Bignugget

Two problems for your argument here. 1- you're citing the Declaration of Independence. Although certainly a key document from the time, it is the Constitution that matters. 2- the right to life includes the right to self defense, which the gun enables. Without it, you're at risk to bigger or more numerous bad guys. 1) I wasn't, DMCO was, that was a quote from a thread he wrote about the philosophy of America. 2) is what the whole discussion is about. RUSHMC posted a link to an article that had a decent quote in it. ""Foreign style gun control is doomed to failure in America. Foreign gun control comes along with searches and seizures, and with many other restrictions on civil liberties too intrusive for America. Foreign gun control...postulates an authoritarian philosophy of government fundamentally at odds with the individualist and egalitarian American ethos."" Fair enough. It probably will never happen in America. America will probably continue to lead 1st world nations in homicides by far. I just don't think its good. I would try experimenting a bit more.

A news article that starts out with "Oh the irony"??? And you like and acept that? No wonder your views are as slanted as they are BTW ALL gun safey class instruction states that NO gun should be loaded in a class room environment. So this ONE guy made a mistake or is an idiot The wide brush does not apply here. No matter how baddly you want it to But keep reading CNN I suits you I find comedy from all the networks. CNN provides some good stuff though.

This should be in Bonfire. . . . and real is usually better. Turtle and I agree on the things that really matter.

that's an unfair generalization: you can only determine that he favors: rape, assault, and burglary not high crime in general Over homicide, yes. That would be a fair characterization of my position on the matter. If I had to choose A) fewer homicides and more rape, assault, and burglary. B) more homicides and fewer rape, assault, burglary. I choose A.

MAD at work on the micro level. An interesting thing to consider for sure. I don't think it plays out in real life as well as the nuclear version, but my buddy and I were discussing this last night and he made the same point. You would have to go the opposite of my position, literally arm and train everyone. Make it mandatory that you learn to use a gun, and have one on you. It would make a good sliders episode for sure.

Wrong... I have already addressed this; above and my past thread. First amendment is also not necessary for Freedom of Speech. You seem unable to be grasping the concept of Limited Government. What about my opinion makes you think I don't grasp the concept of "Limited Government" I simply don't agree the government serves no role in personal life. I firmly believe the government has a RESPONSIBILITY to provide laws and protections for everyone, such that I don't have to worry about being murdered at a rate 4x higher than the UK. In my opinion one of the fastest ways to bring our homicide rate in line with that of Europe, is to bring the number of guns in line with that of Europe. I see this as a perfect example of where the government should be working for the people. I simply do NOT agree that the governments role is to sit back and let any random asshole do whatever he pleases. What you just wrote here, proves flat out, you do not understand Limited Government. If you are not simply trolling, what you just wrote is absurd... and you are also confusing the things that actually are your opinions, with Constitutional Truths. Read this: DEFINED: Small and Limited Government Then read what I wrote, read what you wrote before it... and then re-read what you last wrote: Then I'll continue to respond, if you make coherent statements, or state that you don't want the US Constitution, you want a national government whose scope of influence has no bounds; the exact opposite of the Republic those old guys gave us. 'We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men. ' Yes that is what I said when I posted: " firmly believe the government has a RESPONSIBILITY to provide laws and protections for everyone, such that I don't have to worry about being murdered at a rate 4x higher than the UK. " God granted me the right to life, and it is the governments job to do all they can to ensure that right is left to me. What am I missing? I don't feel this is an issue the states can resolve as individuals. The world is much smaller than it was when we formed the nation. You can't "vote with your feet" nearly as effectively. It doesn't take 2 weeks of horse travel to get to the next state and procure a weapon banned in your home state. I feel this is something that should be handled on a national scale. Amend the constitution. Remove the 2nd amendment, start collecting guns, and lets re-explore the issue in 50 years. Again I grasp the concept of the federal government playing no role in personal life. I just don't agree with it when it deals with things that effect others. (I have no issue with what you do to/for/with yourself that does not effect me) I see the ability for anyone to acquire a gun as something that most definitely effects me. If you really think I am trolling I don't know what to say to that. I take you as sincere, I believe what I have posted sincerely as well.

http://violentdeathproject.com/ I am just googling around looking for some stats to back you guys up. http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/violence/by-country/ Still looking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/countries-with-highest-reported-crime-rates.html Well shit, time for lunch and another cup o coffee. I will keep looking when I am done eating. In the meantime maybe you guys can debunk all those stats, and find some that show the opposite?

