another school shooting in U.S. of A. :(

[chuck34]

I give up.

There is no irony in my statements whatsoever. I believe there to be at least a degree of paranoia and fear underlying the desire for gun ownership. Everything I have read in this discussion has borne this out. However, nothing that I have written has been in any sense anti-American. I've been critical of one aspect of your country's laws — that's all. This is also, I'd underline, a matter of my opinion. By contrast, it is a fact that I am in no-sense anti-American. I think I'd know this better than you. So, enough of the 'they're all against us and we don't care' whining. An apology is due. I would never dislike an entire nation.

Can you at least concede that your statement regarding the Swiss murders/gun laws/and culture can be seen to be anti-American? You basically have said that you can not trust Americans with that statement. Why can you not see that? I suppose for the same reason that you can not see that reasonable people can have differing opinions. Everyone must hold your opinion, or they are wrong/paranoid/fearful/etc.

I am done with this line of the thread.

[BDunnell]

Now over 1000 posts and to be honest, it seems that many of the pro gun crowd and responsibly gun owners are much more open to compromise than those opposing guns.

Only one of those advocating the policy, namely Jag_Warrior, has actually come up with anything much beyond what I'd define as 'fiddling in the margins'. In addition, to my eyes it's only Jag_Warrior who, as it were, 'gets it'; who admits there's a problem, who understands the notion of an underlying culture being a contributing factor.

[chuck34]

I think I know the sense and meaning of my words better than do you, with respect.

But clearly you do not understand how others interpret your comments.

[BDunnell]

Can you at least concede that your statement regarding the Swiss murders/gun laws/and culture can be seen to be anti-American?

No, I will not concede that, because it's simply not true.

[chuck34]

Only one of those advocating the policy, namely Jag_Warrior, has actually come up with anything much beyond what I'd define as 'fiddling in the margins'. In addition, to my eyes it's only Jag_Warrior who, as it were, 'gets it'; who admits there's a problem, who understands the notion of an underlying culture being a contributing factor.

I don't believe anyone on this thread has stated that there is no problem. Many of us are merely stating the fact that adding more and more restrictive gun laws on law abiding citizens does NOTHING to solve the problem. And to top it off your "solution" to the problem is completely unworkable, and unrealistic.

[BDunnell]

But clearly you do not understand how others interpret your comments.

By contrast, I think I understand exactly why.

[BDunnell]

I don't believe anyone on this thread has stated that there is no problem. Many of us are merely stating the fact that adding more and more restrictive gun laws on law abiding citizens does NOTHING to solve the problem. And to top it off your "solution" to the problem is completely unworkable, and unrealistic.

What 'solution' have I proposed, exactly?

[Gregor-y]

You confuse policy making with the flavor of the day. And then, only if it's YOUR favorite flavor.

I wouldn't call gun control a flavor of the day unless you think the last 20 years of group/children shootings should be considered recent. Remember the original assault weapons ban came from a preschool shooting spree in 1991 or 1992. And remember we're talking about gun control, not gun prohibition. On those grounds, I'd say political elements that oppose any restrictions are a more radical and intransigent group than anyone advocating a strengthening of regulations.

[Tazio]

So your point is that since Feinstein is from a larger state, and therefore has a larger voting pool, that she is somehow "better"??????No........she represents more individual Americans.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0b5LzCOc98E

[Starter]

What 'solution' have I proposed, exactly?
Part of the issue with your posts is that you have proposed no solutions, other than wishful thinking. I challenged you, a day or two ago, to bring your solutions forward. You declined to do so.

[Starter]

And remember we're talking about gun control, not gun prohibition. On those grounds, I'd say political elements that oppose any restrictions are a more radical and intransigent group than anyone advocating a strengthening of regulations.
Not quite accurate, in that many of the so called gun control restrictions are nothing more than disguised gun bans. As noted in a number of threads in this post, gun regulations are abundant in the US. Their enforcement and the resulting prosecution of criminal use of guns is part of the issue.

[nigelred5]

Not quite accurate, in that many of the so called gun control restrictions are nothing more than disguised gun bans. As noted in a number of threads in this post, gun regulations are abundant in the US. Their enforcement and the resulting prosecution of criminal use of guns is part of the issue.

This proposed bill is a BAN, plain and simple. It's not disguised, it Bans not only military style weapons, but shotguns, handguns and a large class of rifles. It also includes restrictions that absolutely are infringements as well as deliberate measures to cloud exactly what it's total intent is, to ban firearms, prohibit any possibility of legal transfer of very valuavle personal property between law abiding family members. It does nothing to address the problem, the failure of our justice system to address illegal possession of firearms, and it totally sets the scene for forcible confiscation of ALL firearms just as is already on the books in Kalifornia.

[anthonyvop]

There is a sense in which she's being more courageous in mounting this campaign than are the vast majority of firearm owners.


Courageous?

How is using the force of the government to disarm the people who you want to control courageous?

A real man would call it cowardly.

[anthonyvop]

Whether deliberately or not, you completely misunderstand and misrepresent what I wrote. I criticised a section of American opinion; you take this to mean that I 'don't like Americans'. This is utter nonsense, and I'd ask you to apologise. I don't like the American gun culture, true, but this is a very different thing. Surely you have the wit to draw the distinction?

'Truly troubling'? Really? Cease the hyperbole.

I would prefer that you would just say thank you for us Americans saving you and your country's ass on more than one occasion and then be on your way.

[anthonyvop]

As I expected — you don't truly believe in freedom of speech and expression. It's just a front. As soon as it diverts what you consider to be too far from your own views, you're willing to see people, for example, impeached.

As an afterthought, I'm increasingly delighted the UK doesn't have a written constitution for people to get absurdly hung-up about.


Freedom of speech means that you must accept responsibility for your words as well. Impeachment is part of the Democratic process. Something that along with freedom of speech you and your fellow subjects fail to grasp.

[anthonyvop]

Lugar got punked in his 2012 bid for re-election and isn't even part of the 113th Congress. BTW the entire population of Indiana is 6.5 million, over one million less residents including unregistererd voters, felons that are prohibited from voting, and those of an age too young to vote than Feinstein received from the reseidents of "The Great State of California". In the here and now the constituency that is made up of residents in The Great State of Indiana decided he bro sucks. 61%-39%


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uM01v_vVnbg

Yea but California is experiencing one of the largest internal migrations in US History. The productive people are bailing on that sinking progressive ship that captained by Governor Moonbeam and his Democrat brown Shirts.

High Taxes and yet your state is still broke.......and your beaches suck.

[nigelred5]

Yea but California is experiencing one of the largest internal migrations in US History. The productive people are bailing on that sinking progressive ship that captained by Governor Moonbeam and his Democrat brown Shirts.

High Taxes and yet your state is still broke.......and your beaches suck.

I work with 9 people, all life long residents that have relocated to Baltimore from California. To the last one, they all said they were disgusted by the liberal politicians ruining the state the insane restrictions on nearly every asPect of their life, and the insane taxation necessary to continually support everyone with a hand out. Quite an indictment of california if they all feel Maryland Is a vastly more tolerable place to live and work.

[BDunnell]

Part of the issue with your posts is that you have proposed no solutions, other than wishful thinking. I challenged you, a day or two ago, to bring your solutions forward. You declined to do so.

I would have thought that the reason is obvious: that I believe the only solution that could ever achieve the desired effect is the one generally deemed unworkable, namely imposition of far tighter restrictions.

[BDunnell]

I would prefer that you would just say thank you for us Americans saving you and your country's ass on more than one occasion and then be on your way.

The day I do anything that you would 'prefer' will be the day on which either I die or hell freezes over.

[nigelred5]

There is a sense in which she's being more courageous in mounting this campaign than are the vast majority of firearm owners.

She's not courageous, she's been actively trying to disarm the American public with virtually the same legislation for over 20 years.She sponsored the original AW ban and state legislation while actively carrying a firearm for personal protection. She's a blatant elitist hypocrit.

[BDunnell]

Courageous?

How is using the force of the government to disarm the people who you want to control courageous?

A real man would call it cowardly.

Courageous as in politically courageous; daring to be deeply unpopular.

