the gangbangers just blaze away. They are as likely to hit a bystander as the person they are trying to shoot.
Unless you really know how to use a handgun, especially automatics, after the first shot the bullets tend to go all over due to the recoil. You need training and experience to deal with that. These morons just blaze away.
Strange how Switzerland has few shootings where every male has a gun in his house. Maybe the fact that they are well trained in their use has something to do with it.
Or maybe they just have a different culture and traditions that don't involve armed gangs and gang shoot-outs? I don't hear well-trained Swiss gangs accurately shooting each other. But I do remember reading about a Swiss officer shooting his wife and himself with his military assault rifle he kept home.

[Easy Drifter]

Typical moronic response from Eki. Cites one isolated incident in Switzerland to refute the normal situation.
Where in the h--l did I ever say having bystanders carrying guns help? I refuted that comment in my last post.
At times I almost start to agree with you Eki, especially in your feud with Tony, and then you act like you never got out of your childhood.
I grew up with guns and used guns for many many years and have a huge respect for them. I know what they can do. Every gun I have ever handled I treated as loaded and ready to fire until I have personally checked it out.
I know I have taken many cheap shots at you Eki, but I also have had, I thought, some fun with you.
In this case I feel you are just being rather silly. Sorry if that offends you.
The illegal gun situation in Canada is very serious and unfortunetly our legal (not justice) system is making things worse.
In my opinion the only real answer is an extremely severe crackdown on violent crime, especially any involving weapons, not just guns. However that does not seem to resonate with our judges and especially with the Lib left who take the attitude it is all societies fault.
Basically people are no longer responsible for their actions--it is always societies fault.
This old f-rt considers that if I F up it is my fault not some nebulous person.
Please Eki, read and consider all of what I wrote not just pick out some isolated comment.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Or maybe they just have a different culture and traditions that don't involve armed gangs and gang shoot-outs? I don't hear well-trained Swiss gangs accurately shooting each other. But I do remember reading about a Swiss officer shooting his wife and himself with his military assault rifle he kept home.

Gee Eki, you ever think a man sick enough to kill his own wife in such a manner wouldn't do the job with a knife or just beating her to death? The gun may have made the job easier, but people kill each other with knives, axes, and poison. Going to outlaw all of those too?

Pretty naive you are...but that's ok. The anti-gun lobby in Canada is always shocked when they bring in more laws against gun ownership and make it tougher to own guns, yet violent crime with guns has gone up in the FACE of those laws. People will do what they will with what they can. You don't need a gun to kill someone, but if you do, having an unregistared one and or having one that is illegal isn't going to deter you now is it?

[Eki]

An episode of the Simpsons I just watched reminded me of this thread.

Lisa: The second amendment is just a remnant from revolutionary periods, it has no real meaning today

Homer: You couldn't be more wrong Lisa. If I didn't have this gun the King of England could just come in here and start pushing you around. Do you want that, well do ya?

Homer's excuse for having a gun actually makes more sense than a lot of stuff here.

[Mark in Oshawa]

An episode of the Simpsons I just watched reminded me of this thread.

Lisa: The second amendment is just a remnant from revolutionary periods, it has no real meaning today

Homer: You couldn't be more wrong Lisa. If I didn't have this gun the King of England could just come in here and start pushing you around. Do you want that, well do ya?

Homer's excuse for having a gun actually makes more sense than a lot of stuff here.

No. An Armed Homer would make me want to advocate gun control.....

[Garry Walker]

No. An Armed Homer would make me want to advocate gun control.....

Rather an armed Homer than an unarmed Eki.

[markabilly]

eki needs to stick to his job at taco bell....

[Mark in Oshawa]

Rather an armed Homer than an unarmed Eki.

That would be dicey Garry, a real Hobson's choice. Heck...Eki is a man of non violence..so he claims anyhow.

[AAReagles]

Let me try to answer your post.

My apologies for being ambiguous.


1. The population in HK lives in a much more confined/congested areas than in the US, especially in the high rise townships like Tai Po, Shatin, Tsuen Wan, and Tuen Mun among others. But apart from this, I really don't see what the total population of a country has to do with the multitude of problems related to gun proliferation - it is a problem related to your gun laws. I am assuming that the US has a ratio of police enforcement to be not inferior to that of HK, but if it does, then one wonders why!
Crimes per capita is indeed a factor, but generally speaking – as I’ve said before – the greater the population the greater the problems. Hence comparing Hong Kong to the US.

The US law enforcement agencies do well in spite of budget restraints. So that’s not a problem, other than the fact that they can’t be there when you need them.



2. I suppose if there weren't guns freely available to all these teenage criminals, then the crimes would not be so prevalent.
Not necessarily. Wolf-packs have been around since I could remember. With or without guns (or even knives for that matter) youth violence is still just as deadly . The parents of 16-year-old Derrion Albert could testify for that.

Fresno property manager Albert Rodriguez, 59, was beaten to death by a bunch of youths while he was making his rounds at the apartment complex he was responsible for.

Now that the internet is prevalent with all kinds of social networking, kids can and have used those sources for the wrong reasons; such as the ‘Kick A Ginger Day’ that occurred months ago. Not to mention the 15-seconds of fame of You-Tube bullying/beatings being posted from time to time.




3. I am not sure how the laws in HK are administered in relation to other SE Pacific countries - I don't see the connection between say the administration of Laws between HK and Samoa, or PNG, or the Philippines or Indonesia, but that in itself is no excuse for any leniency of treatment of offenders; that is something "bilonga" USA.
Well if we agree on this situation ‘bilonga’ to the US, why the disposition against law-biding folks protecting themselves?



4. I can only opine that your gun laws or lack of same contributes to this problem.

As does any other weapon of choice. Good luck telling that to someone who is African-American or Latino by the way.



5. I really don't understand where the dispense of pills has anything to do with the proliferation of guns in the US.

I was referring to such info as this:

http://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/media/ssri/Paxil_murder.htm

… along with the assumption - pardon me if I’m wrong - that TCM (Traditional Chinese Medicine) is still practiced over in your region.




6. From what my ex-colleague told me, his son (who was an addict) told him that if he wanted drugs, any drugs, he just rolled up to any Seven Eleven in Wan Chai. Again, I really don't see any reason here to support the proliferation of guns.

I was referring to the crack-cocaine epidemic. But I’ll kick in meth too. I don’t doubt that there are people ‘chasing the dragon’ over there. I just don’t identify the HK drug problem being like it is here.



7. The lack of guns just makes such people less dangerous, so again, this argues counter to the gun laws of the USA.

Solve the problems of the disadvantage by taking away the rights of others… mmm… I don’t know man. That sounds like something straight of the ‘Great Leap Forward’ handbook.

I might add that removal of guns doesn’t keep someone who is determine to commit murder/mayhem from taking action.

Helen Golay and Olga Rutterschmidt proved it, by using a car to run over homeless men that they took insurance claims out on.

Tim McVeigh proved it with a rental truck containing explosive material.

The Japanese cult that gassed those folks in the underground train system proved it as well.


I’m more inclined to go with the director and founder of Homeboy Industries, Father Greg Boyle, who is not a gun-rights advocate, but who’s mission motto has a more fundamental solution – “nothing stops a bullet like a job.”

[AAReagles]

… You only have to look at the statistics of gun related shootings in countries with no firearm restrictions, to realise why there is such a problem.

That would be like me saying the reason homicide rates have gone down in Fresno, Los Angeles, San Francisco and nationwide (generally) that it was because more people went out and bought guns. Which obviously isn’t the case, as one has to consider the PAL (Police Activities Leagues) for at-risk youths, gang-intervention programs and other community related services.

Hence guns are no more the problem than bombs were the problem in Northern Ireland and parts of England. It’s about policy and prosperity. Or lack of.





I can also understand that once they are legal then it is hard to convince or enforce a non gun society. They couldn't pass a law in the US for example and expect everyone to hand in their guns IMO...

I think we all can agree that we need government to maintain a stabilized society, however when you have the case of Mr. Paul Clarke, 27, (from the article JW posted above), it amounts to nothing short of welfare tyranny.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Mr. Reagles, an excellent counterpoint. I think what people always miss in something like this incident in England's Lake District is gun ownership restrictions in the UK didn't stop this gent from going off the deep end, and it didn't stop people from dying.

The point has to be pointed out over and over and over that guns don't kill people, people kill people, and they just happen to use guns. While the US gun culture isn't something I would advocate in a modern nation, I also understand its historical roots and I don't blame the right to bear arms for the the higher number of gun death's in the US. I blame the fact that in a free society, people are often free to be mentally ill, and people who reach that state will find a way to do harm.

BTW...lol...too bad about your Sharks, but this is the first year I can honestly say they didn't choke...

[AAReagles]

... I think what people always miss in something like this incident in England's Lake District is gun ownership restrictions in the UK didn't stop this gent from going off the deep end, and it didn't stop people from dying.

Which is why the first thing I thought of when I saw this on the news, was the brilliance of Victoria Coren, who in her article stated her opposition of armed policemen…

[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/07/victoria-coren-police-guns[/url

… if that isn’t someone not living in the real world.



... While the US gun culture isn't something I would advocate in a modern nation, I also understand its historical roots and I don't blame the right to bear arms for the the higher number of gun death's in the US. I blame the fact that in a free society, people are often free to be mentally ill, and people who reach that state will find a way to do harm.

Yeah, I’m not keen on the history of the US with guns, I just realize that guns will not disappear. Hence as to why I believe folks should have a right to defend themselves, be it from man or beast… or like that pitbull some lady in southern Cal., shot.



BTW...lol...too bad about your Sharks, but this is the first year I can honestly say they didn't choke...
:laugh: Yeah, well the USA Oly hockey team got me curious, so I checked out the NHL standings and to my surprise the Sharks were in the #1 seed for playoffs!! :eek: … then, came the playoffs…. :dozey: :s mash:

[AAReagles]

... I think what people always miss in something like this incident in England's Lake District is gun ownership restrictions in the UK didn't stop this gent from going off the deep end, and it didn't stop people from dying.

Which is why the first thing I thought of when I saw this on the news, was the brilliance of Victoria Coren, who in her article stated her opposition of armed policemen…

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/07/victoria-coren-police-guns

… if that isn’t someone not living in the real world.



... While the US gun culture isn't something I would advocate in a modern nation, I also understand its historical roots and I don't blame the right to bear arms for the the higher number of gun death's in the US. I blame the fact that in a free society, people are often free to be mentally ill, and people who reach that state will find a way to do harm.

Yeah, I’m not keen on the history of the US with guns, I just realize that guns will not disappear. Hence as to why I believe folks should have a right to defend themselves, be it from man or beast… or like that pitbull some lady in southern Cal., shot.



BTW...lol...too bad about your Sharks, but this is the first year I can honestly say they didn't choke...
:laugh: Yeah, well the USA Oly hockey team got me curious, so I checked out the NHL standings and to my surprise the Sharks were in the #1 seed for playoffs!! :eek: … then, came the playoffs…. :dozey: :s mash:

[Mark in Oshawa]

The sad reality is guns are part of a modern society, and when combined with mental illness and an extreme hate for some entity, you will end up with killings. Heck, a guy beheaded a guy in cold blood on a Greyhound crossing Canada 2 summer's back with a machete. No one needs a gun to create mayhem....

[Mark in Oshawa]

Also ironic in Victoria Coren's column is how much more obvious the gun presence is in London. I have spent a lot of time in many places in the US, and the only guns I have ever seen have been holstered in secure holsters on the hips of the cops. Never have I seen a H and K sub either.....

So where is the gun culture really? I think the UK's issues and relationship with guns has far more holes in it than people realize.

[Eki]

The sad reality is guns are part of a modern society, and when combined with mental illness and an extreme hate for some entity, you will end up with killings. Heck, a guy beheaded a guy in cold blood on a Greyhound crossing Canada 2 summer's back with a machete. No one needs a gun to create mayhem....
No, but with a gun, especially with an automatic gun, you can create a bigger mayhem in a shorter period of time. It's all about efficiency. And if I were a cop having a gun or a stun-gun, I'd prefer to encounter someone with a machete over someone with a gun.

[Bob Riebe]

No, but with a gun, especially with an automatic gun, you can create a bigger mayhem in a shorter period of time. It's all about efficiency. And if I were a cop, I'd prefer to encounter someone with a machete than someone with a gun.
Yes but in the two countries I know of, U.S. of A. and Sweden, where sub-guns are comparatively easy to own, the rate of murder by auto fire firearms is extremely low.
Now shotguns, as was used here, is the most efficient firearm for killing face to face yet in the old Soviet Union, and now Russia, a shotgun is easily otained, and can be carried in a vehicle with the loaded magazine next to an uncased gun .

Firearms never been the, or a problem.

[Eki]

Yes but in the two countries I know of, U.S. of A. and Sweden, where sub-guns are comparatively easy to own, the rate of murder by auto fire firearms is extremely low.

Obviously you don't know Sweden. Automatic weapons are extremely difficult to own legally in Sweden, the same as in Finland. Only the military can have them legally, and maybe the police special units.

[anthonyvop]

Obviously you don't know Sweden. Automatic weapons are extremely difficult to own legally in Sweden, the same as in Finland. Only the military can have them legally, and maybe the police special units.

Why do you think that Finland can restrict free expression like they do? An unarmed populace is easily controlled

[Mark in Oshawa]

No, but with a gun, especially with an automatic gun, you can create a bigger mayhem in a shorter period of time. It's all about efficiency. And if I were a cop having a gun or a stun-gun, I'd prefer to encounter someone with a machete over someone with a gun.

Very true. I guess you don't want to be in Switzerland then. Every member of the militia, basically every fit male has a sub in his closet.

The gun isn't the problem Eki. You keep blaming the weapon and ignoring the human being with the mental issue.

The fact is, you take guns away from people who legally would comply, and the only people besides the cops and military armed would be criminals. They would now know that anyone civilian would be NO threat at all to them.

The reality is, taking guns away from legal gun owners doesn't fix any problem...

[Eki]

Very true. I guess you don't want to be in Switzerland then. Every member of the militia, basically every fit male has a sub in his closet.

But do they have live ammunition?

[Eki]

Why do you think that Finland can restrict free expression like they do? An unarmed populace is easily controlled
Yes, and an armed population is prone to a revolution, like in Cuba in the 1950s.

[Bob Riebe]

Obviously you don't know Sweden. Automatic weapons are extremely difficult to own legally in Sweden, the same as in Finland. Only the military can have them legally, and maybe the police special units.
BS, unless--- there has been a law change--- a gunsmith in Sweden I used to communicate with, often, said owning a sub-machine gun in Sweden comes under the same laws as owning a hunting rifle.
They are both considered rifles.
If you pass the competency test to be able to own a rifle you can purchase one.

He did say after Clinton visited Sweden, the laws did not change but the Gov. ass-holes harassed them more often.
Hand guns are considered more evil.

[Mark in Oshawa]

But do they have live ammunition?

What good is the gun if it doesn't have ammo?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Yes, and armed population is prone to a revolution, like in Cuba in the 1950s.
That is the reason personal arms were part of the rights in the US Constitution. Government is more responsive in theory if they know the people are armed and could make their life hell...

[Eki]

What good is the gun if it doesn't have ammo?
When I was in the army, we had live ammo only in supervised shooting practice and when on guard duty. In battle practices we only had blanks or no ammo at all. Besides, ammo are more easy to deliver and pass around than guns if there will be a war or a reservist training.

[Eki]

That is the reason personal arms were part of the rights in the US Constitution. Government is more responsive in theory if they know the people are armed and could make their life hell...
Anthonyvop will never admit that Batista and the US made the lives of Cubans hell before the revolution.

[Eki]

BS, unless--- there has been a law change--- a gunsmith in Sweden I used to communicate with, often, said owning a sub-machine gun in Sweden comes under the same laws as owning a hunting rifle.
They are both considered rifles.
If you pass the competency test to be able to own a rifle you can purchase one.

He did say after Clinton visited Sweden, the laws did not change but the Gov. ass-holes harassed them more often.
Hand guns are considered more evil.
OK, you can get an automatic gun if you belong to the Swedish National Guard:

http://www.ing.umu.se/~ext98mhm/gunlaws.html


Easiest way to get a full auto at home is to join "Hemvärnet" (home guard), they will (probably) issue a Ak-4 (Swedish version of H&K G3) or maybe a Ksp-45 (Swedish 9 mm SMG). One has to be a Swedish citizen and (I think) done his military service.

[anthonyvop]

Yes, and an armed population is prone to a revolution, like in Cuba in the 1950s.

Another graduate of the Finnish school of history.

Firearms were heavily restricted in pre-Castro Cuba. Only Shotguns and rimfire rifles(.22 caliber) were allowed for private ownership.

So you just proved my point. When you apply draconian gun control laws only Criminals will have them. The Cuban people have been paying for that for over 50 years.

