skypuppy

maybe, but you're still dead. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

I can agree with that...except where you imply that cars are necessary for travel. A convenience? Yes. Necessary? No. And, yep, pardner. You'd be doin' a whole heap o' walking' in Texas. Well, I don't know about you, but I live in the country where a vehicle pretty much is necessary to travel if you want to hold a job. One of the reasons I've never agreed that driving is a privelege. It's a necessity here for most people. Take away someone;s driving licence and their pretty likely to lose their jobs, their homes and their marriages... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

And also how many people, given the order from above in any sort of escalating situation, would understand what the order is intending to achieve and whether it would be against the constitution in the long run anyways... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

You're putting the cart before the horse. The war was triggered by the Southern states' secession; Lincoln reacted, ultimately militarily, to the secession. So it really needs to be analyzed in that chronology (see above). You're also impliedly suggesting that Lincoln's agenda must be chosen from mainly 2 motivators: economics, or slavery. But remember, Lincoln was also a lawyer; and I can tell you that many lawyers, whether by predisposition, or by training, or by career experience (he did a fair amount of criminal defense work, not just corporate work) tend to feel quite passionate about matters of legal and Constitutional principle. It may very well be that Lincoln truly felt that allowing secession not only violated the Constitution that bound the states, but would amount to the death knell of the nation; for if secession were to be permitted once, it would occur over and over again until - instead of the United States growing into a united powerhouse by the leaps and bounds occurring in the 19th Century, it would instead fracture into dozens of weak Balkan-type states, ultimately being re-subjugated by England and/or the powerful European states. You're putting the cart before the horse. The southern states secession was triggered by Lincoln enacting laws that took away the states rights of self-determination - after the states had warned Lincoln that if he enacted it, they would secede. So he knew full well that by going ahead he would be sentencing hundreds of thousands of young americans to death and disablement, and still charged on regardless. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

And for every one you post I could post 2. I don't have time to play dueling articles. So stand by your posts; I certainly stand by mine. And if you truly believe that but for tariffs, but even with the ongoing existence and expansion of slavery, the US would never have fought its Civil War, I have some nice investments to sell you. slavery was already in decline, long before the civil war. Without Lincoln wiping out hundreds of thousands of young american lives, it still would have disappeared in a generation. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

you're right. I was thinking of Stockton schoolyard. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

My god! That almost makes perfect sense. Except we're talking about SLAVERY. You do NOT get the moral high ground when you're talking about the "rights" of states when those states completely strip the real HUMAN rights of people. Some people want to think it's their "right" to own SLAVES? Fuck the those people. slavery was already on the way out. Had been made illegal in many jurisdictions and becoming more rare. Estimates I read would have put slavery as dying out within 20-25 years even without the war between the states. Any scholar will tell you the civil war was not about slavery. It was about State rights. And Lincoln was well aware of what would happen long before he passed the legislation that led to the Confederate States. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

laughner and cho aren't listed on the email, though. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Yes, this! But remember that Lincoln, himself, perverted the Constitution ...maybe. I believe Lincoln was responsible for more dead americans than anyone else ever, president or not. And he did it all with his eyes open, having been warned what would happen if he attempted to take the rights of self-determination away from the individual state. Not to mention the untold economic mess he left in the south for decades after the war. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

besides the few thousand deaths it caused, 911 was also a huge economic and symbolic hit... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Are you saying it's okay to do nothing? to begin with, this is not a gun problem. It's a people problem (perhaps more exactly a mental health problem). frankly, unless I'm confidant that the measures taken would have the effect of reducing what we want to reduce, and not have other adverse effects that we aren't thinking about yet, I would say yes, it would be ok to not change gun control laws. Increased background checks, yes;perhaps increased training and emphasis on secure storage of weapons, yes; but banning assault rifles and large capacity mags, no. Not without knowing that it will achieve a noticeable improvement. We simply have to look at some of the plants/animals that have been imported from other areas of the world in order to solve particular problems in north america, to see what havoc they can cause without any natural checks. Doing a kneejerk 'something' without knowing that it would have the effect you want, (and only that effect, in this case for example not increasing the number of home invasions or violent assaults due to increased confidence among thugs that civilians will not be armed) is not a viable solution. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

People against additional laws must admit that future victims of gun violence that would have been prevented by any new measures are being marginalized. _____________________________________________ You also have to make the case that these future incidents of gun violence would actually have been prevented by the new measures proposed. So far I haven't seen much proof of any of that. Simply that 'we have to do something' If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Yes, but you don't take away his right to drive until he has been pulled over and found to have broken the law. Similarly, you can't take away a person's right to bear arms until you find that he has broken the law in some way. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

I didn't say that the insane should have a right to have guns or sarin for that matter. What I believe is if you have no legal record as a felon or mental problem that would preclude it, you have the right to bear arms. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

a bunch of arabs in libya, afganistan and syria seem to have done pretty well with average weapons, understanding of course that within a few days of civil war or unrest breaking out, more effective weapons would undoubtedly start appearing on the civilian rebels' side. As for what is a well regulated militia "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."-- Patrick Henry If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Dunno which is worse, the ones making the conspiracy theory 'docudramas' or the ones buyin' into the BS & running with it. 'Local officials' in cities like L.A. can't get together on how to thin out traffic after a Dodger game...yet we're expected to believe 'hick town, USA' pulls off some top secret mission to scam the country into letting POTUS EO a nationwide gun ban allowing for a new world order take over or some such dribble. Whole thing is tragic in SO many ways. . . come on! you don't actually believe we put a man on the moon, do you? If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