Please, while you're about it, offer us your definition of a 'real man'. I should imagine it's predictably narrow.

[BDunnell]

She's not courageous, she's been actively trying to disarm the American public with virtually the same legislation for over 20 years.She sponsored the original AW ban and state legislation while actively carrying a firearm for personal protection. She's a blatant elitist hypocrit.

In adopting a stance that's clearly deeply unpopular, I would argue that she's being politically courageous. I do take the point about the hypocrisy, though.

[BDunnell]

Can you at least concede that your statement regarding the Swiss murders/gun laws/and culture can be seen to be anti-American?

Again I ask: are you going to apologise for this assertion?

You may as well say I'm anti-British when I, for example, criticise the culture of under-achievement amongst boys in schools. It's exactly the same thing: criticism of the culture relating to one specific area, yet, predictably, you saw it as an attack on all your fellow countrymen.

[BDunnell]

I work with 9 people, all life long residents that have relocated to Baltimore from California. To the last one, they all said they were disgusted by the liberal politicians ruining the state the insane restrictions on nearly every asPect of their life, and the insane taxation necessary to continually support everyone with a hand out.

God, and we thought Somalia was bad...

[nigelred5]

In adopting a stance that's clearly deeply unpopular, I would argue that she's being politically courageous. I do take the point about the hypocrisy, though.
I'd don't call it courageous when she and her like have essentially. run everyone opposed to a disgustingly socialist view from her state. She's popular in her home state because people that value handouts and a nanny state over hard work and personal accountability are what's left. Take a poll of people in this country that would gladly give California its independence. Hell, half the state would gladly separate California in pieces to get away from their liberal counterparts. My state is a bastion of conservatism compared to California. And I generally consider myself a relative moderate.

[Starter]

I would have thought that the reason is obvious: that I believe the only solution that could ever achieve the desired effect is the one generally deemed unworkable, namely imposition of far tighter restrictions.
Which you have said several times in this thread. Why then do you continually post the same position over and over? I respect your thought whether I agree with it or not. Some of my personal friends are anti gun, but I like them anyway. Why then do you continually try and beat us over the head with your views? Obviously I can't speak for everyone, but I got your position the first time. You have brought nothing new to the table since. Your continually posting the same thing in this thread reminds me of a three year old who, when someone says something they don't like, covers their ears and goes "lalalalalalala" at the top of their voice. I'm pretty sure you are better than that. You stated your position so perhaps you should move on to another subject, since you choose not to participate, in any meaningful way, in the ongoing discussion.

[BDunnell]

I'd don't call it courageous when she and her like have essentially. run everyone opposed to a disgustingly socialist view from her state. She's popular in her home state because people that value handouts and a nanny state over hard work and personal accountability are what's left. Take a poll of people in this country that would gladly give California its independence. Hell, half the state would gladly separate California in pieces to get away from their liberal counterparts. My state is a bastion of conservatism compared to California. And I generally consider myself a relative moderate.

I wouldn't consider you to be a moderate.

[BDunnell]

Which you have said several times in this thread. Why then do you continually post the same position over and over? I respect your thought whether I agree with it or not. Some of my personal friends are anti gun, but I like them anyway. Why then do you continually try and beat us over the head with your views? Obviously I can't speak for everyone, but I got your position the first time. You have brought nothing new to the table since. Your continually posting the same thing in this thread reminds me of a three year old who, when someone says something they don't like, covers their ears and goes "lalalalalalala" at the top of their voice. I'm pretty sure you are better than that. You stated your position so perhaps you should move on to another subject, since you choose not to participate, in any meaningful way, in the ongoing discussion.

The reason I keep posting is because I disagree vehemently with a lot of what I see here, and because few others seem willing to enter into the discussion and disagree with you. Numerically, it appears dominated by pro-gun Americans. And I seem to have to rebut a lot of absolute nonsense regarding my own position — that I'm a fascist, that I'm anti-American and so on, much of it coming from people whose political compasses seem terribly skewed, or worse.

One other thing — I have no idea why you respect my thoughts, given that you disagree with them. By all means respect the right to have them, but I think respecting the thoughts themselves is a cop-out when you oppose them.