[anthonyvop]

Anthonyvop will never admit that Batista and the US made the lives of Cubans hell before the revolution.

As you will never admit that the lives of Cubans have been much worse under Castro.

[Eki]

Another graduate of the Finnish school of history.

Firearms were heavily restricted in pre-Castro Cuba. Only Shotguns and rimfire rifles(.22 caliber) were allowed for private ownership.

So you just proved my point. When you apply draconian gun control laws only Criminals will have them. The Cuban people have been paying for that for over 50 years.
And you just proved that revolutionaries/terrorists/freedom fighters can get firearms if they want to, even if they are restricted.

[Eki]

As you will never admit that the lives of Cubans have been much worse under Castro.
Thanks to the US, who still has an embargo on Cuba although in the latest voting 187 countries of the UN said it should be ended. Only the US, Israel and Palau said it should be continued. Micronesia and the Marshall Islands left an empty vote.

[Jag_Warrior]

I wouldn't say that select fire and automatic weapons are "easy" to obtain here either (not legally anyway). For one, only select fire and full autos produced before May 16, 1986 can be legally transferred. So we're talking about 25 year old weapons, many of which have lived a hard life. More than a few have been rebuilt numerous times... sometimes with dicey parts. No new weapons are entering the pool. So they're like land: they ain't makin' no more of 'em. For that reason, they command VERY high prices and are seen more like investment vehicles by most collectors. You'll have done pretty well for yourself if you can find a full auto or select fire weapon (that's not a piece of junk) for less than $10,000. The other point being, if you have or want an NFA firearm, once you pass the background check and your local police dept. has been notified, the weapon itself still has to be legal in the state or municipality where you reside. You can secure your tax stamp or get your FFL, but that doesn't mean that you'll be able to own the same weapon in say, California, as you could in Texas, for example. And even if you can get the weapon, unlike with non-NFA firearms, your current name and address will be with the BATF until you transfer the weapon. Anyone who gets an NFA weapon opens themselves up to close government scrutiny.

For those and other reasons, deaths by legally owned full auto or select fire weapons is almost nonexistent in the U.S. The only somewhat recent case I can think of involved a weapon that was owned by a police agency and was tied to a rogue cop. I think he machine-gunned his dope head/prostitute/snitch girlfriend when their "relationship" went south. I want to say that he was or had been an FBI agent. My memory is foggy, so don't quote me on the particulars, but I believe that's close.

The full auto and select fire weapons that are here, that are newer than 1986 models, are either owned by the police, the feds or the military... or they've been smuggled in and are (HIGHLY) illegal.

When I read an article that you used to be able to buy machine guns in Walmart and Kmart just a few years ago, I know I'm reading a poorly researched article. Rani was making a big deal about my (semi-auto) AK's the other day. Other than the menacing appearance, the AK is nothing special. An AK won't do anything that any other semi-auto rifle can't also do. The same is true of AR's and other military style weapons that some people make a big deal about. So mine has a bayonet lug. So what? If I get to the point that I'm going to jab you with a bayonet, your life has already taken a sad turn for the worse.

IMO, people focus too much on the aesthetics of various firearms, and don't focus on what it's going to take to actually reduce crime (whether it be firearms related or not).

[Mark in Oshawa]

Thanks to the US, who still has an embargo on Cuba although in the latest voting 187 countries of the UN said it should be ended. Only the US, Israel and Palau said it should be continued. Micronesia and the Marshall Islands left an empty vote.

Oh so the US DOES MATTER in how the world's economy works Eki? Wait a minute, you mean the fact the Cubans can trade with all the EC and Canada, not to mention China, Japan and everyone else doesn't matter at all? Dream on pal....Cubans are in a police state because the Castro's want it that way, and they have a down economy because they control every aspect of it.

When major Canadian hotel chains go down there, build hotels and fly tourists in every winter, the Castro regime is making money hand over fist but they tell the owners of the hotels that the workers the regime supplies will only be paid a minimum amount. Great deal for the Hotel owners, and the government, but it sucks for the people.

The fact is, if Cuba isn't a paradise on earth, it isn't due to the US embargo. There isn't ONE thing they could get from the US they cannot already get from the rest of the nations that do business with Cuba. The fact is, the Castro's run Cuba in every way and they have to take the blame for the situation there, not the Americans.

The US SHOULD have dropped the embargo years ago if they were going to trade with the butchers of Beijjing, so on that score, you get partial points from me, but that said, Cuba's problems are not America's doing. Cuba's problems are Cuba's problems, and they have a regime that has been in power since 1963 with no free press, no open and free elections, no multiparty system and no checks and balances for human rights. Amnesity International will have lots I am sure on the conditions in Cuban prisons. People are willing to DIE trying to leave the island. So spare me this santcimonious crap of yours that this is the American's fault.

[Mark in Oshawa]

BTW Eki, you just hijacked YET another thread.

[Eki]

BTW Eki, you just hijacked YET another thread.
No, I think this time it was anthonyvop. Just scroll back and read. He did tie gun ownership with freedom of speech. And freedom of speech should include thread hijacking. Don't make me to come and shoot you.

[anthonyvop]

Thanks to the US, who still has an embargo on Cuba although in the latest voting 187 countries of the UN said it should be ended. Only the US, Israel and Palau said it should be continued. Micronesia and the Marshall Islands left an empty vote.

So the Castro government repression of freedoms, torturing of political prisoners, Murder of opposition and the failure to have free elections is the fault of the US embargo?

That is a reach even for you.

Again you fail to grasp logic.

Cuba can trade with 187 countries and they still are an economic mess.

[Eki]

Cuba can trade with 187 countries and they still are an economic mess.
None of them are as close to them and as rich as the US. A US embargo on Canada would hurt Canada even if they still could trade with 187 countries.

[anthonyvop]

None of them are as close to them and as rich as the US. A US embargo on Canada would hurt Canada even if they still could trade with 187 countries.

maybe so but I bet Canada wouldn't arrest 1000's of political prisoners, murder opposition and fail to hold free elections either.

[Eki]

maybe so but I bet Canada wouldn't arrest 1000's of political prisoners, murder opposition and fail to hold free elections either.
And you think the Castros are the first ones to feel the consequences of the embargo and not the ordinary Cubans? You think they say to their people "Here, you take the little money and goods we have, we don't want any"?

[Mark in Oshawa]

None of them are as close to them and as rich as the US. A US embargo on Canada would hurt Canada even if they still could trade with 187 countries.

Canada's economy is intertwined with the US. They are our largest trading partner and our economies depend on each other. It is a good point if you buy into the myth that by trading with Cuba, the USA would change things.

While Cuba is close to the US, the fact is the economy of the island is dependent upon nations buying its products. Sugar and other agricultural products, tourism, tobacco....and they were that in 1958 and they are that now. All of those industries are fully engaged in the Cuban economy. If they traded with the US, they couldn't grow any more sugar, any more tobacco than they do now. They might get more tourists and investment money but to really take advantage of THAT, they would have to open up their economy to let the money go where it would naturally go. IN short, open up their economy and dump the useless marxist style mess they have now. They REFUSE to do that....so really, again, your argument holds little water.

Cuba is poor because its government keeps all the wealth, and doesn't understand it could be wealthy with a wealthy people but they wont embrace capitalism. You get rid of a socialist controlled economy, and it is amazing how fast the standard of living will rise. What is more, when THAT happens, the USA is going to be in there like a dirty shirt. China opened up their economy, and now are the world's largest economy. Vietnam's economy improved immediately when they dumped the marxist ways of the Ho Chi Minh. Venezuela's economy has slowly gone the wrong way as Chavez starts managing what he doesn't underestand. It has been proven OVER and OVER and OVER again that capitalist societies, no matter what their faults tend to have a better standard of living than dictatorships run by thugs managing the economy and pocketing the spoils. You can yap all you want Eki about the American embargo, but you are defending a dictatorship that you wouldn't live under for 5 minutes...

[Eki]

Cuba is poor because its government keeps all the wealth,
Do you really think their government is THAT rich that even if they distributed all their wealth to the ordinary citizens, the ordinary Cubans would be well off according to Western standards? Reminds me of an old joke about a communist who said to Rockefeller that he should share his money with everyone and Rockefeller replied "OK, here's YOUR one dollar".

[anthonyvop]

Do you really think their government is THAT rich that even if they distributed all their wealth to the ordinary citizens, the ordinary Cubans would be well off according to Western standards? Reminds me of an old joke about a communist who said to Rockefeller that he should share his money with everyone and Rockefeller replied "OK, here's YOUR one dollar".

Castro alone is estimated to be worth $550,000,000. Divide that by the number of adults in Cuba and you get about $69 per person.

Considering the per-capita income of a Cuban is $4450 then $69 is nothing to sneeze at.
Add in the Billions held by his lackeys and you get a significant chunk of change.

Off course that doesn't take into account the wealth generated by the individuals if Cuba was to allow personal freedom instead of controlling every aspect of Cuban life.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Do you really think their government is THAT rich that even if they distributed all their wealth to the ordinary citizens, the ordinary Cubans would be well off according to Western standards? Reminds me of an old joke about a communist who said to Rockefeller that he should share his money with everyone and Rockefeller replied "OK, here's YOUR one dollar".

You think the economy of a nation is a zero sum game? That there is only so much money to go around? You think an enterprising Cuban with financial support or a business loan couldn't create wealth? You ever think for just a second that the economy of your nation or mine just got to this point over night? If Cuba's government had truly libreated the people there from the excesses of Batista, the US embargo would have been gone ages ago. The fact is Castro wanted a Marxist/socialist state in theory with himself in charge in reality. Castro isn't living on 69 dollars a year either...

When a man of the people refuses to live like them, refuses to be elected over and over again by them, and throws them in jail for disagreeing, he isn't a man of the people, he is a obnoxious thug and a liar. You support him Eki....typical.

[markabilly]

No, I think this time it was anthonyvop. Just scroll back and read. He did tie gun ownership with freedom of speech. And freedom of speech should include thread hijacking. Don't make me to come and shoot you.
troll.

may be he is webber in disguise as he is always chopping in, but given all his whining and whimpering, he must be either vettel or damon hill in disguise :rolleyes:

how you doing with the sour cream down at taco Bell, wikieki????????????????????

[Eki]

how you doing with the sour cream down at taco Bell, wikieki????????????????????
Good. And how are you doing as a dog sitter in Chihuahua?

[Eki]

You think the economy of a nation is a zero sum game? That there is only so much money to go around? You think an enterprising Cuban with financial support or a business loan couldn't create wealth?
How, if those enterprising Cubans are just allowed to trade with other Cubans and not with their 330 million neighbors in the US? The US could be a lucrative market for enterprising Cubans.

[anthonyvop]

How, if those enterprising Cubans are just allowed to trade with other Cubans and not with their 330 million neighbors in the US? The US could be a lucrative market for enterprising Cubans.

They wouldn't be allowed to even if the US dropped the so-called embargo. The Cuban Government is the only one that can import-export out of the Island.

Eki.

Cuba is under the thumb of a murderous dictatorship. Why are you defending them?

[Eki]

They wouldn't be allowed to even if the US dropped the so-called embargo. The Cuban Government is the only one that can import-export out of the Island.

Eki.

Cuba is under the thumb of a murderous dictatorship. Why are you defending them?
And the US tightening the noose around them doesn't help. Why are you attacking them?

[Easy Drifter]

The US is about the only country unwilling to trade with Cuba.

[Easy Drifter]

Do you think it might be possible to get back to the title of this thread instead of having it hijacked into an anti US tirade.

[Mark in Oshawa]

How, if those enterprising Cubans are just allowed to trade with other Cubans and not with their 330 million neighbors in the US? The US could be a lucrative market for enterprising Cubans.

Eki...they are not allowed to really trade period. The enterprising Cubans cannot create a business that can cater to anyone not in their neighbourhood. What part of a dictatorship that owns any business of note allowed did you fail to grasp? They didn't elect these guys Eki, they stole the country and hold the people hostage.

[markabilly]

Good. And how are you doing as a dog sitter in Chihuahua?
not what you are doing

[Eki]

Eki...they are not allowed to really trade period. The enterprising Cubans cannot create a business that can cater to anyone not in their neighbourhood. What part of a dictatorship that owns any business of note allowed did you fail to grasp? They didn't elect these guys Eki, they stole the country and hold the people hostage.
Who are "they" who stole the country? Must be a lot of them to be able to steal a whole country.

Even dictatorships owning businesses could trickle some of the income to their employees and citizens like any business owner. There isn't anything to trickle down if there is no income. What part of that did you fail to grasp.

[anthonyvop]

Even dictatorships owning businesses could trickle some of the income to their employees and citizens like any business owner. There isn't anything to trickle down if there is no income. What part of that did you fail to grasp.

Ever hear of Swiss Bank Accounts?
Ever hear of Dollar only stores?

The Wealthy Castro Cadre of Cuba does not spend their money for Cuban products or even use Cuban Currency.

Look at all the foreign hotel projects in Cuba. None of those companies pay a dime to their Cuban employees. They pay the Cuban Government(Actually the Cuban Military runs the tourism industry) and after the Castro lackeys take their huge cut pay the Cuban workers pennies.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Who are "they" who stole the country? Must be a lot of them to be able to steal a whole country.

Even dictatorships owning businesses could trickle some of the income to their employees and citizens like any business owner. There isn't anything to trickle down if there is no income. What part of that did you fail to grasp.

Who stole the country? Who takes the wealth? C' mon Eki, are you obtuse? The dictatorships that trickle down wages to the people working in gov't owned business is barely enough to buy dinner in downtown London once a month. It is next to nothing. Look at the GDP of Cuba and then look at how Castro lives and how his officials live. You really have to be naive on how the economics of capitalism work to believe that what is happening in Cuba is anyone's fault but the Marxist/Leninist stupidity that has governed the nation for 50 years...

[Mark in Oshawa]

Ever hear of Swiss Bank Accounts?
Ever hear of Dollar only stores?

The Wealthy Castro Cadre of Cuba does not spend their money for Cuban products or even use Cuban Currency.

Look at all the foreign hotel projects in Cuba. None of those companies pay a dime to their Cuban employees. They pay the Cuban Government(Actually the Cuban Military runs the tourism industry) and after the Castro lackeys take their huge cut pay the Cuban workers pennies.

That is why foreign hotel chains from Canada and Europe have set up shop in Varadero and found it a license to print money. They can build the hotel, pay Castro a fee for being there, and the gov't pays the workers the same amount as some worker elsewhere not catering to tourists.

What Eki wont admit, and never has admitted is that he is defending the behaviour of a man who treats his people as wage slaves out of a Dicken's novel and then ignores the fact that Castro doesn't live anywhere close to his people. What is more, if you don't like it, you can get a nice Cuban prison to live in for voicing your displeasure. Then Eki has the gall to blame the US for that too!

[AAReagles]

No, I think this time it was anthonyvop... He did tie gun ownership with freedom of speech. And freedom of speech should include thread hijacking..

Anthonyvop tied that for good reason, which he clearly stated before, that an unarmed population is a vulnerable society. Hint, hint.... Thailand.

Not to mention that in the last century, there has been NO decade that a genocide had not occured. That might sound trivial for someone like me in the US to mention that, but with as much complaining about Bush (whom I am not a fan of either btw) that some members have done, I would think that those same folks would realize the fact that:

1) anything is possible, anywhere, at any time.

2) mankind has constantly proven throughout the ages that he can not be trusted.

Also, I might add, as I have said before, as well as Mark In Oshawa, Jag Warrior along with a few others I'm sure; is the solution of preventing most murders/violence would be getting to the source of the problem.

Such as a jobs, fair housing practices, and reduction of racial profiling - just to name a few.

Guns, likes knives, cars, chemical mixtures, planes... whatever... are not the problem. It's people. It always has been, and always will be.

Sorry if it sounds cliche, but it's true.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Anthonyvop tied that for good reason, which he clearly stated before, that an unarmed population is a vulnerable society. Hint, hint.... Thailand.

Not to mention that in the last century, there has been NO decade that a genocide had not occured. That might sound trivial for someone like me in the US to mention that, but with as much complaining about Bush (whom I am not a fan of either btw) that some members have done, I would think that those same folks would realize the fact that:

1) anything is possible, anywhere, at any time.

2) mankind has constantly proven throughout the ages that he can not be trusted.

Also, I might add, as I have said before, as well as Mark In Oshawa, Jag Warrior along with a few others I'm sure; is the solution of preventing most murders/violence would be getting to the source of the problem.

Such as a jobs, fair housing practices, and reduction of racial profiling - just to name a few.

Guns, likes knives, cars, chemical mixtures, planes... whatever... are not the problem. It's people. It always has been, and always will be.

Sorry if it sounds cliche, but it's true.