I can speak my mind. I can say whatever I want. There are no banned words because such would be a “prior restraint” of speech. Perhaps more significantly we don't limit technology which could be misapplied to commit criminal acts and cause civil damages when it has permissible uses. We don't limit the number of subscribers to web sites because it would be a real problem when one like youtube was used to incite millions of followers to commit violent illegal acts. We don't limit word processor file size because they may be used to produce documents like Ted Kaczynski's 35,000 word manifesto. We haven't banned color copiers and printers because they might be used to print counterfeit currency that some people would accept as real. We haven't banned digital recorders that could be used for illegal surveillance or unauthorized duplication of copyright materials. But we have banned drinking with an elevated blood alcohol level, cause you might kill someone. We have banned driving over certain speed limits, cause it may lead to more deadly collisions. We have banned driving through a red light, cause it might hurt some one. We have limited the use of lead, asbestos, mercury, etc cause it could hurt people. You have banned people from entry because they tweeted "3 weeks today, we’re totally in LA p****** people off on Hollywood Blvd and diggin’ Marilyn Monroe up! and for tweeting a friend asking if she was "free this week for a quick gossip/prep before I go and destroy America. x" You have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on fighting terrorism, which has killed less worldwide than Americans killed in gun violence. but you don't take away a person's car or right to drive unless they are caught breaking the law, because up until that point they haven't lost the right to drive or to own a car. If they do break the law, then they are subject to criminal or civil proceedings. Same generally with lead, mercury, etc. - a company is allowed to open an operation, based on the fact they will not pollute the area with or their product with lead mercury, etc. . if they are found to have broken the law on this after, they are subjectto civil or criminal penalties, including being shut down. Likewise, you cannot assume that a person will unjustifiably kill someone just because he owns a gun. If he does, he will be subject to criminal and civil penalties, up to and including death. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

It is my gut feeling. If you ask people outside the US to describe Americans...would polite come up? I have been to the US quite a bit and would state that generally Canadians are much more polite than Americans. Lastly, since people on this thread are treating fearfull and polite as being equal, the whole statement might just be flawed from the beginning. I visited the states at least 4 or 5 times last year, and I believe the americans would probably as or more polite than canadians I deal with up here. certainly when it comes to service workers, in the states I'm generally treated as a valued customer, and people bend over backwards, generally to treat us well, where here in canada it's generally service people don't want me to bother them or ask them to do their job. Of course I have talked with people in tennessee who told me if they thought they could get away with it they'd shoot Obama themselves, but they had reasons for that, and they were just venting. Still I would have to think long and hard to find a time when I have actually found someone in the US who treated me rudely (and that was probably a customs guy at the border, who was armed). If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

what's interesting is howard had admitted that the Port Arthur massacre had nothing to do with his gun control initiative. He states quite openly in his autobiography that he was always against guns - he calls them 'evil' - and that he saw the massacre as 'an opportunity' to implement his gun control policies across the board. Other studies than the ones he quotes in his op-ed piece of the effectiveness of his policies run the gamut from unquantified effrects to actually increasing incidents of violent crime. Along with the loss of value of personal property that many australians had to undergo. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

what are the other options? If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Its often said, but it's just about never true. That's a pretty absolute, unqualified sweeping statement. How do you back it up. Sources? Both statements are unqualified and sweeping, but given that the US is an armed society, people are just as rude and often ruder than where I live, which isn't. actually both statements are not sweeping. The first is a statement that 'it is often said'. I've heard it. I believe that it is probably said quite often. Your statement was that it's just about never true. That is a sweeping statement, and I'm waiting to hear how you know that it isn't usually true. Do you have a source? Or are you going on your gut feeling? You obviously have a problem with people owning guns. That's fine. But you don't have the right to take them away from people who don't have a problem with them, or just want to own them. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

see davjohns reply above. You clearly have an agenda - you don't like guns or people having access to guns - and it has colored every post you've made here. It's fine if you don't want to have guns in your home. It doesn't give you the right to tell other people they can't have guns in theirs. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

you said yourself, the average person. You can't be sure that any single person will not need a weapon to defend himself or his household. and until you can do that, you have no right to refuse to allow him the means to defend himself. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Really they just restricted the handguns and the semi auto longs. yes, but were you FORCED to give up the handguns and semi auto longs. And if you didn't, did the authorities have a record that you owned them, and would they show up at your door to ask for them? It happened in canada when they decided to reclassify certain previously allowed rifles. Owners were listed on the (now defunct) long gun registry, and required to turn in or face prosecution. If they were registered, and later banned, then they can be confiscated. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

The average person does not need a weapon of any kind in their lives. Really, they don't. The odds of being attacked do not, for the vast majority of people, justify the increased risk of danger to ones own family members Where do you get off telling me what I can or can't do to defend myself? You don't want a gun. fine. Don't tell me how to live my life. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone