"60 Minutes" - Forged mortgage documents

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Now, how about the 'war against drunk driving?' Going pretty well, because they are simply trying to regulate drinking, not outlaw it.

what's your standard for success here??

Quote

In 2009, 10,839 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (32%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.

That's more than three 9/11s per year. It may have been worse in the past, but that's sort of like being happy about reducing the deficit to only 1T/year.

[billvon 3,111]

>what's your standard for success here??

Significant decline in the number of drunk driving deaths.

>That's more than three 9/11s per year.

Right. And if we could eliminate a 9/11-sized chunk of deaths, would you be against that?

[kelpdiver 2]

11,000 dead per year is never going to qualify to me as "going pretty well."

I view it as evidence that we need to take a different approach, as seen in Northern European nations.

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

11,000 dead per year is never going to qualify to me as "going pretty well."

I view it as evidence that we need to take a different approach, as seen in Northern European nations.

They have a different approach to guns too, for the exact same reason.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

11,000 dead per year is never going to qualify to me as "going pretty well."

I view it as evidence that we need to take a different approach, as seen in Northern European nations.

They have a different approach to guns too, for the exact same reason.

are there benefits to us coming from drunk driving?

[quade 4]

Quote

are there benefits to us coming from drunk driving?

You mean like eventually evolving into a race of people immune to the effects of alcohol abuse because all the people that aren't die of drunk driving accidents?

Probably not.

However, alcohol predates guns by quite a bit and it's mentioned in the Bible as well as a bunch of other historical documents that predate the 2nd Amendment.

I know pro-gun advocates are constantly talking about the threat of the government taking all their guns, but to date that hasn't happened in any real, significant, nation-wide way. What DID happen was for a short time the government tried to take away all the alcohol -- EVERYWHERE. That worked out so poorly, they had to rescind that idea and people just went back to drinking it (legally, as if they ever really stopped).

Alcohol is hard coded into the DNA of the human race. Heck, from a anthropological and evolutionary point of view, we can see monkeys that seek out fermented fruit. About the only groups that don't use it are people in those religions that forbid it and I'm pretty sure even that is abused.

So, is drunk driving a benefit? No. Clearly not. But you're also not going to stop humans from drinking alcohol which is why it's regulated and there are laws about drunk driving.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 3,111]

>11,000 dead per year is never going to qualify to me as "going pretty well."

To me, going from 26,000 dead per year to 11,000 dead per year is going fantastic. If you could improve your odds of your next skydive by over a factor of two, I suspect you'd take it, and not bitch that the risk is not zero so it's useless.

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

Quote

11,000 dead per year is never going to qualify to me as "going pretty well."

I view it as evidence that we need to take a different approach, as seen in Northern European nations.

They have a different approach to guns too, for the exact same reason.

are there benefits to us coming from drunk driving?

Was there a benefit from Cho and Loughner having easy access to guns?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

are there benefits to us coming from drunk driving?

Was there a benefit from Cho and Loughner having easy access to guns?

would have been a HUGE benefit if those students at VT had easy access to guns.

And the LOWEST estimation of annual defensive gun uses is in the 100k mark, with the high estimates in the millions.

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

Quote

are there benefits to us coming from drunk driving?

Was there a benefit from Cho and Loughner having easy access to guns?

would have been a HUGE benefit if those students at VT had easy access to guns.

Lame supposition at best and a lame evasion of the question. There were several people with guns at the Loughner massacre and they did sweet FA to help. How easily you dismiss the deaths of many innocent people because YOU want to play with a gun.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Lame supposition at best and a lame evasion of the question. There were several people with guns at the Loughner massacre and they did sweet FA to help. How easily you dismiss the deaths of many innocent people because YOU want to play with a gun.

Which the Supreme Court fully supports. Tough break for you.

And talk about evasion - is this tacit admission that the VT students would have been better off? It's hard to argue otherwise, given that Cho was able to leave, and then return to kill again.

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

Lame supposition at best and a lame evasion of the question. There were several people with guns at the Loughner massacre and they did sweet FA to help. How easily you dismiss the deaths of many innocent people because YOU want to play with a gun.