Yes. That is why we have 4x the homicide rate of the UK. That is why we have so many people 'milking' the system. Etc. Etc. Personal responsibility is in fact, long gone. As such, we need some grown ups to tell people what is OK and what is not OK. Surprisingly we are one of the last 1st world countries to have this issue still outstanding. Europe, Japan, etc have already addressed this problem, and greatly reduced it. Nice Fantasy... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate UK ----1.2 US ---- 4.8 What about my post was unclear when I said " That is why we have 4x the homicide rate of the UK. "

That's only half a woman. Sex with machines doesn't count in the score. Again another thing that lies in the eye of the beholder.

Shhhh. If you listen close you can find the answer in your own question... Why would you want to make that coaches job harder. Right now you're a blank slate he can work with, not a brain full of BS ideas from DZ.com. This. Practice stretching, relaxing, breathing, and listening with your EYES (eye contact is huge for me in the tunnel, helps you decipher the words a lot easier) and ears. Let them teach you to fly

Yes. That is why we have 4x the homicide rate of the UK. That is why we have so many people 'milking' the system. Etc. Etc. Personal responsibility is in fact, long gone. As such, we need some grown ups to tell people what is OK and what is not OK. Surprisingly we are one of the last 1st world countries to have this issue still outstanding. Europe, Japan, etc have already addressed this problem, and greatly reduced it.

Wrong... I have already addressed this; above and my past thread. First amendment is also not necessary for Freedom of Speech. You seem unable to be grasping the concept of Limited Government. What about my opinion makes you think I don't grasp the concept of "Limited Government" I simply don't agree the government serves no role in personal life. I firmly believe the government has a RESPONSIBILITY to provide laws and protections for everyone, such that I don't have to worry about being murdered at a rate 4x higher than the UK. In my opinion one of the fastest ways to bring our homicide rate in line with that of Europe, is to bring the number of guns in line with that of Europe. I see this as a perfect example of where the government should be working for the people. I simply do NOT agree that the governments role is to sit back and let any random asshole do whatever he pleases.

You could get a job writing the titles of bills up for legislative votes Sorry, already have a job. I own a used car lot.

(looking under the hood at the engine) "well, THERE's yer problem" sucks for you...... living in a country where the people decide what the government gets to do, and not the other way around All in the eye of the beholder. I'll take the government deciding that RUSHMC doesn't get a gun, and a 1/4 of the homicide rate we have now. You vote for guns and homicide. Different strokes.

You sure feel the need to attack the person opining much more than the opinion itself. Is that because you were raised improperly?

I think they like the term progressive... which fits, since they progressively shit all over any rights or way of life that doesn't fit into their frame of mind. I don't like guns... why do you need them. I don't like big vehicles... why do you need a large SUV. I don't feel well compensated... why do you need such a large salary. and on and on and on... I think it is a somewhat ironic mindset for a skydiver to have, considering that we participate in an activity that is not necessary, is risky to both participants and to some extent bystanders, can leave the general public on the hook for medical bills, and has little justification other than it makes us and others feel good. Why do you need to skydive? Without the 2nd amendment, none of you guys have guns. You really should be thankful some old ass dudes a long time ago wrote that down. Otherwise we would be like almost every other 1st world nation. Nice tight gun control, TENS OF MILLIONS less guns, and 1/4 the intentional homicide rate. You know why? Because other civilized nations have all sat down and decided allowing people like RUSHMC, Regulator, Turtlespeed, and Gravitymaster to own a means to kill lots of people is not the wisest choice of action. WOHOO!! Celebrate old dudes writing shit down!