[race aficionado]

At this rate who knows how much longer this thread is going to last before we get shot down.

[nigelred5]

At this rate who knows how much longer this thread is going to last before we get shot down.
I know a guy....that can be arranged ;)

[Starter]

The reason I keep posting is because I disagree vehemently with a lot of what I see here, and because few others seem willing to enter into the discussion and disagree with you. Numerically, it appears dominated by pro-gun Americans. And I seem to have to rebut a lot of absolute nonsense regarding my own position — that I'm a fascist, that I'm anti-American and so on, much of it coming from people whose political compasses seem terribly skewed, or worse.
It's dominated by pro-gun Americans because it's an American issue. It's enlightening to note that there is not a lot of anti-gun sentiment expressed by Americans here, tells you something if you are listening.


One other thing — I have no idea why you respect my thoughts, given that you disagree with them. By all means respect the right to have them, but I think respecting the thoughts themselves is a cop-out when you oppose them.
I respect the thoughts of most who can state them in a clear manner. Much can be learned by listening to people of opposing views. Sometimes it even leads to changing your own views. Only fools think there are no other valuable viewpoints in the world.

Your right to have those thoughts is a tenet of American existence - as opposed to many places in the world.

[nigelred5]

I wouldn't consider you to be a moderate.

Oh, you would be surprised. My nickname with quite a few of my friends is actually Ivan because they think I'm a pinko commie. I don't disagree with to goals of many social programs, it's the methods to achieve those means that tend to disgust me. Essentially Taking my guns because they scare you just crosses the line soooooo far for me.

[BDunnell]

Oh, you would be surprised. My nickname with quite a few of my friends is actually Ivan because they think I'm a pinko commie. I don't disagree with to goals of many social programs, it's the methods to achieve those means that tend to disgust me.

Fair enough — my apologies if I misrepresented you.


Essentially Taking my guns because they scare you just crosses the line soooooo far for me.

Not what I'm saying at all, but never mind.

[BDunnell]

It's dominated by pro-gun Americans because it's an American issue. It's enlightening to note that there is not a lot of anti-gun sentiment expressed by Americans here, tells you something if you are listening.

A majority of people support all sorts of things I find abhorrent.



Your right to have those thoughts is a tenet of American existence - as opposed to many places in the world.

Again, there's no need to single the US out here, as opposed to any of the other countries whose citizens are represented here. I know you're not doing so, but I resent deeply some of the suggestions one hears that the form of freedom espoused by Americans is somehow unique and superior.

[anthonyvop]

The day I do anything that you would 'prefer' will be the day on which either I die or hell freezes over.

You already live in hell so how's the weather?

[anthonyvop]

Interesting little facts

In 2010 more people died in the UK from such things as:
Accidental poisoning by and exposure to alcohol
Accidental poisoning by and exposure to narcotics and psychodysleptics [hallucinogens], not elsewhere classified
Intentional self-harm by hanging, strangulation and suffocation By a factor of X8
Fall by a factor of X10


Than all Americans killed by someone with a rifle.....Including those vile, evil Assault Rifles.

Now remember that the USA's population is 5 times greater than the number of "Subjects" in the UK.

[keysersoze]

Only one of those advocating the policy, namely Jag_Warrior, has actually come up with anything much beyond what I'd define as 'fiddling in the margins'. In addition, to my eyes it's only Jag_Warrior who, as it were, 'gets it'; who admits there's a problem, who understands the notion of an underlying culture being a contributing factor.

I said that way back in Post 713 and you ridiculed me for saying it. And I included more than just the culture. I said our ethics, our politics, our psychology, our economy--along with our culture--made solving our gun control issue a complicated one.

[Starter]

Again, there's no need to single the US out here, as opposed to any of the other countries whose citizens are represented here. I know you're not doing so, but I resent deeply some of the suggestions one hears that the form of freedom espoused by Americans is somehow unique and superior.
My bad, I shold have been more clear when I said "Your right to have those thoughts is a tenet of American existence - as opposed to many places in the world.". I meant by the American reference that it's codifyed in our Bill of Rights. Along with all of the other rights so included.