Personable responsibility? Oh my lord, don't be asking for that...no one is EVER responsible in a socialist society. Government will look after us all right??? right??? RIGHT???? oh right...it sucks at doing the basics...never mind, I can look after myself..

lol...

[Eki]

Who stole the country? Who takes the wealth? C' mon Eki, are you obtuse? The dictatorships that trickle down wages to the people working in gov't owned business is barely enough to buy dinner in downtown London once a month. It is next to nothing. Look at the GDP of Cuba and then look at how Castro lives and how his officials live. You really have to be naive on how the economics of capitalism work to believe that what is happening in Cuba is anyone's fault but the Marxist/Leninist stupidity that has governed the nation for 50 years...
You really believe that Castro and his officials are any different than any other business owners and CEOs so that they are the first ones to take pay cuts when business is bad? No. If the GDP of Cuba were twice what it is, Castro and his officials could take twice they take now and still there would be twice as much also for the rest of the Cubans. That's not Marxist/Leninist, that's simple math. Let's do some more math:

GDP of Cuba per capita in 2009 was $9,700 and the population was

If the 310 million Americans would spend in average $100 per year on Cuban holidays and Cuban products, that would be $31 billion a year.

$31 billion divided by 11 million Cubans would make almost $3000 per Cuban per year. That would be nice, wouldn't it? $100 per year isn't that much. Fousto could spend it on cigars alone. Let's make it $300 per American per year and it would double the Cuban GDP.

[AAReagles]

From what I see posted on the forum frequently, 'accountability' should be applied to legal gun owners only.

Same people who think it's cruel to declaw a cat because it can't defend itself, but as far as a law-biding citizen goes...

[AAReagles]

Do you think it might be possible to get back to the title of this thread instead of having it hijacked into an anti US tirade.

I didn't think this would need to be repeated... but what the hey.

Hint: anti-US threads can easily be started by pressing "New Thread"

[Eki]

Anthonyvop tied that for good reason, which he clearly stated before, that an unarmed population is a vulnerable society. Hint, hint.... Thailand.

An armed population is a vulnerable society too. Vulnerable to civil wars and revolutions. Hint, hint ... Afghanistan and Somalia.

[AAReagles]

An armed population is a vulnerable society too. Vulnerable to civil wars and revolutions. Hint, hint ... Afghanistan and Somalia.

Keep going. You're gonna have to do better than that to convince me. Especially someone who's from a country where freedom of speech is limited.

[Mark in Oshawa]

You really believe that Castro and his officials are any different than any other business owners and CEOs so that they are the first ones to take pay cuts when business is bad? No. If the GDP of Cuba were twice what it is, Castro and his officials could take twice they take now and still there would be twice as much also for the rest of the Cubans. That's not Marxist/Leninist, that's simple math. Let's do some more math:

GDP of Cuba per capita in 2009 was $9,700 and the population was

If the 310 million Americans would spend in average $100 per year on Cuban holidays and Cuban products, that would be $31 billion a year.

$31 billion divided by 11 million Cubans would make almost $3000 per Cuban per year. That would be nice, wouldn't it? $100 per year isn't that much. Fousto could spend it on cigars alone. Let's make it $300 per American per year and it would double the Cuban GDP.

What makes you think the average American would spend 100 dollars a year in Cuba? They would if Castro would give the nation a free economy. It might also help if he had something for Americans to do and see that they dont' get in Vegas, or Hawaii, or any of the islands in the Caribbean.

Again Eki, you avoid the question. WHY ARE YOU DEFENDING A GOVERNMENT THAT IMPRISONS PEOPLE FOR SPEAKING OUT AGAINST FIDEL CASTRO? Why do you defend Marxism? Why are you against Cubans being allowed to earn US dollars and live where they want to and doing what vocations they feel comfortable doing? Why do consistently defend regimes that you would never live under personally?

The fact is, this isn't the thread to argue about this any more, but you haven't answered my questions because I know the answer: You are ignoring this because it doesn't suit your argument that it is ONLY the US at fault for not trading with Cuba that people in Cuba live in a crappy nation. They may have a $9700 per year per capita income there, but I would wager that 80% of that number is government supplied and the Government is keeping at least that much if not more. Government being the Castro family and their cabal.....

You condone theft I guess eh?

[Eki]

Guns are like assholes. Civil wars and revolutions only happen when people with passionate opinions on how things should be have them. In democratic societies people are supposed to settle their disputes by votes, not by guns. Therefore people in democratic societies don't need personal guns.

[Eki]

You condone theft I guess eh?
In a communist system you call it theft, in a capitalist system you would call it personal profit.

[Mark in Oshawa]

An armed population is a vulnerable society too. Vulnerable to civil wars and revolutions. Hint, hint ... Afghanistan and Somalia.

Vulnerable? Most armed societies on the planet are Swizterland and the USA. The US Civil War didn't happen because of the number of guns, so you can toss that out. Switzerland the last I looked was a very peaceful nation yet all the men of the nation are packing a Submachine gun in the closet.

Afganistan and Somalia are not more under more arms per capita than a lot of nations, just they have no government really to control things, and legitmacy of their government is limited. What is more, the right to bear arms isn't part of the life of the peasents in those nations. IN those nations, the people holding the guns are not the average citizen farmer or villager, they are in the hands of drug lords, war lords and Islamic radical's. A well armed citizenry might just fight back against those clowns....

Gun ownership in a rational and legal system that protects the rights of the individual to own basic firearms is not a threat to the society at all. What threatens a society is inept government....but you seem to cheer for those outside of Finland Eki.

[AAReagles]

Guns are like assholes. Civil wars and revolutions only happen when people with passionate opinions on how things should be have them. In democratic societies people are supposed to settle their disputes by votes, not by guns. Therefore people in democratic societies don't need personal guns.

Okay Eki, since you insist, I'll bear repeating myself...

Post #374



Not to mention that in the last century, there has been NO decade that a genocide had not occured. That might sound trivial for someone like me in the US to mention that, but with as much complaining about Bush (whom I am not a fan of either btw) that some members have done, I would think that those same folks would realize the fact that:

1) anything is possible, anywhere, at any time.

2) mankind has constantly proven throughout the ages that he can not be trusted..

[Mark in Oshawa]

In a communist system you call it theft, in a capitalist system you would call it personal profit.

In the capitalist society, I could buy from elsewhere. Or not buy at all. Or leave and shop in another nation. IN Cuba, there is no competition, there is no capitalist choices, and there is no admission at all to the right of the individual to get his money's worth in exchange for a product or service.

Eki, if you think Cuba is SO great, then move there. Otherwise, stop with the semantics. You know you are just digging a hole....

[Eki]

Ever hear of Swiss Bank Accounts?

Ever hear that the moon landing never happened or that the 9/11 attacks were organized by the Bush regime? The Swiss don't tell, therefore you don't know how much Castro has on a Swiss bank account, or even if he has one.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Guns are like assholes. Civil wars and revolutions only happen when people with passionate opinions on how things should be have them. In democratic societies people are supposed to settle their disputes by votes, not by guns. Therefore people in democratic societies don't need personal guns.

Guns are like Assholes? No...assholes are like assholes.

Democratic societies in the modern age have never been threatened by armed rebellion by the citzenry. But I have seen a military junta topple democracies without fear of any citizen reprisal because the citizens were NOT armed.

You think Myanmar is under a strict totlitarian regime if the people are armed?

No government in a modern democracy has been felled by the citizens being armed, but it is shocking how many people just keep chosing to ignore that.

[AAReagles]

... 9/11 attacks were organized by the Bush regime?

Bush regime? So how's Obama putting a peaceful effort out by not agreeing to the land mine treaty?... increasing the number of preditor-drone strikes in 2009 compared to the Bush Admin.?

[Eki]

Okay Eki, since you insist, I'll bear repeating myself...

Post #374

"Not to mention that in the last century, there has been NO decade that a genocide had not occured."

It's not so much about time than about place. Genocides have only happened in few places in the 20th century. Let's make a similar statement:

"Not to mention that in the last century, there has been NO decade that an earthquake had not occured."

Yet there has never been an earthquake that did any damage in Finland, and I'm quite sure there never will be. The geology of Finland is solid. Likewise I can safely say:

"There has been NO decade that a genocide has happened in a solid democracy."

But maybe you're right. Israel doesn't want the Palestinians to have guns, or even concrete to rebuild their homes, and we can all see the consequences.

[AAReagles]

... No government in a modern democracy has been felled by the citizens being armed, but it is shocking how many people just keep chosing to ignore that.

They conveniently ignore it until it happens to them.

[AAReagles]

...
It's not so much about time than about place. Genocides have only happened in few places. Let's make a similar statement:

"Not to mention that in the last century, there has been NO decade that an earthquake had not occured."

Yet there has never been an earthquake that did any damage in Finland, and I'm quite sure there never will be. The geology of Finland is solid. Likewise I can safely say:

"There has been NO decade that a genocide has happened in a solid democracy."

Nice try with your analogy of earthquakes and genocides, so I'll see your "earthquakes" and raise you "people"... and "governments"... as unpredictatable as well.

Your bit about "NO decade that a genocide has happened in a solid democracy." is interesting, but I wonder how you would explain the occurance of Bosnia and Herzegovina? Maybe it wasn't a semi-democracy, but that isn't important.

I said it before, and so I'll say it again... anything is possible.

Or is it that while you were lambasting Bush that you forgot about Katrina. :dozey:

[Captain VXR]

An armed population is a vulnerable society too. Vulnerable to civil wars and revolutions. Hint, hint ... Afghanistan and Somalia.

So how many wars and revolutions have happened in modern Switzerland, where the law is surprisingly lax on guns?

[Eki]

No government in a modern democracy has been felled by the citizens being armed,
Like I said, they don't need arms against their government unlike AAReagels seems to believe. He probably still expects the English to attack like those who wrote the US constitution over 200 years ago.

[AAReagles]

... Or is it that while you were lambasting Bush that you forgot about Katrina. :dozey:

Ah hell, Eki, maybe you even forgot about this bit too...

http://www.towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/911/

... his signing of the Military Act... after Katrina.

[Eki]

So how many wars and revolutions have happened in modern Switzerland, where the law is surprisingly lax on guns?
Like I said, it's not so much about time but about place. Switzerland is Switzerland, Thailand is Thailand and Afghanistan is Afghanistan. The Swiss have never needed their guns to protect themselves. Do you think there would be a sudden genocide in Switzerland if they let their government to store their government issued military guns for them instead of keeping them at home?

[Eki]

Your bit about "NO decade that a genocide has happened in a solid democracy." is interesting, but I wonder how you would explain the occurance of Bosnia and Herzegovina? Maybe it wasn't a semi-democracy, but that isn't important.

Interesting that you call the former Yugoslavia a SOLID democracy. It was only the communist regime that kept Yugoslavia together. Do you consider the communist regime of Yugoslavia a solid democracy?

[AAReagles]

Interesting that you call the former Yugoslavia a SOLID democracy. It was only the communist regime that kept Yugoslavia together. Do you consider the communist regime of Yugoslavia a solid democracy?

Sorry, but I wasn't implying a "SOLID" democracy when I placed your quote there, and I did state that "Maybe it wasn't a semi-democracy", nevertheless I was a bit curious of what you had to say about it.

And well... with what you posted above, said it all really.

Nice try on attempting to twist my words around.

Btw... care to respond to what I posted about Bush?... Katrina?... Military Act?...

[AAReagles]

... Btw... care to respond to what I posted about Bush?... Katrina?... Military Act?...

I mean after all Eki, it did appear that you had some concern about how governments of democracies perform...

Iranian Presidential Elections Thread
Post #49

http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133688&page=3&highlight=Kent


Doesn't he already have the National Guard? Or are they just for the Republicans?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_Shootings

[Eki]

Sorry, but I wasn't implying a "SOLID" democracy when I placed your quote there, and I did state that "Maybe it wasn't a semi-democracy", nevertheless I was a bit curious of what you had to say about it.

And well... with what you posted above, said it all really.

Nice try on attempting to twist my words around.

Btw... care to respond to what I posted about Bush?... Katrina?... Military Act?...
What about Katrina? Do you seriously think the situation would have been dealt better if the victims had been better armed?

And if those protesters at Kent State had been armed, there most likely would have been more casualties.

[AAReagles]

What about Katrina? Do you seriously think the situation would have been dealt better if the victims had been better armed?

And if those protesters at Kent State had been armed, there most likely would have been more casualties.

Actually I believe the practical question that I proposed was your absolute assurances of democracies. Which you still have yet to answer.

Now, as far as your question above, you clearly do not realize, or perhaps are unwilling to recognize the fact that looters were upon the scene (after Katrina) as well, and some of them were armed. So, as you might imagine, innocent people were robbed and/or killed as a result.

Which is why I'm glad you brought this up... because your counter-argument, along with everyone else who opposes legal gun ownership, is flawed as usual.

Why? Well it's simple. In two words - "Self-preservation." Something which you've already demonstrated... day in and day out. Your presence on this forum.

[Eki]

Which is why I'm glad you brought this up... because your counter-argument, along with everyone else who opposes legal gun ownership, is flawed as usual.

I don't oppose legal gun ownership, I oppose ALL gun ownership, but I'm willing to compromise so much that legal gun ownership could be allowed to the police and to the military if the police and the military are democratically controlled by the people.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Eki thinks a world where the only guns are in the hands of the police, the army and criminals is better than where every law abiding citizen can have a rifle or a pistol as well.

Eki is entitled to his opinion. It just isn't backed by the facts...it is just his opinion in that is how a society should function. That is fine, just history is full of instances where a population was unarmed and its government turned on them. One of the first acts the Nazi's did attaining power was to seize personally owned guns was it not?

I do know that the US is supposed to be a terrible place in Eki's eyes, with everyone shooting and all, and I have yet to see a gun outside of a policeman's holster in the US. Yet I know and have read of how people in areas of London in the UK have been approached by body guards for gov't officials and diplomats standing in the street with submachine guns! Now..which culture is the one with the gun issue?

Guns are not the problem, people misusing them and people with no respect for anyone ELSES personal rights using guns are the problem. You take the guns away from the law abiding citizen, you still have no answer for the illegal arms out there, and the fact that you have deprived law abiding citizens their right to participate in shooting sports and hunting. Neither activity is a threat to anyone.....but there are those who would deprive someone else of a freedom of expression hurting no other human in the name of "security and safety." It is utter BS....

You don't make society better by depriving some and not others of rights....you make society better by protecting rights and freedoms. If Eki's hero Castro thought that way in 1959 and stuck to it, Cuba wouldn't be a craphole. If Hitler had thought that way, WW2 wouldn't have happened in the manner it did. Bad things happen when people are deprived of their rights.....and taking a gun away from a farmer or a hunter in the name of "public safety" while ignoring the number of criminals running around armed just shows how fallacious this whole argument is.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I don't oppose legal gun ownership, I oppose ALL gun ownership, but I'm willing to compromise so much that legal gun ownership could be allowed to the police and to the military if the police and the military are democratically controlled by the people.

You hate guns but you back dictators. I am glad you don't vote in my country bud...

[Eki]

You hate guns but you back dictators. I am glad you don't vote in my country bud...
We don't vote for dictators in my country.

[Eki]

Eki thinks a world where the only guns are in the hands of the police, the army and criminals is better than where every law abiding citizen can have a rifle or a pistol as well.

Eki is entitled to his opinion. It just isn't backed by the facts...it is just his opinion in that is how a society should function. That is fine, just history is full of instances where a population was unarmed and its government turned on them. One of the first acts the Nazi's did attaining power was to seize personally owned guns was it not?
Was it, or do you just think it was? Anyway, they democratically gave away their democracy and became a dictatorship. That's unlikely to happen here, free guns for everyone or no free guns.


I have yet to see a gun outside of a policeman's holster in the US.
So do I here in Finland, so different gun laws likely have little to do with it. I also haven't seen people living behind bars and signs saying "Neighborhood watch. Armed response" like I saw in Los Angeles. The more there are legal guns, the more there are illegal guns, because many illegal guns were legal before they were stolen and because the criminals want to maintain the "balance of fear". The better armed the victims are, the better armed the criminals are.


Guns are not the problem, people misusing them and people with no respect for anyone ELSES personal rights using guns are the problem.
If there were no guns, nobody could misuse them. That's just logic.

I don't hate guns, they are actually quite fun to shoot. It's just that they aren't vital to people like food, and people could live without guns. Fun isn't enough to justify them IMO.

[anthonyvop]

We don't vote for dictators in my country.

Could have fooled me. Considering they took away your freedom of speech and the right to protect yourself.

[Rollo]

No government in a modern democracy has been felled by the citizens being armed, but it is shocking how many people just keep chosing to ignore that.

No government in a modern democracy has been felled by the citizens being armed.
Why arm the citizenry if having them armed fails to fell government?

[Bob Riebe]

I don't oppose legal gun ownership, I oppose ALL gun ownership, but I'm willing to compromise so much that legal gun ownership could be allowed to the police and to the military if the police and the military are democratically controlled by the people.
That is another obtuse simpleton statement;I f the people do not have guns, how are they going to control the police and military-- oh wait by pixie dust and wishful thinking-- briliant.

[Easy Drifter]

There are many people in northern Canada who hunt to freaking well eat and survive and not just natives. Many farmers here need guns against predators and rodents (Gophers) that destroy crops and cause the death of many farm/ranch animals who break legs stepping in their burrows. Coyotes kill off farm animals and like foxes can also decimate a hen house.
Even here in central Ontario many people hunt (and fish) to supplement their food. As we are a tourist area many are laid off all winter.
There is nothing wrong with responsible gun ownership.
You live in a dream world Eki.

[Mark in Oshawa]

No government in a modern democracy has been felled by the citizens being armed.
Why arm the citizenry if having them armed fails to fell government?

Well in the modern context, the armed populace would never go after the govenrment. We are past that now....but arming the citizenry in the US when they wrote their consititution was implicit in the idea that government had to truly listen to the people, because the people DID have at that time enough arms to possibly over run a tyrannical government. Silly in today's context for sure. I also think it was just respecting the the fact in a frontier society that was America in 1776 everyone was armed. Guns are property. Enshrining property rights is never a bad thing in my books....

You tell me Rollo, is a society that is armed really a threat to a modern state? No...it isn't, but in a place like Thailand, or Myanamar, would the governments crushing democratic reformists be so quick to do what they are doing?

[Rollo]

You tell me Rollo, is a society that is armed really a threat to a modern state? No...it isn't, but in a place like Thailand, or Myanamar, would the governments crushing democratic reformists be so quick to do what they are doing?

The overwhelming question is, is a society that is armed a threat to itself? One only needs to look south of the border to where you live to work that one out.

[dunes]

for every good turn a bad also exists.
Good intentions sometimes get caught up in greed and inexperience. ie hunting accidents and gun cleaning, not to mention a child finding the gun.
This is not part of this threads equation however a percentage of the facts are amassed within these reasons.
Its hard to find accurate answers and facts without a bias of equations being misguided by the reporters willingness to extract thier point of interest.

GUNS are good if in capable well trained hands; This does not mean law enforcment merely training before buying.Know your capabilities and wieght the reasons for the purchase of the gun, then look deeper- like your inner self and anger tolerances.

[anthonyvop]

No government in a modern democracy has been felled by the citizens being armed.
Why arm the citizenry if having them armed fails to fell government?

No modern democracy has been felled by the citizenry period! Guns or not. In a democracy the people remove a bad government by the ballot box.

No Government in modern times has turned into a dictatorship while there is an armed citizenry either.

The real argument about gun control is if anyone has the right to tell me what I can or cannot own if it causes no harm to others.

In other words...There is no right, moral or otherwise, to restrict the right of the individual to posses a firearm.

[Jag_Warrior]

If there were no guns, nobody could misuse them. That's just logic.

That's very true. Unrealistic, but true.


I don't hate guns, they are actually quite fun to shoot. It's just that they aren't vital to people like food, and people could live without guns. Fun isn't enough to justify them IMO.

Neither are high performance cars. I mean, other than for fun, can we really find a justification for cars that will accelerate from 0-60 in less than 5 seconds and will top 150 mph? What about alcohol and tobacco? And last, but certainly not least, what about Daisy Duke shorts for women? All of these things I've mentioned are (basically) meant for fun and/or recreation, and quite often lead to problems when misused or abused. A girl in Daisy Dukes, dancing on the hood of her Corvette, after downing half a bottle of Jose Cuervo, leads to problems... trust me on that one. Luckily she didn't have her Beretta 84F with her, or we'd have all gone to jail that night.

Look, love it or hate it, there is a very solid gun culture in the United States... especially in the south. Anyone who would run for President on a gun control platoform would be soundly defeated. Someday, long after I'm dead, that may change. Who knows what the future holds? Those from other countries and cultures may not like or agree with that, but it is what it is.

[Mark in Oshawa]

The overwhelming question is, is a society that is armed a threat to itself? One only needs to look south of the border to where you live to work that one out.

No Rollo, they are not a threat to themselves. Should the number of dead be less from guns? Oh ya...but it isn't the guns that is the problem, it is the construction of the subsidized misery of the inner city. It is the latent racism of both sides of the racial debate that has created this polarized soceity...

I will say this over and over again, much of what people BELIEVE about Americans and guns is not the reality of every day life. They may have em, but it is only the criminals and psychotics that brandish them in public, and I have never seen a gun in public not in a holster in the USA and I have spent more time there than any of the Europeans on this board.

[Easy Drifter]

I grew up around guns. One Grandfather was a gun for hire in the old Cdn. west. Then he became a Mountie and eventually a Judge. My uncles on my father's side were both crack shots and one had been a mercenary. He certainly was no sweetheart but was a small arms instructor for the Cdn. Army and the US Rangers in WW2. My father was banned from Turkey shoots in Manitoba because he won them all until banned for that reason. My mother was an excellent shot. She had been a farm girl out west in the 20's and 30's. She hunted to put food on the table as did her dad and brother. Said brother became a Mountie but he terrified me around a gun. Absolutely careless and stupid.
When my dad practised law in a small western Manitoba town (where he met my mother) during the depression he lived in a hotel. The hotel, if you knew, served a special beef dish. It was Venison both in season and out. Illegal for a commercial establishment any time of year. They were supplied with the Venison by a group of hunters who all lived in the hotel.
One was my father, the town's leading defense attorney. The others were the Crown Prosecutor, the Judge and the only Mountie in town.
When my parents lived in Toronto there were always unloaded guns in the house but once they retired to a place on Bass Lake, near Orillia there was always at least one loaded gun in the house.
When Judy and I moved to a place in the country we always had a loaded gun in the house. For varmits not humans.
I treated every gun I have ever handled as loaded until I personally checked it. So did Judy even if we told each other we had checked it. I was handling guns by age 10 and Judy by 12. She was at one time a range officer.
Strangely enough in my gun toting families none of us have ever shot each other or anybody else except in war, maybe excluding an uncle. Shall we say rum running.
We have a huge respect for guns and as much disrespect for stupid gun laws.
I now live in a complex where guns are not permitted, period, and if I had any they would have to be registered with the Cdn. Govt.
Yup!
By the way I could at one time get off 3 shots with a single shot shotgun as fast as anyone with a pump or bolt action gun. Obviously couldn't match 2 shots against a double barreled gun. Extra shells between my fingers on my left hand.
I haven't fired a gun for years and with my arthritic fingers would probably pull a trigger rather than squeeze it.

[Mark in Oshawa]

That's very true. Unrealistic, but true.



Neither are high performance cars. I mean, other than for fun, can we really find a justification for cars that will accelerate from 0-60 in less than 5 seconds and will top 150 mph? What about alcohol and tobacco? And last, but certainly not least, what about Daisy Duke shorts for women? All of these things I've mentioned are (basically) meant for fun and/or recreation, and quite often lead to problems when misused or abused. A girl in Daisy Dukes, dancing on the hood of her Corvette, after downing half a bottle of Jose Cuervo, leads to problems... trust me on that one. Luckily she didn't have her Beretta 84F with her, or we'd have all gone to jail that night.

Look, love it or hate it, there is a very solid gun culture in the United States... especially in the south. Anyone who would run for President on a gun control platoform would be soundly defeated. Someday, long after I'm dead, that may change. Who knows what the future holds? Those from other countries and cultures may not like or agree with that, but it is what it is.

Eki wants to live in his gun free utopia. I have yet to figure what nation that is...oh I know...North Korea. I bet no one on the street THERE has a gun! Eki...head to Pyongyang...they need ya buddy to enlighten them...

[Rollo]

Eki wants to live in his gun free utopia. I have yet to figure what nation that is...

It's Australia.

[Mark in Oshawa]

It's Australia.

No one in the outback has a gun? C' mon Rollo, you know better than that. Also, it was after the Aussie's got tough with gun ownership that guy went nuts in Tasmania and killed how many people? Again, it isn't the gun that is the problem Rollo. It is the society of the people who are free enough to yes, make either bad decisions or become mentally ill.....

There is a price that a free society pays, and one of them is if someone is going to do something really nasty to you, chances are no policeman will be handy to stop it. I would rather take my chances in such a society that is respecting my freedom, than live in a world where my property and my rights were dictated to me by some bureaucrat who thinks like Eki....

[Eki]

Could have fooled me. Considering they took away your freedom of speech and the right to protect yourself.
That's because the majority voted for it. It's the will of the people.

[Eki]

You live in a dream world Eki.
Martin Luther King lived in a dream world. Dreams are useful, if you don't have goals, you never achieve anything. You on the other hand just choose to live in an imperfect world without even trying to make it better.

[Eki]

Neither are high performance cars. I mean, other than for fun, can we really find a justification for cars that will accelerate from 0-60 in less than 5 seconds and will top 150 mph?

Not outside a racetrack anyway. Just like we don't have a justification for civilian guns outside shooting ranges. The guns could be stored in locked and guarded premises of the shooting ranges instead of peoples homes. I'm OK with the fact that the army stores my assault rifle for me and not give it to me to be kept at home like I hear they do in Switzerland.

[Eki]

That is another obtuse simpleton statement;I f the people do not have guns, how are they going to control the police and military-- oh wait by pixie dust and wishful thinking-- briliant.
Hello! Have you ever heard about elections and voting? People elect the President and the Parliament and they govern the police and the military for the people.

And the people form the police and military here. For example I'm part of the Finnish military, although I don't keep a gun at home.

[Eki]

I grew up around guns. One Grandfather was a gun for hire in the old Cdn. west. Then he became a Mountie and eventually a Judge. My uncles on my father's side were both crack shots and one had been a mercenary. He certainly was no sweetheart but was a small arms instructor for the Cdn. Army and the US Rangers in WW2. My father was banned from Turkey shoots in Manitoba because he won them all until banned for that reason. My mother was an excellent shot. She had been a farm girl out west in the 20's and 30's. She hunted to put food on the table as did her dad and brother. Said brother became a Mountie but he terrified me around a gun. Absolutely careless and stupid.
When my dad practised law in a small western Manitoba town (where he met my mother) during the depression he lived in a hotel. The hotel, if you knew, served a special beef dish. It was Venison both in season and out. Illegal for a commercial establishment any time of year. They were supplied with the Venison by a group of hunters who all lived in the hotel.
One was my father, the town's leading defense attorney. The others were the Crown Prosecutor, the Judge and the only Mountie in town.
When my parents lived in Toronto there were always unloaded guns in the house but once they retired to a place on Bass Lake, near Orillia there was always at least one loaded gun in the house.
When Judy and I moved to a place in the country we always had a loaded gun in the house. For varmits not humans.
I treated every gun I have ever handled as loaded until I personally checked it. So did Judy even if we told each other we had checked it. I was handling guns by age 10 and Judy by 12. She was at one time a range officer.
Strangely enough in my gun toting families none of us have ever shot each other or anybody else except in war, maybe excluding an uncle. Shall we say rum running.
We have a huge respect for guns and as much disrespect for stupid gun laws.
I now live in a complex where guns are not permitted, period, and if I had any they would have to be registered with the Cdn. Govt.
Yup!
By the way I could at one time get off 3 shots with a single shot shotgun as fast as anyone with a pump or bolt action gun. Obviously couldn't match 2 shots against a double barreled gun. Extra shells between my fingers on my left hand.
I haven't fired a gun for years and with my arthritic fingers would probably pull a trigger rather than squeeze it.
And my great grandfather was a company chief in the revolutionary Red Guard in the Finnish Civil war. They didn't have or need legal guns, they got illegal guns from Russia. So there Bob, you don't need legal guns to try and control your Government. If you need guns, you can find someone who's willing to give or sell them to you. The best protection a government can have is to please their citizens.

[markabilly]

Eki, the biggest little hyopcrite drool troll doll

he needs to check his own fav cite....because Finnland has about as a free a policy of gun ownership as any country anywhere

Finnland has 33 guns for every 100 pople living in Finnland........and maybe as many as 50 percent out of every 100 people have a gun......http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Finland

ignored his own fav site, :p imp: too busy at taco bell, i guess :rotflmao:

[markabilly]

http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/firearm-related-news/101022-firearms-possession-issue-splits-finland.html

on the other hand, those sissy brits have very tough gun laws and extremely limited ownership....yep that did a lot of good...

[markabilly]

You might have a point... my parents' house in Spain has never been broken into while quite a few of the barred houses around it have :)
cause your momma and your missus is always standing at the door, eager for some "business".... :s mokin:


sorry, i think i just hijacked a thread that eki hijacked after eki hijacked his own thread that wiki eki started....

[Eki]

Eki, the biggest little hyopcrite drool troll doll

he needs to check his own fav cite....because Finnland has about as a free a policy of gun ownership as any country anywhere

Finnland has 33 guns for every 100 pople living in Finnland........and maybe as many as 50 percent out of every 100 people have a gun......http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Finland

ignored his own fav site, :p imp: too busy at taco bell, i guess :rotflmao:
Yes, Finland has the highest number of registered firearms after the US and Yemen, I knew that. But they are mostly hunting weapons, not handguns and those who have them often have several, so it's not so common to own a handgun in Finland.

[Eki]

Enshrining property rights is never a bad thing in my books....
Heroin, cocaine and other illegal drugs are property too. Apparently you support legalizing them.

[anthonyvop]

That's because the majority voted for it. It's the will of the people.

Mob rule doesn't make it right. Hitler was elected also.

[Eki]

Eki wants to live in his gun free utopia. I have yet to figure what nation that is...oh I know...North Korea. I bet no one on the street THERE has a gun! Eki...head to Pyongyang...they need ya buddy to enlighten them...
Would you prefer North Korea to be like Afghanistan and Somalia that are divided into several armed cliques who keep on shooting at each other decade after decade? North Korea has a big army, so they have lots of guns. And it's a peoples' army, not some paid group of mercenaries. North Koreans are brought up to be loyal to their country and leader since birth. Kim Jong Il and his father are like Jesus and God there, they are practically religious figures in North Korea, and people don't tend to go against their religion, armed or not.

[markabilly]

Yes, Finland has the highest number of registered firearms after the US and Yemen, I knew that. But they are mostly hunting weapons, not handguns and those who have them often have several, so it's not so common to own a handgun in Finland.
BS, you are
handguns are by far the most popular

hippocrite who would not know the truth when he is eating his own tacos

And all this other bs...... :rolleyes:

Interesting is how norway has an extremely high rate of gun ownership...possibly in europe and the lowest murder rate, while the sissies in holland have the lowest rate of gun ownership and a high rate of murders using guns



For example, though Norway has far and away the highest firearm ownership per capita in Western Europe, it nevertheless has the lowest murder rate. Other nations with high firearms ownership and comparably low murder rates include Denmark, Greece, Switzerland, Germany and Austria. Holland has a 50 percent higher murder rate despite having the lowest rate of firearm ownership in Europe. And Luxembourg, despite its total handgun ban, has a murder rate that is nine times higher than countries such as Norway and Austria.
It turns out that in nations where guns are less available, criminals manage to get them anyway. After decades of ever-stricter gun controls, England banned handguns and confiscated them from all permit holders in 1997. Yet by 2000, England had the industrialized world's highest violent crime rate -- twice that of the U.S. Despite the confiscation of law-abiding Englishmen's handguns, a 2002 report of England's National Crime Intelligence Service lamented that while "Britain has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, [i]t appears that anyone who wishes to obtain a firearm [illegally] will have little difficulty in doing so."

In the rare case in which gun bans work, murderers use other weapons. Eight decades of police-state enforcement of handgun prohibition have kept Russian gun ownership low, resulting in few gun murders. Yet Russia's murder rates have long been four times higher than those in the U.S. and 20 times higher than rates in countries such as Norway. Former Soviet nations like Lithuania also ban handguns and severely restrict other guns, yet have 10-15 times higher murder rates than European nations with much higher gun ownership.

http://gunowners.org/op0746.htm

oh, and by the way, the article is based on a HARVARD UNIVERSITY Law School article.....("Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide: A Review of International Evidence," Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, vol. 30, pages 651-694.)




read it and weep, wiki eki

and you do not live in in Finnland....

[markabilly]

Eki wants to live in his gun free utopia. I have yet to figure what nation that is......
It sure as hell ain't finnland.....

[Easy Drifter]

Legal handgun ownership in Canada is restricted and carry permits even more so.
When I lived and worked in Toronto I could have obtained an illegal handgun within 24 hours. I knew the right bars. I never did get one.
Today the gangbangers in Canada's major cities can actually rent guns and ammo. If they use the ammo they pay for it in addition to the rental fee.
Toronto Police recently seized a gun that they were able to confirm by ballistics had been used in several shootings but they also knew it had not always been the same person using it.

[Jag_Warrior]

Heroin, cocaine and other illegal drugs are property too. Apparently you support legalizing them.

Right here, my good man. :wave: I support the decriminalization (but not so much the wholesale legalization) of most drugs... on the possession side. As far as dealers, smugglers, the supporting bankers: the death penalty. :vader:

It's time for the do-gooders (on the right and the left) to finally admit that the War of Drugs has not worked. It's become nothing more than a war on average people. How many major bankers have had their property seized or been sent to jail? How many banks have been raided? How many drug billionaires have been sent to jail? The U.S. government traced a $50 money order sent from the U.S. to a Middle Eastern terrorist organization a few years ago. But I'm supposed to believe that we can't trace tens of billions from the illicit drug trade???!!! Puulease! Every year, we seize some chump change, snag a few houses and Ferraris and call the newspaper photogs to make a big show out of it.The guns that I worry about are the ones in the hands of the street/drug gangs. And as I've said on this and many other boards over the years, you can pass all the laws that you want. To these people, another gun control law won't be worth the paper it's written on.

The crazy husband who kills his family makes the world news. But the majority of gun crimes in this country are committed by career criminals. It is already illegal for these people to own or possess a firearm. But, being that they are already criminals, they continue breaking the law. Pass another law and they'll break that one too. It's just what they do. What should we do about that? IMO, we should stop wasting time on $5 pot deals and focus our efforts on hardened street criminals, and the cartel gangs from Mexico that are taking over our major cities. Will we do this? Of course not. Why would we do that which makes sense? :dozey:

[Eki]

Right here, my good man. :wave: I support the decriminalization (but not so much the wholesale legalization) of most drugs... on the possession side. As far as dealers, smugglers, the supporting bankers: the death penalty. :vader:


Yes, it might be a good idea if drug-addicts could get their drugs cheap from pharmacies prescribed by doctors. That way they could also get advice and treatment if they want to quit and advice on "safe" use of drug, which could reduce overdosing. Most importantly it would lower the price of illegal drugs to a level where the profit isn't worth to take a risk of being caught and drug-addicts wouldn't have to do crimes to finance their habit anymore.

[markabilly]

Yes, it might be a good idea if drug-addicts could get their drugs cheap from pharmacies prescribed by doctors. That way they could also get advice and treatment if they want to quit and advice on "safe" use of drug, which could reduce overdosing. Most importantly it would lower the price of illegal drugs to a level where the profit isn't worth to take a risk of being caught and drug-addicts wouldn't have to do crimes to finance their habit anymore.
:rolleyes: this has nothing to do with this thread, but not surprizing since I left you toasted with a fork stuck in your head....

[Eki]

:rolleyes: this has nothing to do with this thread, but not surprizing since I left you toasted with a fork stuck in your head....
It does have to do with the thread. It would end drug related shootings or at least reduce them.

[dunes]

Yes, it might be a good idea if drug-addicts could get their drugs cheap from pharmacies prescribed by doctors. That way they could also get advice and treatment if they want to quit and advice on "safe" use of drug, which could reduce overdosing. Most importantly it would lower the price of illegal drugs to a level where the profit isn't worth to take a risk of being caught and drug-addicts wouldn't have to do crimes to finance their habit anymore.
This would never work in america; 1st the goverment would charge a fee for counsling and perscriptions, as well as treatments.
Then the users could [and continue to] always get it cheaper by stealing stuff or the drugs themselves. its been tried many times here and failed every time.
Bottom line one has to want help before getting helped.Not just appease the court system for a reduction in sentence.

[markabilly]

It does have to do with the thread. It would end drug related shootings or at least reduce them.
you are still toasted on guns so now you want to talk drugs :rolleyes:

I have thought the best way to reduce the drug problem is shoot dead the drug lords and make all these drugs completely free with the condition that when they overdose, no medical aid do they get....that should solve all the problems within about two months or so...maybe less...but this still has nothing to with firearms, and eki wants to change it cas he is toast

[Eki]

:rolleyes: this has nothing to do with this thread, but not surprizing since I left you toasted with a fork stuck in your head....

http://josefbrandenburg.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/bad-toaster-1-300x249.jpg
Markabilly making toast (of himself)

[Jag_Warrior]

Yes, it might be a good idea if drug-addicts could get their drugs cheap from pharmacies prescribed by doctors. That way they could also get advice and treatment if they want to quit and advice on "safe" use of drug, which could reduce overdosing. Most importantly it would lower the price of illegal drugs to a level where the profit isn't worth to take a risk of being caught and drug-addicts wouldn't have to do crimes to finance their habit anymore.

No, I'm not for enabling addicts or making things easier/cheaper. If anything, my support for a vicious, wholesale attack on major dealers, smugglers, bankers and cartels (and yes, here's where I'd go "neocon" and make it an international attack) would drive the prices up and the supplies down. Again, I'm not so much for legalization, but rather decriminalization for possession of small/personal quantities. I don't smoke the stuff and don't allow people to smoke it if they're on my property, but I especially feel that we shouldn't be filling up our jails with people who want to smoke a weed that grows freely. That's retarded, IMO... and VERY expensive. Plus, while they're in Con College, they learn to be "real" criminals. And just like some of the delusional foolishness and paranoid hyperbole that plagues our nation today ("they got death panels and they gonna unplug grandma in the middle of the night and the census workers are gonna send me to a concentration camp and..." :rolleyes: ), our current policy on marijuana is based on a silly, hyperbolic movie from the 1930's: Reefer Madness.

As far as guns are concerned, I'll say what I've been saying for years: enforce the laws that are on the books now. Like with drugs, target the hardcore criminal element and you'll make a difference - and you'll get the support of organizations like the NRA. But passing laws that would just make outlaws out of (once) law abiding people would definitely be the wrong way to go, IMO.

[Jag_Warrior]

This would never work in america; 1st the goverment would charge a fee for counsling and perscriptions, as well as treatments.
Then the users could [and continue to] always get it cheaper by stealing stuff or the drugs themselves. its been tried many times here and failed every time.
Bottom line one has to want help before getting helped.Not just appease the court system for a reduction in sentence.

Exactly. And one issue I have with having doctors write prescriptions for dope is we'd be making dealers out of them... which many doctors already are (dope dealers getting bonus checks from Big Pharma). The addicts that cause problems for the rest of us don't work. They used to be able to get on disability because of their addiction, but I don't know if that's still possible or not. If they want to rejoin society as productive members, I think we should enable them in that way. But enable them in spiraling down the drain? No, absolutely not.

My libertarian stance on this issue has a dark side to it too. While I support your right to put pretty much whatever you want in your body, I also support your right to kill yourself or ruin your life. I'd rather see treatment centers taking the place of jail for the non-hardcore heads. As you said, for those that want help, there should be help. But once they begin committing violent or serious property crimes to support their habits, away they go. Claiming an addiction to be a "medical condition" does not give "heads" a free pass to do as they please.

[Eki]

Exactly. And one issue I have with having doctors write prescriptions for dope is we'd be making dealers out of them... which many doctors already are (dope dealers getting bonus checks from Big Pharma).
We try to avoid that so that the pharmacists are obliged to tell their customers if there's a cheaper substitute for the brand the doctor prescribed and ask if they want that instead.

[Daniel]

We try to avoid that so that the pharmacists are obliged to tell their customers if there's a cheaper substitute for the brand the doctor prescribed and ask if they want that instead.
Same back in Australia.

[Jag_Warrior]

We try to avoid that so that the pharmacists are obliged to tell their customers if there's a cheaper substitute for the brand the doctor prescribed and ask if they want that instead.

Yeah, you can sometimes buy the generic substitute here too. It just depends on how new the drug is and whether or not it's gone "off patent". But when drugs are new, that's when the pharama companies market the hell out of them and pay the doctors to prescribe them.

The same doctor I was talking about that got some iPads for his office got a trip to Aruba from a pharmacutical company sales company. He must have written lots of 'scrips to get that! But as far as street drugs, they have medical marijuana shops in California. It's a joke. People go to some quack, make up an illness and the doc writes them a 'scrip. Hey, it's pot. Who cares? It's no different (morally) from alcohol, as far as I'm concerned... and I drink on occasion, so it's not like I'm going to get on a high horse with someone who smokes the doobus. But no, I don't want us to create (yet another) system where we have doctors doling out heroin, meth and cocaine. The heads are on their own there. It's the cartels, smugglers, heavy dealers, bankers, gun runners, et al that I would go after, with not just the police, but also the military.

[markabilly]

http://josefbrandenburg.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/bad-toaster-1-300x249.jpg
Markabilly making toast (of himself)

not worried, some mexican gay illegal aliens crossed the border and unplugged it....

[Eki]

The heads are on their own there. It's the cartels, smugglers, heavy dealers, bankers, gun runners, et al that I would go after, with not just the police, but also the military.
Yes, but as long as profit is high, there're always people greedy enough to take the risk of getting caught. And if the risk gets higher, the street prices get higher to maintain the profits. And the higher the street prices, the more the addicts have to rob or steal to get the money. The system kind of feeds itself.

[Jag_Warrior]

Yes, but as long as profit is high, there're always people greedy enough to take the risk of getting caught. And if the risk gets higher, the street prices get higher to maintain the profits. And the higher the street prices, the more the addicts have to rob or steal to get the money. The system kind of feeds itself.

That is true. And what you've mentioned would likely be a consequence, especially for those already at the margin: those souls who are truly beyond redemption. For those who are not completely gone, there would be these treatment centers. Rather than waiting to die or be put in jail (which is all that an addict's life really is), they would have the OPTION of going to treatment. You wouldn't have to spend even half the money we'd save from not locking up potheads anymore, and you could fully fund such centers... for those who were serious about it anyway.

But now, the hardcore element, those who value getting high over their own lives, much less anyone else's... well, they'd just be f'ed (and really, they already are). But right now, in the U.S., using drugs is still considered to be the cool thing to do in many circles. The sad thing is a lot of youngsters are getting hooked in their pursuit to find a cheap thrill or tune out for a bit. And I'll be honest with you, especially here in the South, meth is REALLY becoming a problem. The neocons here worry about Islam. A guy with a towel on his head won't kill me. But some punk that just suspects that I keep money or guns in the house might just take his chances someday. I got lucky and got the best of a coke dealer that tried to stab me when I went to toss him out of one of my apartments many years ago - I taught him how to fly (well, sorta... maybe he should have flapped his arms faster and he wouldn't have gotten all busted up when he went sailing off the balcony). But I'm older, and not as quick now... I might not be so lucky the next time. This, IMO much more so than "terrorism", is one of the most major issues facing this nation. Especially these drug gangs that virtually run certain parts of our major cities. My uncle tried to convince me to go in with him and buy some foreclosures down in Atlanta last year. I told him not just "no", but "hell no!" Atlanta is eaten up with gangs, especially the Mexican drug gangs coming out of L.A. and Texas. Even back when I thought I was totally bad ass & bullet proof, I would have known that even five like me with AK's would have no chance against some cartel linked mad men with Uzis, if I'd wandered into "their" territory, telling them to move along and get away from my property. These animals do not play.

While I'd like to see something like my scheme go into action, I'm also aware that one of the main reasons that the DEA and the other Fed agencies don't catch more drug smugglers, crooked bankers and the like is because they are staffed by human beings. A guy making $60 grand a year gets approached and told that if he'll turn his head for a few minutes, or ignore a certain cargo container, an account will be set up for him and $100 grand will go into it. Maybe 9 out of 10 guys won't go for it. But at least 1 is going to, IMO. And that's really all it takes. A ton here. A ton there. Pretty soon, you have enough to get a whole city high for a month.

I used to have a good friend from Finland that I don't hear from anymore: Jukka. Fine, fine fellow - really sorry that we've lost touch. In fact, he was a member here. But anyway, I recall discussing with him how little corruption there was in Finland. While it's not as bad in the U.S. as say, Mexico, there's probably too much corruption here for my plan to really be effective. We'll just keep busting the occasional drug dealer, show pictures of a pistol, a few bags of coke or weed on TV and the hayseeds among will think that law & order is still holding the day. Oh well... :dozey:

[Eki]

staffed by human beings. A guy making $60 grand a year gets approached and told that if he'll turn his head for a few minutes, or ignore a certain cargo container, an account will be set up for him and $100 grand will go into it. Maybe 9 out of 10 guys won't go for it. But at least 1 is going to, IMO. And that's really all it takes. A ton here. A ton there. Pretty soon, you have enough to get a whole city high for a month.

And $60 grand a year isn't much for risking your life or the lives of your family members if you go against these gangs.

[Easy Drifter]

Much as you and I fight Eki, you are unfortunately right with respect to the police in many cases. Here a first class constable makes around a $100,000. or a bit less.
One problem here is too many of our Judges are very lenient. A gangbanger will be picked up with drugs on him, carrying a gun and actually be out on bail for previous charges. He will have a firearms probition from previous Court appearances.
Appears in Court and will be released on bail yet again pending a trial.
The cops have a word for the behaviour of some cops when they see something going down. It is FIDO. F--- it, drive on. By no means all but some.

[Jag_Warrior]

Much as you and I fight Eki, you are unfortunately right with respect to the police in many cases. Here a first class constable makes around a $100,000. or a bit less.
One problem here is too many of our Judges are very lenient. A gangbanger will be picked up with drugs on him, carrying a gun and actually be out on bail for previous charges. He will have a firearms probition from previous Court appearances.
Appears in Court and will be released on bail yet again pending a trial.
The cops have a word for the behaviour of some cops when they see something going down. It is FIDO. F--- it, drive on. By no means all but some.

Have you ever seen the Canadian comedy show, Trailer Park Boys? My uncle found it on DirecTV and turned me onto it. If you've seen it, you know how the boys in the park get away with their crimes based on how lax the laws and enforcement are in Canada. It's a comedy, so they take it past the ridiculous, but it's a very funny (silly) show.

[Easy Drifter]

Actually Jag the laws are not that lienent nor is the police enforcement.
We just have too many plea bargains and extremely soft Judges.
The current federal Govt. is trying to tighten things up but face opposition from the other left oriented parties. We have a minority federal govt. so they can be outvoted.
Until recently Judges routinely gave two for one or even three for one credit for time served before trials and sentencing. An example would be someone sentenced to two years but had served a year in custody pre trial just walking out free.
The Conservative Govt. stopped that and it is now just time served.
Trouble will be soft Judges going with shorter sentences when they can. Many crimes have minimum so there will be even more plea bargains.
Judges are appointed here not elected and if you have lib left govt. they appoint judges soft on crime.

[Jag_Warrior]

Oh, I didn't think it was nearly as soft/bad as what's shown on Trailer Park Boys. I think they've just made a joke of it by stretching reality.

Have you ever seen that comedy series?

[Easy Drifter]

I have watched a couple of episodes but did not enjoy them. I know it was very popular.

[AAReagles]

I don't oppose legal gun ownership, I oppose ALL gun ownership, but I'm willing to compromise so much that legal gun ownership could be allowed to the police and to the military if the police and the military are democratically controlled by the people.

Funny, I don’t recall that particular notion being with your postings on this subject, as it appeared to be that your initial agenda was about the 2nd amendment. Was it not?

So, in addition, if you will, kindly indulge me about how a democracy is so prevailing. After all, I did provide you a nice nugget about the Bush ‘regime’, as you put it earlier -with regards to the Military Act, but you still have avoided the subject so far.

Not to worry though, I can submit another noble notion about the flourishing of democracy in this country with the Obama administration if you wish.




The overwhelming question is, is a society that is armed a threat to itself? One only needs to look south of the border to where you live to work that one out.

Oh? Is it that you may have forgotten what GloomyDay stateded earlier? After all, “one only needs to look” at one who is Mexican-American, and what he has got to say… or perhaps it is that you find that your opinion is validated more so.

Just in case you forgot btw…

http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135398&page=9

(#166)

I think you should read my location before you knock where I live.

Since you went there, let's take a look at Mexico. Are civilians allowed to own guns in Mexico? Simple answer, no (http://www.panda.com/mexicoguns/). Do the baddies still manage to get their hands on guns? Yes! Imagine if civilians had a way to defend themselves, and yes, in a country like Mexico the threat of crime is live & real everyday. Empower civilians to stand up to criminals and to corrupt officials instead of letting them get dumped on by some thugs (http://www.documentingreality.com/forum/attachments/f166/28219d1228779892-4-people-mexico-jewelry-store-killed-gunmen-who-took-nothing-4-people-mexico-jewelry-store-killed-gunmen-who-took-nothing.flv).

Here (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-monterrey7-2008dec07,0,2059505,full.story) is the story by The Los Angeles Times behind that last link. All of the victims were innocent, no prior records or ties to gangs/drugs, and were still ambushed. The thugs didn't take anything from the victims or the jewelry store that they shot-up. Not even the security guard could do a thing because Mexican gun laws are so restrictive that he couldn't possess a gun.



As I have implied many times before, as well as other members here, that some further education about the matter should be pursued, prior to making ignorant suggestions of rights of others in another country.

Like it or not, self-preservation is the defeating factor in this argument… whether anyone cares to identify that, it is to their own limited discretion.

[Easy Drifter]

Eki also has ignored my post that people in Northern Canada and not just First Nations, hunt to put food on the table and survive.
Even here in Central Ontario many people hunt to supplement their diet. As we are in a tourist area many only are able to find work in the summer. Quite a few rely on Food Banks in the winter but protein is lacking in what they provide.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Have you ever seen the Canadian comedy show, Trailer Park Boys? My uncle found it on DirecTV and turned me onto it. If you've seen it, you know how the boys in the park get away with their crimes based on how lax the laws and enforcement are in Canada. It's a comedy, so they take it past the ridiculous, but it's a very funny (silly) show.

Bubbles and the boys would be in and out of jail a lot more than in the show...but hey, it is good fun. Glad you enjoy it...

[AAReagles]

The crazy husband who kills his family makes the world news. But the majority of gun crimes in this country are committed by career criminals…
Which typical gun-grabbers refuse to identify… until someone enters their home or attempts to seize their vehicle.





Eki also has ignored my post that people in Northern Canada and not just First Nations, hunt to put food on the table and survive.
Even here in Central Ontario many people hunt to supplement their diet. As we are in a tourist area many only are able to find work in the summer. Quite a few rely on Food Banks in the winter but protein is lacking in what they provide.

Eki isn't stupid, as tempting as that bit of Bush that I mentioned is (which I'm sure Eki will use on another discussion), he won't engage on it, because if he acknowledged that situation about the Military Act, it would mean he would be agreeing with me that nothing in this world is certain... nor should be taken for granted.


I also found it interesting when Eki admitted this however when being confronted...

Yes, Finland has the highest number of registered firearms after the US and Yemen, I knew that. But they are mostly hunting weapons, not handguns and those who have them often have several, so it's not so common to own a handgun in Finland. ... something of which I forgotten about since that last shooting in Finland.

Kudos to whoever posted that info. :up: As I had forgotten about that when it was included in a report in regards to that one shooting in Finland, last Dec.

Anyways Easy Drifter, that is a good point you made about hunting, which of course is something else to take into consideration, along with gun collecting, sport-shooting, protection of livestock and such.

My philosophical take on guns is this; like tattoos (and piercings for that matter) and $10,000 set of rims, they’re a waste of money. Unfortunately, depending on where you live, they’re a necessity too. That’s all there is to it as far as I’m concerned.

I thought I was done with firearms after getting out of the Army, until less than 12 months later when the 1992 Los Angeles broke out. People got stupid in LA, they got stupid in the Bay area and they got stupid here in Fresno, even in broad-daylight. So I got me my own bit of homeland security (shotgun) and that’s all I feel I need. I’m not a NRA pusher, not one to tell folks to go out and get a gun, don’t care for the things really.

I do however, strongly believe that it is imperative to maintain the right to bear arms. You give up one right, others will follow in due time. Such as the right to free speech, which as you know, is suspect in Europe, as well as other places.

People can concoct whatever reason against legal ownership of firearms, but it doesn’t matter, because such biased arguments fail when it comes to the absolute realization of self-preservation. A common trait with most people - whether they are for or against the 2nd Amendment.

I don’t believe it’s necessary for me to mention that, since it has been stated before…

http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135398&page=12

Post #239


…Millions of Americans have right to carry licenses, and for the most part, life is not much different than it is in the UK or Canada. Is this an irrational need? You and I may think so, but then again, maybe not. Like Insurance, until you need it, you think you can get by maybe with out it. The idea of a personal gun is an insurance policy, and lets be serious. People who own guns in the US have a responsibility to society to use them or carry them without infringing on the rights of others. Considering how many people own guns in the US, that actually is the reality. People do own guns responsibly for the most part

…. But Easy Drifter, as you can see, Mark posted that sometime ago, and yet some people still don’t listen, because they’re stuck on an agenda. Which is pathetic. Right wing, Left wing, I got no use for either of them. My assessments (or agendas if you will) - for whatever they're worth - are based on the facts and the reality of situations - both proven and potential.

Not to mention that I don’t go around questioning the rights of other’s, fooling myself to believe that I’m on some sort of “progressive” trend.

[Eki]

it would mean he would be agreeing with me that nothing in this world is certain... nor should be taken for granted.
But I do agree with you that nothing in this world is certain, except dying. The reason why I don't comment the Military Act is because I don't know what it is and I'm too lazy to find out.



I also found it interesting when Eki admitted this however when being confronted...
... something of which I forgotten about since that last shooting in Finland.
Why wouldn't admit that. I'm not happy with the gun laws in Finland either, especially the way they enforce them. Before the latest school shooting in Kauhajoki, the police had received tip-offs and talked to the shooter just days before shooting and the pinheads didn't take away his gun and his license:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kauhajoki_school_shooting


Within days of the shooting, the police said they had received a sizeable number of tip-offs alerting the them to suspicious photographs, videos, and comments on chat rooms.[49]

Before the Sello mall shooting, the shooter had been caught for illegal guns not just once but twice, but they just slapped his wrists and fined him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sello_mall_shooting#Shooter


He had been convicted of assault in 2001[16] and possession of a 7.65 mm hand gun and associated rounds of ammunition in 2003 and 9 x 18 mm cartridges in 2007[17] as well as possession of narcotics. He was also under investigation for being involved in a human trafficking ring that organizes illegal immigration from the Balkans to Finland.[18] These and other offenses including unlawful threats and traffic violations had led the Finnish Immigration Service to reject his application for Finnish citizenship.[19] His motives may have been a mixture of a grudge with his former employer Prisma, and the fact that he believed that his girlfriend had started a new relationship with a Prisma employee after breaking up with Shkupolli.[5][16]



My philosophical take on guns is this; like tattoos (and piercings for that matter) and $10,000 set of rims, they’re a waste of money. Unfortunately, depending on where you live, they’re a necessity too. That’s all there is to it as far as I’m concerned.

And where are tattoos, piercings and $10,000 set of rims a necessity? In prison and in Formula 1?

[AAReagles]

...The reason why I don't comment the Military Act is because I don't know what it is and I'm too lazy to find out.
Considering all the sites you post from time to time, I'm having a bit difficulty of adjusting to your explanation of "lazy."




...I'm not happy with the gun laws in Finland either, especially the way they enforce them. Before the latest school shooting in Kauhajoki, the police had received tip-offs and talked to the shooter just days before shooting and the pinheads didn't take away his gun and his license:... Careful Eki, you're starting to sound like us gun rights supporters.

You're suggesting that a proactive measure is in order, which is what JW, other Americans, some Canadians and myself already stated on this thread, as well as the other gun thread that was on here two years ago; in other words enforce the laws already in the books and respond to suspected threats.




And where are tattoos, piercings and $10,000 set of rims a necessity? In prison and in Formula 1? I said that "depending upon where you live, guns are a necessity too."

[Eki]

I said that "depending upon where you live, guns are a necessity too."
OK, sorry for my bad English. I thought the "too" referred to tattoos, piercings and $10,000 rims. I can be annoying too.

[markabilly]

OK, sorry for my bad English. I thought the "too" referred to tattoos, piercings and $10,000 rims. I can be annoying too.
You forgot "very, very", too

In any event, as I pointed out, outlawing ownership of guns has no relationship to reducing the amount of crime involving the use of firearms and murders in a country. Period.

If anything, more ownership of firearms has a connection with less violent crime in that country

And that is really all that is necessary to say about this


But I do love the discussion over the prescrition of drugs

I wonder if the doc can issue generic for heroin, cocaine or if it will have to be by brand name only :rolleyes:

[markabilly]

[quote="Eki"]. I'm not happy with the gun laws in Finland either, especially the way they enforce them.



[quote]



Of course not, since fin nland has such freedom to have them (as I already pointed out) and such a low violent crime rate compared to countries that do not permit guns at all, such as great britain, confiscating guns from even permit holders :rolleyes:

[Eki]

Of course not, since fin nland has such freedom to have them (as I already pointed out) and such a low violent crime rate compared to countries that do not permit guns at all, such as great britain, confiscating guns from even permit holders :rolleyes:
Actually, Great Britain has a very low rate of murders with firearms. Unfortunately Finland is not included in this statistic. Canada and Switzerland have about 5 times higher rate and the US about 27 times higher rate than the UK:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita

Crime Statistics > Murders with firearms (per capita) (most recent) by country
VIEW DATA: Totals Per capita

Showing latest available data.
Rank Countries Amount
# 1 South Africa: 0.719782 per 1,000 people
# 2 Colombia: 0.509801 per 1,000 people
# 3 Thailand: 0.312093 per 1,000 people
# 4 Zimbabwe: 0.0491736 per 1,000 people
# 5 Mexico: 0.0337938 per 1,000 people
# 6 Belarus: 0.0321359 per 1,000 people
# 7 Costa Rica: 0.0313745 per 1,000 people
# 8 United States: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people
# 9 Uruguay: 0.0245902 per 1,000 people
# 10 Lithuania: 0.0230748 per 1,000 people
# 11 Slovakia: 0.021543 per 1,000 people
# 12 Czech Republic: 0.0207988 per 1,000 people
# 13 Estonia: 0.0157539 per 1,000 people
# 14 Latvia: 0.0131004 per 1,000 people
# 15 Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of: 0.0127139 per 1,000 people
# 16 Bulgaria: 0.00845638 per 1,000 people
# 17 Portugal: 0.00795003 per 1,000 people
# 18 Slovenia: 0.00596718 per 1,000 people
# 19 Switzerland: 0.00534117 per 1,000 people
# 20 Canada: 0.00502972 per 1,000 people
# 21 Germany: 0.00465844 per 1,000 people
# 22 Moldova: 0.00448934 per 1,000 people
# 23 Hungary: 0.00439692 per 1,000 people
# 24 Poland: 0.0043052 per 1,000 people
# 25 Ukraine: 0.00368109 per 1,000 people
# 26 Ireland: 0.00298805 per 1,000 people
# 27 Australia: 0.00293678 per 1,000 people
# 28 Denmark: 0.00257732 per 1,000 people
# 29 Spain: 0.0024045 per 1,000 people
# 30 Azerbaijan: 0.00227503 per 1,000 people
# 31 New Zealand: 0.00173482 per 1,000 people
# 32 United Kingdom: 0.00102579 per 1,000 people

[markabilly]

Actually, Great Britain has a very low rate of murders with firearms. Unfortunately Finland is not included in this statistic. Canada and Switzerland have about 5 times higher rate and the US about 27 times higher rate than the UK:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita

ple
your link is wrong

[Eki]

your link is wrong
Tell that to the United Nations.

There was an interesting factoid on the link:


FACTOID # 17: 84% of people in Finland feel that they are at a low risk of experiencing a burglary - but just look at how many burglaries they have!
OK, I'll look:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_bur_percap-crime-burglaries-per-capita&int=50

Crime Statistics > Burglaries (per capita) (most recent) by country > Top 50
VIEW DATA: Totals Per capita
Definition Source Printable version
Bar Graph Map

Showing latest available data.
Rank Countries Amount
# 1 Australia: 21.7454 per 1,000 people
# 2 Dominica: 18.7892 per 1,000 people
# 3 Denmark: 18.3299 per 1,000 people
# 4 Estonia: 17.4576 per 1,000 people
# 5 Finland: 16.7697 per 1,000 people
# 6 New Zealand: 16.2763 per 1,000 people
# 7 United Kingdom: 13.8321 per 1,000 people
# 8 Poland: 9.46071 per 1,000 people
# 9 Canada: 8.94425 per 1,000 people
# 10 South Africa: 8.89764 per 1,000 people
# 11 Montserrat: 8.24323 per 1,000 people
# 12 Iceland: 8.11156 per 1,000 people
# 13 Switzerland: 8.06303 per 1,000 people
# 14 Slovenia: 7.93734 per 1,000 people
# 15 Czech Republic: 7.24841 per 1,000 people
# 16 Hungary: 7.15849 per 1,000 people
# 17 United States: 7.09996 per 1,000 people

Dang! I'd better get a gun, a guard dog and a burglar alarm! What's wrong with people these days? In the good old days you could even leave your door unlocked.

[Daniel]

Tell that to the United Nations.

There was an interesting factoid on the link:


OK, I'll look:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_bur_percap-crime-burglaries-per-capita&int=50

Crime Statistics > Burglaries (per capita) (most recent) by country > Top 50
VIEW DATA: Totals Per capita
Definition Source Printable version
Bar Graph Map

Showing latest available data.
Rank Countries Amount
# 1 Australia: 21.7454 per 1,000 people
# 2 Dominica: 18.7892 per 1,000 people
# 3 Denmark: 18.3299 per 1,000 people
# 4 Estonia: 17.4576 per 1,000 people
# 5 Finland: 16.7697 per 1,000 people
# 6 New Zealand: 16.2763 per 1,000 people
# 7 United Kingdom: 13.8321 per 1,000 people
# 8 Poland: 9.46071 per 1,000 people
# 9 Canada: 8.94425 per 1,000 people
# 10 South Africa: 8.89764 per 1,000 people
# 11 Montserrat: 8.24323 per 1,000 people
# 12 Iceland: 8.11156 per 1,000 people
# 13 Switzerland: 8.06303 per 1,000 people
# 14 Slovenia: 7.93734 per 1,000 people
# 15 Czech Republic: 7.24841 per 1,000 people
# 16 Hungary: 7.15849 per 1,000 people
# 17 United States: 7.09996 per 1,000 people

Dang! I'd better get a gun, a guard dog and a burglar alarm! What's wrong with people these days? In the good old days you could even leave your door unlocked.
and Australia's convict heritage shows through :up:

[Jag_Warrior]

...in other words enforce the laws already in the books and respond to suspected threats.

This!^^^ :up:

If this can't be done now (and it's not), then what good are more meaningless words written on paper ("laws") going to do when it comes to reducing crime?

All that would serve to do is criminalize (now) law abiding citizens and probably radicalize them (er, us - might cause me to start going to Sarah Palin rallies and hanging out with Tea Partiers). The guy with a legally purchased AR-15 would be easy to catch, because he probably lives his life out in the open (as most normal people do). But the gang-banger with the illegally obtained, fully automatic M-16 would be/is hard to catch, plus he might put up a (violent) fight if cornered. I'm not downing cops (or maybe I am), but police agencies (federal, state and local) tend to be all about stats. So they go after the low hanging fruit. And the low hanging fruit in this case would be the gun owner whose most serious "crime" in his life probably has been doing 55 in a 45 mph zone when he was late for work.

Do we want to get serious (damn serious!) about reducing violent crime? OK, let's stop worrying about Cheech & Chong potheads and make it a federal crime to belong to (known and proven) criminal organizations, like the Crips, Bloods, Hell's Angels, Aryan Brotherhood, Mexican Mafia, etc. - no different than how we treat Al Qaeda members! They terrorize our major cities, so how are they not "terrorists"??? And then use the National Guard, not just to guard the border (which I am in favor of), but also to back up the FBI/DEA/U.S. Marshals as they raid their hangouts. Apart from ACLU members having heart attacks (not an entirely bad thing much of the time), what would be wrong with this plan?

[Eki]

All that would serve to do is criminalize (now) law abiding citizens and probably radicalize them (er, us - might cause me to start going to Sarah Palin rallies and hanging out with Tea Partiers).
:eek: Crikey! I'll be a good boy from now on and support the right to bear arms!

[dunes]

:eek: Crikey! I'll be a good boy from now on and support the right to bear arms!
Thats a double edged sword. Here in the US where we stand tall and firmn on our right to bear arms we have a big prob lum with it as well. as your graph shows us in 17th it doesn't account for our so called accidental shootings by both police and our citizens nor does it acount for uinsolved homicides which we lead the world in.
Guns belong in our homes and in our hands but so does respoonsability and acccountability.

[Eki]

Thats a double edged sword. Here in the US where we stand tall and firmn on our right to bear arms we have a big prob lum with it as well. as your graph shows us in 17th it doesn't account for our so called accidental shootings by both police and our citizens nor does it acount for uinsolved homicides which we lead the world in.
Guns belong in our homes and in our hands but so does respoonsability and acccountability.
Yes, I was just shocked by Jag's comment about Sarah Palin and the Tea Partiers. I don't know what these Tea Partiers are, but during the US Presidential campaign the thought that a woman like Sarah Palin could have access to nuclear weapons gave me the creeps. It's as scary as if a man like Vladimir Zhirinovsky would be elected as the Russian President:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhirinovsky

[anthonyvop]

http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2010/4/29/634081745212038160-45ACP.jpg

[dunes]

http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2010/4/29/634081745212038160-45ACP.jpg

See thats uncool. No trigger guard or pin strap to stop accidental use by a minor. Like I wouldn,t know what it looked like with a trigger lock on it.