This is a sad story, but defacing other people's property is not art. It's vandalism. Graffiti artists do some wicked ass stuff. Tagging an abandoned out of business spot...eh whats he hurting? Driving the property value of some abandoned shit down? I can handle that as the worst of the crimes we are dealing with. Sucks he died though. The cops did him right, they could have just fuckin shot him in the face 10 times. They couldn't know he would be one of the flukes who dies from the taser. High fiving after some fat out of shape cops manage to chase an 18yr old down sounds ok to me too. I would be about to stroke out. I would be pretty stoked if I managed to catch an 18 year old.

Im 29 I live in St. Louis missouri and its a big ass fuckin number of guns. think of the pile 280 million guns would make.

Sweet prizes and a good cause! I have 2 friends with Lupus both of them cool ass chicks in their 20s. I didn't know it targeted chicks more than guys. Im in.

Or just don't let the little kids run around unattended in an area where bears regularly prowl.... Nah fuck that. Arm yourselves! Just ETA: In case you haven't seen my myriad of posts talking about allowing people to have firearms in limited circumstance.... I have no issue with Little House on the Prairie Joe Bob having a firearm to protect against dangerous wildlife or hunting food for the family, properly licensed and approved. I am quite certain there are not 280 million of those guys around, and as such we are grossly over on the gun to Joe Bob Little House guys ratio. 280 million fewer means to end life is a much better route to go. We can handle issuing 100k permits for the wilderness livers and the fun loving competition shooters.

Nope. Your opinion that you get to have some shit that is designed to kill me isn't enough to entitle you to it. Unfortunately many many moons ago some old dudes wrote that you get to have all the means to kill people you can dream up. Thankfully we have slowed it a bit, but 280 million means later its plowing along. I want a nuke, I feel I am entitled. Of course that doesn't matter, since weapons capable of killing millions of people are not allowed to be possessed by guys with My Little Pony avatars. And since no old dudes many moons ago wrote down all of us can have nukes, people sat down and thought about it and decided its probably better if we don't allow just any random asshole to have means to kill lots of people. In all sincerity if you need a gun to be safe in America, what the fuck has happened to America? People are all upset about the "spy state" etc. and how we are all Russian like with Snowden, well fuck we (as a nation) are as violent as Yemen and an entire host of shit hole countries....sweet company. Arguing for more weapons just doesn't seem to fit. Instead of arming the population, lets try a little E.L.E like Jackie Moon proposes. P.S. I really do want a nuke, so if anyone has any inside hookups, lemme know. I picture one like in that movie where the dude rides it in, that's the kind I want. P.P.S (P.S.S?) If the NSA is reading this shit, I don't really want a nuke, but I heard Gravitymaster does!

I suspect it is because people who live in highly populated areas are more likely to avoid getting involved the the affairs of others, as compared to people who live in more lightly populated areas. As an extreme example, this most likely would not have gone down the same way in a place like TX: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese I agree that has a lot to do with it. The lack of physical personal space in NYC is theorized by many to be a large contributing factor to people being closed off / rude. Probably contributes a bit, it was still pretty cool to watch. I wonder is that why they walk the walk of equality in the micro sense...when its 2 tables at breakfast....but on the macro sense state wide, they are one of the states that can refuse service because you are gay, etc? The dude who went out and wrote the ladies a note made me tear up. But I swear I was waiting for him to come back in with his gun....I saw 0 guns in this clip so I am a bit suspicious it was in Texas.

http://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/ Look like a bunch of different douchebags have nomination rights. It's not hard to imagine they got 100,000 'online' signatures on the petition. I'm doubting he wins.

It's your episode. You can develop it however you desire. Maybe there ARE light sabers because instead of focusing all of the time/effort/money into making firearms for 300 years the United States spends all that money on research into lasers and shit to send us to Pluto. As a by-product you get the development of light sabers. Light sabers are also restricted in production and allowed only by permit, same as firearms which have all but disappeared from civilian life.

Read lawrocket's post above for a concise summary. The court did, unequivocally, say that there were systematic civil right violations. You can lead a horse to knowledge, but you can't make him think.