[Tazio]

High Taxes and yet your state is still broke.......and your beaches suck.
Yea' our beaches bro suck!

http://tonyrobertsphotography.com/wp-content/uploads/galleries/post-512/10th%20Pebble%20Beach%20100667.jpg


At least we have some freakin' waves!!!

http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000EcUciyOcVGw/s/750/017483-01.jpg
http://travelbugster.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/img1119-la-jolla-coast-x2.jpg

And my favotite, Point Reyes State Park (below) Of course someone of your girth could not handle the 4 mile hike through some of the most beautiful land in our country to enjoy it.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/trazzler-images/af/24770/229735387_5eaf1fae43-1.jpg

You are more than 100lbs overweight aren't you?
Go to 1:00 of Tony's webcast........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4W35un-1YIM

You are bro dying of obeasity dude!! Do you hang out at the beach much? You must be a sight with your shirt off!!





they all feel Maryland Is a vastly more tolerable place to live and work.
Sorry your boyz couldn't hang dawg!! How's the weather up in there right about Jan 3 2013 in Baltimore?.....San Diego high 67F


Yea but California is experiencing one of the largest internal migrations in US History.
California's population has continued to increase every year from 1850-2012.
California is still growing and although it is difficult to track down any predictions, there is no reason to suggest that this growth will slow down. As such, could the population of California continue the trend and explode beyond the 40 million mark by the time of the next Census in 2020?
Population of California 2012 - World Population Review (http://worldpopulationreview.com/population-of-california-2012/)
Now get yourself on a Stairmaster for christ’s sake!!!! :rotflmao: [

[Rollo]

It does nothing to address the problem, the failure of our justice system to address illegal possession of firearms, and it totally sets the scene for forcible confiscation of ALL firearms just as is already on the books in Kalifornia.

How do you trust the justice system to enforce laws, when you don't give the proper authorities enough power to enforce them?

[gadjo_dilo]

I don't even activate my burglar alarm at night and often leave the back door unlocked by accident.
So no signs of my compatriots of a certain ethnic in your area....

[ArrowsFA1]

US Senators take an oath of office to uphold the US Constitution. The US Constitution clearly states via the 2nd Amendment that it's citizens have the right to bear arms. Therefore, for a Senator to want to circumvent the Constitution is a clear violation of their oath of office, an impeachable offence.
Herein rests the problem.

There have been a number of amendments to the US Constitution. Doesn't that mean that those proposing an amendment were violating their oath of office because they were not upholding the constitution as it was written?

Clearly that's being facecious, but the point is that the Constitution has been amended. It is not cast in stone. It can be amended.

[Rollo]

Whilst the constitution can be amended from time to time, I fear that the American people can not. The staunch stubbornness to hold onto an eighteenth century rule book, despite it producing death, says to me that we are talking about an eighteenth century set of attitudes.

[Tazio]

US Senators take an oath of office to uphold the US Constitution. The US Constitution clearly states via the 2nd Amendment that it's citizens have the right to bear arms. Therefore, for a Senator to want to circumvent the Constitution is a clear violation of their oath of office, an impeachable offence


Herein rests the problem.

There have been a number of amendments to the US Constitution. Doesn't that mean that those proposing an amendment were violating their oath of office because they were not upholding the constitution as it was written?

Clearly that's being facecious, but the point is that the Constitution has been amended. It is not cast in stone. It can be amended.Just for the record:


Representatives and Senators typically collectively propose up to 200 amendments during each term of Congress;[1]
List of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proposed_amendments_to_the_United_States_C onstitution) Chuck's contention of Senator’s oath to the Constitution of The United States of America in this matter is completely erroneous, or has there been a rash of Senatorial impeachments in The United States of America that slipped past my notice? :confused:

Or maybe he is confusing them with the Republicans oath that they were pressured into signing (anti-tax pledges obtained from nearly all the Republican politicians in Washington) decreed by the will of creepy Grover Norquist :laugh:

[Rudy Tamasz]

Whilst the constitution can be amended from time to time, I fear that the American people can not. The staunch stubbornness to hold onto an eighteenth century rule book, despite it producing death, says to me that we are talking about an eighteenth century set of attitudes.