[Jag_Warrior]

Yes, I was just shocked by Jag's comment about Sarah Palin and the Tea Partiers. I don't know what these Tea Partiers are, but during the US Presidential campaign the thought that a woman like Sarah Palin could have access to nuclear weapons gave me the creeps. It's as scary as if a man like Vladimir Zhirinovsky would be elected as the Russian President:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhirinovsky

Palin is just a media creation flake. 'Nuf said about that one.

And the Tea Parties are all over the map, because there's not really a single organization or umbrella. So there are good/sincere factions and of course, nutball factions. Like with anything else these days, the extremists/nutballs suck up the media attention, because heck, who doesn't like to watch and report on a good train wreck?! What I find curious and rather amusing about many of them is that they're largely the same people who've supported dumping hundreds of billions down the rathole known as Iraq, yet now they've "seen the light", and have become (neo) fiscal conservatives. But for the ones who aren't in need of mental help (or a few more years of education), that's OK. That's actually a good thing in the long run, IMO. We do need to get our fiscal house in order. And the sooner we realize that we're going to have to look at not just discretionary spending, but also military spending, as well as our tax and trade policies, the better off we'll be. As I've said many times, people are going to have to fall out of love with their sacred cows in order for us to really get this ship turned around.

As for me, I'm an NRA Life Member and have been for many years. I'm not that radical in most of my beliefs - though I have been in the distant past. Now I just want to be left in peace, go to some races, sit in the hot tub with a cutie, sip a beer, stare at the mountains and live my life with as little outside, unwanted interference as possible. At least in my mind, I deserve that now. I don't want to be ripped off by the government... or an insurance company (which I am fighting like a mad dog right now - crooked, thieving sons of #####). Some of these anti-government types are more scared of the government than anything else. Me, I'm concerned about ANYONE who wants to slide their hand in my pocket and take what I've worked long and hard to obtain. If someone from the government says they've come to help me, I know they're probably lying. And if someone from a large corporation says they've come to help me, I know they're probably lying too. You have to keep your eye on all these scoundrels. That's the part that many of these new age "conservatives" don't seem to get. Whether on the left or the right, ALL politicians are good for one thing: selling you any tale that you're dumb enough to buy. But people (on the left and the right) keep falling for it, so of course, they keep doing it. They do what has been proven to work. Can you really blame them???


And the only creatures that really need to fear me and my "toys" are wild boars... and anyone attempting to enter my home without permission. I figure since this big, bad boy dropped a 300 pound Russian boar at 40 yards (with open sights, I might add :p ), it would convince even the worst robbing meth head to run... and run damn fast!
http://img14.imagevenue.com/loc472/th_62618_PistolAMT45MagPICT1018_122_472lo.JPG (http://img14.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=62618_PistolAMT45MagPICT1018_122_472 lo.JPG)

[anthonyvop]

Palin is just a media creation flake. 'Nuf said about that one.

And the Tea Parties are all over the map, because there's not really a single organization or umbrella. So there are good/sincere factions and of course, nutball factions. Like with anything else these days, the extremists/nutballs suck up the media attention, because heck, who doesn't like to watch and report on a good train wreck?! What I find curious and rather amusing about many of them is that they're largely the same people who've supported dumping hundreds of billions down the rathole known as Iraq, yet now they've "seen the light", and have become (neo) fiscal conservatives. But for the ones who aren't in need of mental help (or a few more years of education), that's OK. That's actually a good thing in the long run, IMO. We do need to get our fiscal house in order. And the sooner we realize that we're going to have to look at not just discretionary spending, but also military spending, as well as our tax and trade policies, the better off we'll be. As I've said many times, people are going to have to fall out of love with their sacred cows in order for us to really get this ship turned around.

As for me, I'm an NRA Life Member and have been for many years. I'm not that radical in most of my beliefs - though I have been in the distant past. Now I just want to be left in peace, go to some races, sit in the hot tub with a cutie, sip a beer, stare at the mountains and live my life with as little outside, unwanted interference as possible. At least in my mind, I deserve that now. I don't want to be ripped off by the government... or an insurance company (which I am fighting like a mad dog right now - crooked, thieving sons of #####). Some of these anti-government types are more scared of the government than anything else. Me, I'm concerned about ANYONE who wants to slide their hand in my pocket and take what I've worked long and hard to obtain. If someone from the government says they've come to help me, I know they're probably lying. And if someone from a large corporation says they've come to help me, I know they're probably lying too. You have to keep your eye on all these scoundrels. That's the part that many of these new age "conservatives" don't seem to get. Whether on the left or the right, ALL politicians are good for one thing: selling you any tale that you're dumb enough to buy. But people (on the left and the right) keep falling for it, so of course, they keep doing it. They do what has been proven to work. Can you really blame them???



Wow. It never seems to amuse me how Liberals are quick to condemn conservatives when they have the audacity to actually express their opinion.
For generations the media was the domain of the left. Now they are outraged that people might actually think that a differing view is news-worthy.
They hate Fox yet embrace ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, MSNBC, NY Times, Washington Post.....ect.
They Think that Idolize criminals like Frank, Rangel and almost every Kennedy yet they attempt to marginalize Palin at all costs.

All it is to me is a expression of Fear. Fear that people will wake up. Fear that they are actually wrong.

[Jag_Warrior]

Sorry about that, PalinFan.... er, I mean, Anthony. I forgot that Palin was your (imaginary) girlfriend. I didn't mean to offend, by simply pointing out the truth: Silly Sarah Palin is the Danica Patrick of politics. Just accept it. The truth will set you free, my brotha!

Do I fear that she will ever get any sort of national power? Not really. Outside of her wingnut fanbase, no one would vote for that dizzy flake. At best, she could move back to Alaska and maybe become a U.S. Senator, or maybe some hick state and they'd probably elect her - and she MIGHT serve half a term before the job became too much for her. Then she'd have to make up another convoluted story so she could resign from that job too. "Wow, that there thinkin' is hard work! My head hurts!" *wink wink, wiggle wiggle* But any position that would require the nation's vote? Nopey! That ship has sailed - and she wasn't on it. But it is a scary thought. I fear that in the same way that I would fear a blind baby holding a machine gun. Ready, fire, aim. :eek:

[dunes]

Even as cruel as it sound I too am scared that a Palin wannbe somebody could accually get in a high profile office.She too wishy washy and a republican to boot.Talk about appealing americans rights, hunting ,fishing then what.Like that demorcrat Obama though thier good to look at and have a nice wave.

[anthonyvop]

Sorry about that, PalinFan.... er, I mean, Anthony. I forgot that Palin was your (imaginary) girlfriend. I didn't mean to offend, by simply pointing out the truth: Silly Sarah Palin is the Danica Patrick of politics. Just accept it. The truth will set you free, my brotha!

Do I fear that she will ever get any sort of national power? Not really. Outside of her wingnut fanbase, no one would vote for that dizzy flake. At best, she could move back to Alaska and maybe become a U.S. Senator, or maybe some hick state and they'd probably elect her - and she MIGHT serve half a term before the job became too much for her. Then she'd have to make up another convoluted story so she could resign from that job too. "Wow, that there thinkin' is hard work! My head hurts!" *wink wink, wiggle wiggle* But any position that would require the nation's vote? Nopey! That ship has sailed - and she wasn't on it. But it is a scary thought. I fear that in the same way that I would fear a blind baby holding a machine gun. Ready, fire, aim. :eek:

She really scares you doesn't she.
The fact that a woman can achieve such greatness on the political scene without being another mouthpiece for liberal fascism.

What is even scarier for you is that she has accomplished so much without using political crutch of feminism.

Personally she is not my choice for the next presidential election. We disagree on some issues but it is only the epitome of self-centered hatred to question her intelligence or capabilities.

[Bob Riebe]

Sorry about that, PalinFan.... er, I mean, Anthony. I forgot that Palin was your (imaginary) girlfriend. I didn't mean to offend, by simply pointing out the truth: Silly Sarah Palin is the Danica Patrick of politics. Just accept it. The truth will set you free, my brotha!

Do I fear that she will ever get any sort of national power? Not really. Outside of her wingnut fanbase, no one would vote for that dizzy flake. At best, she could move back to Alaska and maybe become a U.S. Senator, or maybe some hick state and they'd probably elect her - and she MIGHT serve half a term before the job became too much for her. Then she'd have to make up another convoluted story so she could resign from that job too. "Wow, that there thinkin' is hard work! My head hurts!" *wink wink, wiggle wiggle* But any position that would require the nation's vote? Nopey! That ship has sailed - and she wasn't on it. But it is a scary thought. I fear that in the same way that I would fear a blind baby holding a machine gun. Ready, fire, aim. :eek:

Gee, then you must think Vice President is a complete idiot; he usually sounds like one.
God help us if Pres. Obama dies.http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/images/smilies/roll_eyes.gif

[Jag_Warrior]

She really scares you doesn't she.
The fact that a woman can achieve such greatness on the political scene without being another mouthpiece for liberal fascism.

What is even scarier for you is that she has accomplished so much without using political crutch of feminism.

Personally she is not my choice for the next presidential election. We disagree on some issues but it is only the epitome of self-centered hatred to question her intelligence or capabilities.

Boy, you really are ready to drink her bath water, aren't you? Those old bony legs tear you up, do they? Man, you have got it bad! You have a problem with me questioning the intelligence of someone who has to write words on her hand (simple ones at that), was/is clueless on U.S. foreign policy and took what, 5+ years to muddle through a series of backwater diploma mills, to find one that would give her a gut college degree? Really? Seriously? Wow, your love be strong. :laugh:

And even better, you (like more than a few Danica fans) want to make believe that I make fun of this clown because she's a female? No, I make fun of her because I find her to be... well, FUNNY!

All I know is, when it came time to actually go back and perform her duties as Governor of Alaska, Silly Sarah melted like wax on a hot July day. And I do NOT blame her one bit! I think she's as goofy as the day is long. But she knew to strike while the iron was hot. I give Danica the same credit. Heck, I'd buy either one of them for what they're actually worth, and then sell them to you rubes who value them so highly. Plus, I bet if I offered them a cut of the hayseed profits, they'd be smart enough to play along and take it.

From her time at Hewlett Packard, I have no use for Carly Fiorina as a person. But is she intelligent? Ya darn right she is. I think she's making up her political views as she goes, but I can't question her intelligence... only her integrity. Laura Ingraham I knew (though not intimately) when we were both at the same school years ago. Laura is extremely intelligent. Sarah Palin doesn't have the I.Q. to even be mentioned in the same sentence with either of them. I could rattle off a whole host of names of women I respect, who I suppose now fall under the "conservative" banner - which is not a problem for me (I know that's above your head... but don't sweat it). Some have views I agree with. Some have views I do not agree with. But just as you love to use the word "liberal" at every turn, I see Sarah as a simple idiot, who also latches onto buzz words to fire up an audience of hayseeds... even though she couldn't properly define "socialism" if someone offered to give her a $50K Saks Fifth Ave. gift card. And we both know she'd do darn near anything for that... except be able to define a word with more than one syllable.

Had John McCain chosen Kay Bailey Hutchinson, I might have voted for him. Other than that, I was prepared to vote Libertarian, as I had done in the previous election, once I began to regret my vote for W. Bush in 2000. But when (old & sick) John McCain chose that screeching trailerpark Barbie, and then we all came to see how incredibly backwards she was(is!), that sealed the deal for me.

Put someone in the big chair who doesn't know a country from a continent? Hells no! :rolleyes:

[Jag_Warrior]

Gee, then you must think Vice President is a complete idiot; he usually sounds like one.
God help us if Pres. Obama dies. :crazy:

My opinion of Joe Biden has not changed over the years: he's a goof. The fact that he enjoys hearing himself talk just makes it all the more apparent.

*My apologies in advance if I have offended anyone who is in love with Joe Biden. I certainly don't want to insult two fantasy loves in one evening. :p

[Eki]

Laura Ingraham I knew (though not intimately) when we were both at the same school years ago. Laura is extremely intelligent.
Laura Ingalls might be a good candidate for the next Leader.

[Bob Riebe]

Laura Ingalls might be a good candidate for the next Leader.
As Bill the Cat used to say--HaCK-gAg-PfFFt-AcK!

[anthonyvop]

Boy, you really are ready to drink her bath water, aren't you? Those old bony legs tear you up, do they? Man, you have got it bad! You have a problem with me questioning the intelligence of someone who has to write words on her hand (simple ones at that), was/is clueless on U.S. foreign policy and took what, 5+ years to muddle through a series of backwater diploma mills, to find one that would give her a gut college degree? Really? Seriously? Wow, your love be strong. :laugh:

And even better, you (like more than a few Danica fans) want to make believe that I make fun of this clown because she's a female? No, I make fun of her because I find her to be... well, FUNNY!

All I know is, when it came time to actually go back and perform her duties as Governor of Alaska, Silly Sarah melted like wax on a hot July day. And I do NOT blame her one bit! I think she's as goofy as the day is long. But she knew to strike while the iron was hot. I give Danica the same credit. Heck, I'd buy either one of them for what they're actually worth, and then sell them to you rubes who value them so highly. Plus, I bet if I offered them a cut of the hayseed profits, they'd be smart enough to play along and take it.


http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2010/2/11/634015088801644055-Hypocrites.jpg

[Jag_Warrior]

Yes, Obama is the first President to ever use a teleprompter. Every other President has memorized his speeches in full. There has never even been a teleprompter in the White House before Obama got in (stole that election!). Obama has never spoken in public without a teleprompter. He never travels without a teleprompter. When he speaks to his kids, he uses a teleprompter. When he engaged the gathering of Republicans a few months ago, many thought that he was answering based on his knowledge of whatever subject was brought up. Not true! What the foolish American people don't know is that Obama's secret agents snuck into the bedrooms of all those Republican congressmen, probed their minds and learned what questions they were going to ask the next day. Then they developed clever answers and planted mini-teleprompters around the room to feed those answers to Obama when the questions did come up. Don't be fooled by those tricky libs. That's how they pulled that off. He just looked smart. He's really dumb. Whereas Sarah Palin looks dumb, but she's really smart. :s pinhead:

I tell ya one thing... Sarah Palin doesn't read from a teleprompter! Ya know, being that she's partially illiterate and can't read anyway. :p :

[Eki]

Hypocrites.jpg
You forgot that Obama's speeches are longer than four lines.They are more difficult to memorize

[Bob Riebe]

I tell ya one thing... Sarah Palin doesn't read from a teleprompter! Ya know, being that she's partially illiterate and can't read anyway. :p :
She governed a state and he was a community organizer.

That would explain his incompetence, and why his administration has created the worst cluster-fu-- in history.

But then what do you expect from a man who was running against McCain for president but spent most of the time campaigning against a person who was running for vice president.
He is just another generic cheap Chicago politician; as his party says "vote early, vote often."

[Bob Riebe]

You forgot that Obama's speeches are longer than four lines.They are more difficult to memorize
OH, that explains why when he appeared with another politician, he read the speech, then thanked himself for being there, because he read the other man's speech.

Maybe some day someone will put "I am an idiot" on the teleprompter and he will read it because he has no idea what he is supposed to talking about.
He will get the most thundering applause he has ever gotten.

[anthonyvop]

I tell ya one thing... Sarah Palin doesn't read from a teleprompter! Ya know, being that she's partially illiterate and can't read anyway. :p :


Now you are just being stupid.

[markabilly]

Sarah says, Is that you, Jag, you little turd, talking about me again....




yeah, jag, you talkin to me?? well you talkin to me....just you and wikieki line your sorry butts up, right over there, so momma can give you what you need right now



http://sarahpalinblog.typepad.com/.a/6a010535e0eff3970c01157106ec9b970c-pi

[Eki]

Maybe some day someone will put "I am an idiot" on the teleprompter and he will read it because he has no idea what he is supposed to talking about.
He will get the most thundering applause he has ever gotten.
We were waiting for that to happen already when George W was the President.

[anthonyvop]

We were waiting for that to happen already when George W was the President.

Eki,


Do you know how stupid you look when you do that?

There you are....some Finnish, welfare lackey calling the President of the USA stupid!

[Eki]

Eki,


Do you know how stupid you look when you do that?

There you are....some Finnish, welfare lackey calling the President of the USA stupid!
Do you how stupid YOU look when you do THAT?

Some American, offspring of the Cuban Meat-Packing Glitterati, suggesting that I look stupid!

[anthonyvop]

Do you how stupid YOU look when you do THAT?

Some American, offspring of the Cuban Meat-Packing Glitterati, suggesting that I look stupid!

So now you are hurling racist insults? Why am I not surprised?

Well at least I am not some welfare looter sucking at the government teat.