Which the Supreme Court fully supports. Tough break for you.

.

The SCOTUS fully supports denial of guns to felons and loonies, and in certain defined areas. Seems more like a tough break for you.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Lame supposition at best and a lame evasion of the question. There were several people with guns at the Loughner massacre and they did sweet FA to help. How easily you dismiss the deaths of many innocent people because YOU want to play with a gun.

Which the Supreme Court fully supports. Tough break for you.

.

The SCOTUS fully supports denial of guns to felons and loonies, and in certain defined areas. Seems more like a tough break for you.

and you fully support removing constitutional rights so as you feel good about your agenda

everyone here knows your tactics john
they suck

give it up

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,111]

>and you fully support removing constitutional rights so as you feel good about
>your agenda

Supreme Court already did that, so I imagine that he feels good about the Supreme Court's agenda. (Might be vice versa but I doubt it.)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>and you fully support removing constitutional rights so as you feel good about
>your agenda

Supreme Court already did that, so I imagine that he feels good about the Supreme Court's agenda. (Might be vice versa but I doubt it.)

No
not really
but I am not surprised you would spin it this way

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,111]

>No not really

No, the Supreme Court didn't really rule on those issues? OK then.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>No not really

No, the Supreme Court didn't really rule on those issues? OK then.

Heller was nothing but a victory for our side, nothing but a devastating loss for Kallend's side. He tries to parrot one line about limits as a victory, but it's as hollow as Custard's last stand.

They guaranteed that I do get to play with my guns, without needing to justify it to anyone else. And since I'm no longer a student, I don't have to be in a place where I'm a sitting duck because of bad public policy.

[billvon 3,111]

>Heller was nothing but a victory for our side

I don't know what "your side" is, but if it's the same side as the NRA, why did the NRA VP say that it could be seen as a "practical defeat?"

The Supreme Court has a long history of upholding reasonable limitations to the Second Amendment while upholding the general concept that private gun ownership is legal. Even the Supreme Court said that the Heller decision "by no means eliminates (state's) ability to devise solutions to social problems that suit local needs and values." In other words, gun control laws must be limited in scope so as not to ban gun ownership outright, but are otherwise legal. Which sounds pretty reasonable to me, even if it means that limitations can be placed on second amendment rights.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>No not really

No, the Supreme Court didn't really rule on those issues? OK then.

Didnt say that either (at least in your cherry picked context)

But dont let that stop you

You are on a roll

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Heller clearly upheld a individual right to own guns. So the residents of DC, NYC, and Chicago will finally have rights.

Prior to Heller, Miller was the last major decision, and it was misused by the gun controllers and ACLU. The verdict gave the defendant the right to a new trial to show cause for his shotgun as a military weapon, but he was dead, so instead it stood as is.

You'll need to find that NRA VP quote - I think someone misread it.

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Heller clearly upheld a individual right to own guns. So the residents of DC, NYC, and Chicago will finally have rights.

Prior to Heller, Miller was the last major decision, and it was misused by the gun controllers and ACLU. The verdict gave the defendant the right to a new trial to show cause for his shotgun as a military weapon, but he was dead, so instead it stood as is.

You'll need to find that NRA VP quote - I think someone misread it.

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56. Verbatim extract from the Heller decision.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

>and you fully support removing constitutional rights so as you feel good about
>your agenda

Supreme Court already did that, so I imagine that he feels good about the Supreme Court's agenda. (Might be vice versa but I doubt it.)

No
not really
but I am not surprised you would spin it this way

It's not "spin" to say that the Supreme Court's decision on the meaning of the Constitution carries more weight than yours. In fact, yours carries no weight at all in this context.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

>No not really

No, the Supreme Court didn't really rule on those issues? OK then.

Heller was nothing but a victory for our side, nothing but a devastating loss for Kallend's side. .

Lame and ignorant simultaneously.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Lame and ignorant simultaneously.

True, but we keep hoping that you'll come around.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Lame and ignorant simultaneously.

True, but we keep hoping that you'll come around.

Figure a few million residents of Chicago are happier now than they were a couple years ago. Not the exercise of civil liberties he likes to see, but that's just too bad, isn't it.