Why do you waste your and everybody else's time here ranting on the subject?

[chuck34]

Again I ask: are you going to apologise for this assertion?

Probably not. At least not until you apologize for insulting every gun owner as ignorant, fearful, paranoid, and not worthy of any respect. Oh I'm sorry not every gun owner, only American gun owners, as you seem perfectly happy with Swiss gun owners that go around killing their own, and presumably others as well.

[chuck34]

One other thing — I have no idea why you respect my thoughts, given that you disagree with them. By all means respect the right to have them, but I think respecting the thoughts themselves is a cop-out when you oppose them.

No respectful disagreement is the foundation for civil discourse.

[chuck34]

Herein rests the problem.

There have been a number of amendments to the US Constitution. Doesn't that mean that those proposing an amendment were violating their oath of office because they were not upholding the constitution as it was written?

Clearly that's being facecious, but the point is that the Constitution has been amended. It is not cast in stone. It can be amended.

You completely misunderstand. Senator Feinstein is proposing a common law that abridges Constitutionally protected rights. That is what I have a problem with. If she were proposing an amendment, I would have not support said change, but I would support her right to propose that change.

It is as if she were to propose a common law that states you no longer have the right to post anything on the internet that opposes her views. That would be a clear violation of the 1st Amendment, right? And therefore unconstitutional, right? The 2nd Amendment is no different.

Clear as mud now?

[chuck34]

Just for the record:

Chuck's contention of Senator’s oath to the Constitution of The United States of America in this matter is completely erroneous, or has there been a rash of Senatorial impeachments in The United States of America that slipped past my notice? :confused:

Or maybe he is confusing them with the Republicans oath that they were pressured into signing (anti-tax pledges obtained from nearly all the Republican politicians in Washington) decreed by the will of creepy Grover Norquist :laugh:

NO no no. Perhaps I am not being expressly clear, although I thought I was. Proposing COMMON law to abridge rights guaranteed by the Constitution is what I have issue with. If she were proposing to amend the Constitution, that would be an entirely different story.

[Tazio]

NO no no. Perhaps I am not being expressly clear, although I thought I was. Proposing COMMON law to abridge rights guaranteed by the Constitution is what I have issue with. If she were proposing to amend the Constitution, that would be an entirely different story.Ok Ok I get it. What we have here is a Senator in the process of trying to get a bill passed into law. If it were to pass it would be up to the Supreme Court to uphold it or rule it unconstitutional upon challenge. Nothing in her procedure is outside the normal workings of legislation in our great Republic, in fact it is quite the norm, and you should know that whether you agree with her proposed legislation or not.

[anthonyvop]

Whilst the constitution can be amended from time to time, I fear that the American people can not. The staunch stubbornness to hold onto an eighteenth century rule book, despite it producing death, says to me that we are talking about an eighteenth century set of attitudes.

That USA's "staunch stubbornness to hold onto an eighteenth century rule book" is the only reason you can post your opinion here.

[anthonyvop]

[quote="Dr Giacomo Rappaccini"]Yea' our beaches bro suck!

http://tonyrobertsphotography.com/wp-content/uploads/galleries/post-512/10th%20Pebble%20Beach%20100667.jpg


At least we have some freakin' waves!!!

http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000EcUciyOcVGw/s/750/017483-01.jpg
http://travelbugster.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/img1119-la-jolla-coast-x2.jpg

And my favotite, Point Reyes State Park (below) Of course someone of your girth could not handle the 4 mile hike through some of the most beautiful land in our country to enjoy it.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/trazzler-images/af/24770/229735387_5eaf1fae43-1.jpg

Freezing water and waves just get sand everywhere. Funny that the best surfers come from Florida....Go figure.

Anyway....This is a beach

http://thecomputerdesign.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/florida-beach-vacations-place.jpg



Oh and I may be overweight but you are a pretentious, self-absorbed, nanny-stater......and I can always go on a diet.