[Eki]

So now you are hurling racist insults? Why am I not surprised?

Well at least I am not some welfare looter sucking at the government teat.

You started it:


There you are....some Finnish, welfare lackey calling the President of the USA stupid!

Finns have the right to call the President of the USA stupid, just as people from any other country.

[anthonyvop]

You started it:



Finns have the right to call the President of the USA stupid, just as people from any other country.

I agree.
You have that right. You also have the right to look like an idiot for saying so.

[Eki]

I agree.
You have that right. You also have the right to look like an idiot for saying so.
Not as idiot as you and Bush, however.

[Easy Drifter]

Gad, It sounds like a Kindergarden class. Did so, did not, did too. :p :

[Bob Riebe]

Not as idiot as you and Bush, however.
As bad of a R-i-n-o as bush was, or Democrat Lite, being inept is not as bad as Barry Obama's incompetence.

NOW-- on the other hand, one very well known talking head, has said Pres. Obama is not incompetent, but that he and his crew of beings of the narcissistic arrogance clan, are letting the oil spill run wild, to be able to ram through more of their economy-ecological edicts, that would die if had made a serious effort to control the leak.

Now if BP wanted to endear itself to the U.S. public, they would bring in the foreign ships that U.S. law does not allow, and said same law Obama has not waived, unlike the valve test he did waive, and let Obama send in the Coast Guard to arrest them for being there illegally.

Now back to regular programming.

[Eki]

Gad, It sounds like a Kindergarden class. Did so, did not, did too. :p :
Does not! Don't YOU start now.

[Easy Drifter]

OK Grade one. :D

[markabilly]

Go ahead, make my day.......children

http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/7/l/1/3/sarah-palin-gun-1.jpg

[Mark in Oshawa]

Stick a fork in this thread...it's dead Jim!

[markabilly]

Stick a fork in this thread...it's dead Jim!
sara the p say, one more outburst out of you, and I will pull the trigger




If you do not beleive me, just try it......

I ain't kidding punk

[markabilly]

That's it, I am doing it.....


better duck.....




you punks



http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/7/2009/07/504x_sarah_with_gun_to_his_head.jpg

[AAReagles]

OK, sorry for my bad English. I thought the "too" referred to tattoos, piercings and $10,000 rims..
No Eki, guns are the only necessary element out of that bunch… unfortunately so I should say. The tatts and rims are just wastes of $$$ for cosmetic adjustments designed to influence others, as if it matters.



I can be annoying too.
Hell Eki, you’re family - of course you can be annoying. So can the rest of us as you know already. It’s just anytime some folks go against the 2nd Amendment, there’s a lack of clarity of what all is involved when gun grabbers decide to step off the reservation and start questioning other’s rights, without taking a concept beyond their own nose… or skin I should say.





…All that would serve to do is criminalize (now) law abiding citizens and probably radicalize them (er, us - might cause me to start going to Sarah Palin rallies and hanging out with Tea Partiers). The guy with a legally purchased AR-15 would be easy to catch, because he probably lives his life out in the open (as most normal people do). But the gang-banger with the illegally obtained, fully automatic M-16 would be/is hard to catch, plus he might put up a (violent) fight if cornered..

Though I am a conservative, registered Repub., still, I suppose I would vote for just about anyone Prez candidate running against Obama… regrettably, due to the fact that I find it unacceptable that Mexico’s President would come to the White House and make some statement about how the US needs to renew the Assault Weapons Ban, without some response from our current administration suggesting that perhaps Mexico should not overlook its’ own problem with the poverty-stricken population being orchestrated by a corrupt government.

Living in California, I personally would have no problem with it being applied in the heavy population density urban areas infested with gang-bangers. Nevertheless, I see no reason for someone living in northern California, the great plains, Wyoming, and other land mass areas where the residency is sparse.



Do we want to get serious (damn serious!) about reducing violent crime? OK, let's stop worrying about Cheech & Chong potheads and make it a federal crime to belong to (known and proven) criminal organizations, like the Crips, Bloods, Hell's Angels, Aryan Brotherhood, Mexican Mafia, etc. - no different than how we treat Al Qaeda members! They terrorize our major cities, so how are they not "terrorists"?

Well that’s just it. Gangs, gun violence, drug use/trafficking and such are a result of enduring prejudices, that got the gun violence to the level it is. Everyone was talking about gun control when Columbine happened, yet failed the realize that in African-American and Latino communities, it had been acceptable for such violence to persist. Because of this, it is the ONLY reason I was glad that Obama became president - as his election to the White House illustrated that anything is possible with hard work and determination. His election changed folks attitudes, particularly with African-Americans. I don't know about anyone else here who lives outside of Cali, but I seen changes where more young black men were dressed professionaly, looking for jobs. And as odd as this may sound, I've noticed that I don't hear rap music being played so much either.





Eki... There you are....some Finnish, welfare lackey calling the President of the USA stupid!
:down:
Not to get sidetracked as Politically Correct Phil here, but it’s comments like that, that give good reason why Europeans would have an ‘attitude’ with us Americans.

Drop it down a gear, if you would please.

[Jag_Warrior]

She governed a state and he was a community organizer.

Yep, she served roughly half a term... then quit when the pressure got to her. :dozey:



That would explain his incompetence, and why his administration has created the worst cluster-fu-- in history.

You might want to double check your facts on when the recession started, Bob. Course, maybe you're referring to something else. Who knows?




But then what do you expect from a man who was running against McCain for president but spent most of the time campaigning against a person who was running for vice president.
He is just another generic cheap Chicago politician; as his party says "vote early, vote often."

I don't recall that Obama (or even Biden) spent most of his time (or even much of his time) campaigning against Palin. Palin did gain national focus... because she started opening her mouth, and letting people know how incredibly goofy and backwards she was. We all got to see why the McCain people kept her hidden away for so long. They should have passed her off as a mute and NEVER let her speak.

Now I will give you one thing on Palin: she got NO breaks from the media. But when even other (traditional) Republicans can't think of anything really positive to say about you, maybe there's a problem.... whether the media gave her any breaks or not.

McCain could have picked Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Carly Fiorina or any one of a dozen or more other women (since he seemed to want a female running mate), who were truly qualified AND intelligent. Ya know, there are qualified, intelligent, conservative women out there in the world. Why pick someone who you've never really even spoken to before? Stupid move on the campaign's part for rolling the dice on Silly Sarah. Had he tried, he could have chosen someone he actually KNEW, and someone who wasn't a few french fries short of a Happy Meal. IMO, the only (female) choice worse than Palin would have been Michele Bachmann.

[Eki]

IMO, the only (female) choice worse than Palin would have been Michele Bachmann.
How about this Ann Coulter character?

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/ann_coulter.html

[markabilly]

Carly Fiorina .
You have lost it....that is the worse possible choice, indeed far worse than palin, because palin has an excuse as in she ain't that smart.

The woman sold out america and then sold out HP. A $1.00 whorre looking for a $5.00 john.



geeass :rolleyes:

not sure what he of this has to do with guns....

[Easy Drifter]

Oh, is this thread supposed to be about guns? :D

[Eki]

Oh, is this thread supposed to be about guns? :D
No, about George W Bush.

[anthonyvop]

Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior View Post
IMO, the only (female) choice worse than Palin would have been Michele Bachmann.

http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2009/11/16/633939984603610750-MicheleBachmann.jpg

[anthonyvop]

How about this Ann Coulter character?

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/ann_coulter.html

Ann Coulter is by far the most intelligent and witty political pundit out there.

http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2009/9/25/633894770269666605-Conservative.jpg

[Eki]

I guess we've now seen all the posters that hang on anthonyvop's bedroom wall.

[Eki]

Ann Coulter is by far the most intelligent and witty political pundit out there.



"I know Jesus Christ died for my sins, and that's all I really need to know."

Yup, that's almost as witty as "Allah is great, and that's all I really need to know."

[anthonyvop]

"I know Jesus Christ died for my sins, and that's all I really need to know."

Yup, that's almost as witty as "Allah is great, and that's all I really need to know."

never said I agreed with her 100% I have yet to run across anyone i agree with 100%

[Mark in Oshawa]

I would rather hang with Ann than Eki...sorry Eki...she has better legs!

[Eki]

I would rather hang with Ann than Eki...sorry Eki...she has better legs!

Nah, they are just more hairy.

[Bob Riebe]

"I know Jesus Christ died for my sins, and that's all I really need to know."

Yup, that's almost as witty as "Allah is great, and that's all I really need to know."
Popping quotes out of context is sleazy and asinine, but when one has nothing to back-up their rhetoric as you do, it is to be expected.

[AAReagles]

You have lost it....that is the worse possible choice, indeed far worse than palin, because palin has an excuse as in she ain't that smart.

The woman sold out america and then sold out HP. A $1.00 whorre looking for a $5.00 john.... not sure what he of this has to do with guns....

Well McCain wasn’t a choice for the last election, at least ever since I saw this in the paper where he became a turncoat to veterans, such as you, Anthonyvop and myself:

Read on:

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may/30/news/OE-HUMES30/3



When Obama (who has averaged an 86% rating from the Disabled Veterans of America) criticized McCain on the GI Bill, the Arizona senator angrily suggested that Obama's status as a non-veteran rendered his opinions on military matters worthless (an odd stance, as this standard would also discount the opinions of 85% of American men, 98.8% of American women and two-thirds of Congress). Then he invited a look at his own record by asserting, "I take a back seat to no one in my affection, respect and devotion to veterans."
So let's take McCain up on his invitation. Here is how he has stood on recent legislation supported by major veterans organizations:
* On Webb's GI Bill, he expressed opposition, and he was AWOL when it was time to vote on May 22.
* Last September, he voted against another Webb bill that would have mandated adequate rest for troops between combat deployments.
* On a badly needed $1.5-billion increase for veterans medical services for fiscal year 2007 -- to be funded through closing corporate tax loopholes -- he voted no. He also voted against establishing a trust fund to bolster under-budgeted veterans hospitals.
* In May 2006, he voted against a $20-billion allotment for expanding swamped veterans medical facilities.
* In April 2006, he was one of 13 Senate Republicans who voted against an amendment to provide $430 million for veterans outpatient care.

…. Which means of course that if he had no consideration for those who serve in this country, then the country’s interest would fair just as well. Including gun rights.

I said before, I’ll say it again, if it comes to Palin vs. Obama, I’ll vote for Palin, than someone who seems more concerned about appeasement than proper policy, be it foreign or domestic.

Especially when it comes to the 2nd Amendment

[Eki]

I said before, I’ll say it again, if it comes to Palin vs. Obama, I’ll vote for Palin, than someone who seems more concerned about appeasement than proper policy, be it foreign or domestic.
[/b]
What you call appeasement, I call compromising or moderation.

[AAReagles]

I did too... to a point.

If you lived here, I doubt you would be feeling the same by now.

Especially considering his handing of the oil disaster. Mr Showboat needs to step up to the plate. Including when other head's of state make comments about the 2nd Amendment.

[Eki]

I did too... to a point.

Good. Anthonyvop wants to enslave the world rather than be friends with it. I get the feeling that you're not as extreme.

[AAReagles]

Judging from his posts, I'm not. Though I certainly see where he's coming from, considering how the talking heads and such are manipulating this country.

Additionally I might suggest, this thread is not about Anthonyvop.

[Eki]

how the talking heads and such are manipulating this country.

From both sides, I'm sure.

[Bob Riebe]

What you call appeasement, I call compromising or moderation.
Compromise, one side gives the other side takes; one wins, one loses, the diplomacy of a Chamberlain style fool.

[Bob Riebe]

From both sides, I'm sure.
Wrong.

[AAReagles]

From both sides, I'm sure.

Yes. Extremism has no boundries. Both sides are at fault.







Compromise, one side gives the other side takes; one wins, one loses, the diplomacy of a Chamberlain style fool.

Unfortunately Bob, with who we have in office, I have to agree with you.

[Eki]

Compromise, one side gives the other side takes; one wins, one loses, the diplomacy of a Chamberlain style fool.
Wrong. Both sides win and both sides lose:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/compromising


com·pro·mise (kmpr-mz)
n.
1.
a. A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions.
b. The result of such a settlement.

Let's take the Winter War as an example. The goal of the Soviet Union was to take 100% of Finland, they took 10%. The goal of Finland was to keep 100% of their territory, they kept 90%. Who won and who lost?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War

[AAReagles]

Wrong. Both sides win and both sides lose... Let's take the Winter War as an example.... Who won and who lost?

Well Eki, I don't know who won or who lost, don't care really. But I can tell WHO is LOST. This thread is about GUN RIGHTS.

If you wanna draw on politics (that ARE UNRELATED to firerams) for a while, strike up a BUSH or OBAMA thread. Thank you.

[Eki]

Well Eki, I don't know who won or who lost, don't care really.
Good. Because I don't think life is about winning or losing, but about getting along. And if you get along with other people, you won't go on a shooting rampage. There, now we're back on the track.

[AAReagles]

:up: Thank you.

And yes, I agree with your philosophical sense. The problem is, that this subject includes people.

That being the case, you're never going to get rid of guns any sooner than you're going to get rid of nukes. Mankind is a species that has proven again and again, that it can not be trusted. Hence as to why we live in a world of brinkmanship.

I'd like to see a world without guns too, but it ain't gonna happen buddy. Sad but true.

[Eki]

:up: Thank you.

And yes, I agree with your philosophical sense. The problem is, that this subject includes people.

That being the case, you're never going to get rid of guns any sooner than you're going to get rid of nukes. Mankind is a species that has proven again and again, that it can not be trusted. Hence as to why we live in a world of brinkmanship.

I'd like to see a world without guns too, but it ain't gonna happen buddy. Sad but true.
True, but without dreams nothing ever changes.

[AAReagles]

Dreams are one thing, reality is another. Just ask those people who live in the projects.

[Eki]

Dreams are one thing, reality is another. Just ask those people who live in the projects.
I just have to ask myself, and you're right. In a project you can be happy if you do an adequate job on time instead of a perfect job and not get caught.

[Bob Riebe]

Wrong. Both sides win and both sides lose:


In a fool's world.

If one side is trying to change the status quo, only one side is giving and one is taking.
Eki, you would be a great mark for typical street hustler.

[Bob Riebe]

Good. Because I don't think life is about winning or losing, but about getting along. And if you get along with other people, you won't go on a shooting rampage. There, now we're back on the track.
Nope you will the spectator that watches other people be victims because all you want to do is get along with everybody, and if that means some bodies get crapped on, well in your world that is compromise.

As far as U.S. gun-rights there should be no compromise as only one side is giving, and the other is taking.

[anthonyvop]

Good. Anthonyvop wants to enslave the world rather than be friends with it. I get the feeling that you're not as extreme.


That is the most ridiculous statement that you have ever posted. And you have said some wacked things.

If there is anything that I stand for is Individual freedom! You on the other hand believe in the State over the Individual.


Let's take the Winter War as an example. The goal of the Soviet Union was to take 100% of Finland, they took 10%. The goal of Finland was to keep 100% of their territory, they kept 90%. Who won and who lost?

Finland lost and lost bad. Their land was stolen and their people enslaved.

[AAReagles]

I just have to ask myself, and you're right. In a project you can be happy if you do an adequate job on time instead of a perfect job and not get caught.

I think you mistook what I said. "Projects' is a term used for ghettos, such as a place with low expectations other than a high poverty rate and murder rate... look up the term 'South Central', 'Los Angeles' sometime. That will give you a good idea of what I was referring to.

[Eki]

As far as U.S. gun-rights there should be no compromise as only one side is giving, and the other is taking.
Wrong. If that were the case, the guns would either be totally forbidden or freely available for everyone. Instead there is a compromise where guns are still available with certain restrictions. Compromising is about looking for and settling on status quo.

[Eki]

If there is anything that I stand for is Individual freedom!
Only when it's for Americans and not for others. You want the US to rule the world and everybody be afraid of it.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Only when it's for Americans and not for others. You want the US to rule the world and everybody be afraid of it.

Flashes in the sky! Aliens coming! They're outta get us! :eek:

[Eki]

Flashes in the sky! Aliens coming! They're outta get us! :eek:

http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/usa/images-4/iraq-war-victims.jpg

http://paulwilkinson.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/vietnam-war-photo.jpg

[Mark in Oshawa]

Flashes in the sky! Aliens coming! They're outta get us! :eek:

Now Rudy, you know Eki knows what is best for all of us don't you? If the Russians invaded Finland tomorrow, by god Eki would be there saying "Stop, or I will say stop again!"

[Eki]

Now Rudy, you know Eki knows what is best for all of us don't you? If the Russians invaded Finland tomorrow, by god Eki would be there saying "Stop, or I will say stop again!"
We were not talking about Russia, we were talking about the US. Their ambitions to rule the world aren't mutually exclusive. And in its present state, Russia is not a match to the US.