[nigelred5]

Yea' our beaches bro suck!

http://tonyrobertsphotography.com/wp-content/uploads/galleries/post-512/10th%20Pebble%20Beach%20100667.jpg


At least we have some freakin' waves!!!

http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000EcUciyOcVGw/s/750/017483-01.jpg
http://travelbugster.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/img1119-la-jolla-coast-x2.jpg

And my favotite, Point Reyes State Park (below) Of course someone of your girth could not handle the 4 mile hike through some of the most beautiful land in our country to enjoy it.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/trazzler-images/af/24770/229735387_5eaf1fae43-1.jpg

You are more than 100lbs overweight aren't you?
Go to 1:00 of Tony's webcast........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4W35un-1YIM

You are bro dying of obeasity dude!! Do you hang out at the beach much? You must be a sight with your shirt off!!



Sorry your boyz couldn't hang dawg!! How's the weather up in there right about Jan 3 2013 in Baltimore?.....San Diego high 67F


California's population has continued to increase every year from 1850-2012.
Now get yourself on a Stairmaster for christ’s sake!!!! :rotflmao: [

Weather is great for goose hunting tomorrow. I couldn't live without seasons! I Know my two coworkers that came from San Diego are loving it. They are both going goose hunting with me tomorrow actually. As for California's population growth, of course it is. It's a haven for people living on government assistance and illegal aliens. How's that welfare system working out feeding all that growth? Perfectly happy with our beaches here and my half a block walk to it from our place at the beach. I'll be down there hunting sea ducks next weekend.

[nigelred5]

How do you trust the justice system to enforce laws, when you don't give the proper authorities enough power to enforce them?

Well, that's exactly the problem many citizens of this country have with our justice system. They do have the power to enforce the laws we have, but prosecutors routinely accept plea bargains and reduced sentences and drop charges against repeat offenders. We have laws on the books to prosecute Violent offenders that use firearms under federal laws, yet they rarely ever do it. That is the problem. It happens EVERY day, and you know what happens, that same criminal is back out on the streets committing the same crimes again and again. These are not legal gun owners. They won't be the ones registering themselves, buying guns legally, and Paying more taxes yet again to legally possess a firearm. That will be me, and where will all of those "registration and licensing Fees" go when I comply with the rules? Into the general fund where they will yet again end up paying for medical assistance, welfare, food stamps, public housing for people unwilling to work or support themselves, their families or their various habits and addictions. These fees also create yet another class of citizens that may be unable to afford the various fees and licenses that will be required to legally exercise their rights. Again, the supreme court has ruled these restrictions and tightly controlled permits are a violation of the second amendment. Pass tighter laws like Jag proposed that target the problem of how we own firearms, not blatant bans, and then Enforce them.

Pay for the costs out of the program budgets that support all of the criminals in the first place.

[Tazio]

Freezing water and waves just get sand everywhere. Funny that the best surfers come from Florida....Go figure.


Oh this is rich, for starters I can tell you have never stood on a surfboard in your life, but just for the amusement of the forum explain who, how, and why a Surfer is "the best" I don't believe you have a close enough connection with nature to even understand the real surfing culture. BTW I don't need bathwater at my beaches, 66-74 degrees is just fine unless you are a total puss.




I can always go on a diet.Do it.....post haste!!.[/QUOTE]

[Tazio]

Weather is great for goose hunting tomorrow. I couldn't live without seasons! I Know my two coworkers that came from San Diego are loving it. They are both going goose hunting with me tomorrow actually. As for California's population growth, of course it is. It's a haven for people living on government assistance and illegal aliens. How's that welfare system working out feeding all that growth? Perfectly happy with our beaches here and my half a block walk to it from our place at the beach. I'll be down there hunting sea ducks next weekend.Nothing quite like fresh game, I commend you for persuing the great art of "The Venator" and all of it's benefits.
BTW as for seasonal weather: Cuyamaca State Park (below) is a 45 to 60 minutes drive from Downtown San Diego.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dISd_xPYm14/TZ_stynl0fI/AAAAAAAAAB4/qNyY06aoY-w/s1600/24.JPG

[race aficionado]

Back to our topic - nice pictures of beaches and waves and snowy mountains by the way. :)

Okay yes, it is MSNBC and some can argue that it is skewed, but I wonder why they don't show the instances of people shooting on self defense (unless no one had to today)
http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/01/05/yzabe4u8.jpg

[Roamy]

now give us the world shooting and bombing figures

[Rollo]

That USA's "staunch stubbornness to hold onto an eighteenth century rule book" is the only reason you can post your opinion here.

Not true.

Australia's constitution has no bill of rights. Rights in Commonwealth countries generally are unlimited except where hedged in by operation of law. The Bill of Rights Act 1689 and a side note confirmed in Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1992) both confirm that free speech is in operation here. There is also Article 19 of the The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

"In Australia it is necessary to remember, when discussing civil liberties and rights, that one of the functions of common law has been to protect the individual against infringement of his or her personal rights"
- Sir Robert Menzies, 17th Jul 1971

"A bill of rights would diminish parliament's authority by transferring decision-making authority to unelected judges, accountable to nobody in the barest theoretical sense.
I've always held the classical view that the public elects members of parliament, who pass laws hopefully in the public interest and those laws are in turn interpreted and enforced by courts.
If adopted, a bill of rights would politicise the appointment of judges, increase the volume of litigation and would not in any way increase the rights and protections now available to Australian citizens".
- John Howard, 27th Aug 2009

Australian law moves and evolves. British law which also has no written constitution and where this website happens to be hosted also shares the same Bill of Rights Act 1689, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and various pieces of Common Law traditions and rulings.

So, no.

[race aficionado]

now give us the world shooting and bombing figures

sorry fousto, no can do. No TV screen is giving me that info right now so I can't capture it with my camera phone - I had to try to get us back on topic really.

[anthonyvop]

Okay yes, it is MSNBC and some can argue that it is skewed, but I wonder why they don't show the instances of people shooting on self defense (unless no one had to today)


Why? Because it is MSNBC. The media hates it when there are no victims.

[anthonyvop]

Not true.

Australia's constitution has no bill of rights. Rights in Commonwealth countries generally are unlimited except where hedged in by operation of law. The Bill of Rights Act 1689 and a side note confirmed in Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1992) both confirm that free speech is in operation here. There is also Article 19 of the The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

"In Australia it is necessary to remember, when discussing civil liberties and rights, that one of the functions of common law has been to protect the individual against infringement of his or her personal rights"
- Sir Robert Menzies, 17th Jul 1971

"A bill of rights would diminish parliament's authority by transferring decision-making authority to unelected judges, accountable to nobody in the barest theoretical sense.
I've always held the classical view that the public elects members of parliament, who pass laws hopefully in the public interest and those laws are in turn interpreted and enforced by courts.
If adopted, a bill of rights would politicise the appointment of judges, increase the volume of litigation and would not in any way increase the rights and protections now available to Australian citizens".
- John Howard, 27th Aug 2009

Australian law moves and evolves. British law which also has no written constitution and where this website happens to be hosted also shares the same Bill of Rights Act 1689, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and various pieces of Common Law traditions and rulings.

So, no.

If it wasn't for the USA the people in Australia would be speaking Japanese and bowing for their emperor.

[donKey jote]

and I'd be speaking German... ach warte! :andrea:

[Rollo]

If it wasn't for the USA the people in Australia would be speaking Japanese and bowing for their emperor.

Again not true.

We never had enough troops to [invade Australia]. We had already far out-stretched our lines of communication. We did not have the armed strength or the supply facilities to mount such a terrific extension of our already over-strained and too thinly spread forces. We expected to occupy all New Guinea, to maintain Rabaul as a holding base, and to raid Northern Australia by air. But actual physical invasion—no, at no time.
- Japanese Prime Minister Hideki Tojo, per Background Paper Number 6 1992. Department of the Parliamentary Library.

Actually if it wasn't for the USA, Darwin would have never have been bombed. It was seen as a supply base for American forces.

[Tazio]

You guys are lame :confused:

[Starter]

I think that this thread is now officially far enough off track tht it can be safely closed.

[donKey jote]

You guys are lame :confused:

bunch of donkeys ! :bandit:

[pino]

I agree, time to close it :)