rhaig

Good thing the currents took it to the East huh. I am sure all those people mired in the goo in LA MS AL and FL cleaning it up appreciated all that work. good thing the media led the american public that the gulf coast was an oil slick so they quit going to the beach. I'm sure all those business owners on the TX coast appreciated the spare time and lower income. (see, at least two of us can do useless smarmy responses) -- Rob

Oddly enough, I didn't. Of course, i also didn't see you on site when i was there either. I guess you cant see what you do not want to see or believe. The news had them EVEN FAUX news you watch had them.. you only had to look. yeah, and the news also said the coastline business were suffering because nobody was coming to stay on the beach. Mostly because they'd seen on the news how bad the oil spill had messed up the beach. But when I went to the beach in Port Aransas (because of the cheap rates on the rooms) it was quite clean. Speaking with friends elsewhere on the TX coast, their beaches were clean as well. There's no hype in the media. None at all. Volunteers I spoke with said pretty much the same thing. They saw a few animals that needed a lot of help and cleaning. A lot of animals that needed a little cleaning, but for the most part the news made that aspect of the situation look worse than it was. Apparently most of the actual coastal damage was localized to a few places. -- Rob

depending on the situation I believe there may be members of the military who will disobey orders to act on US soil against US citizens. -- Rob

Another enlighten post from Amazon that doesn't at all answer the question but slams a conservative. How fresh We better all get worried about it, no matter what party is in power. oh leave them alone. it's fun watching trolls battle :) -- Rob

I personally know 2 people who have used a car to intentionally hit a pedestrian. Not with intent to kill, but to severely injure. Neither were entirely sane. One we always knew was a little off. -- Rob

When you can list the number of assassinations that have been carried out with kitchen forks and show me it's bigger than the one with guns . . . you'll have made a point. you aren't concentrating on the criminal still. You're fixated on the tools they use. We do not have a tool problem. We have a violence problem. We established this a few pages ago. Have you forgotten so soon? -- Rob

when was the last time you bought any AN based fertilizer? Do you know what would be required to kill a few dozen people on a corner? A single bag would do fine. Now what quantity sets off the trigger? Oh... you weren't talking about the topic of this thread... the rest of us were, but you were off in the weeds somewhere. just go on with your gun-grabber talking points. we'll ignore you now. -- Rob

I'd be an ass to define your stance on any issue (wouldn't be the first time I've been called an ass though). I was working from popular definitions ala http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism So for your personal definition of atheism (which is really what matters to you) I was off-base. -- Rob

uh.... you're obtuse is showing again. first you get a court to declare them insane. !! Why did you snip your question and self-provided answer, which was: Well how do we deal with mentally unstable people now? Mental institution. The obtuse one is you. The law as it stands is clearly unable to stop nutcases like Cho and Loughner from obtaining guns. well, aside from this post, I typically only quote what I think is relevant to my reply. That and I figure we can all read here and know how to use the scroll bar. Sorry, I'll quote your posts in entirety from now on so you don't have to worry about that. The law as it stands now does not allow adjudicated nut-cases from buying firearms from a licensed dealer. What law would you propose that might have prevented these two cases from obtaining a firearm? I fully don't expect you to answer that question. But if you have step one, perhaps you have a step two. It remains to be determined that you care enough about solving the problem to share step two rather than just complain. -- Rob

uh.... you're obtuse is showing again. first you get a court to declare them insane. That's step one. You're only sharing step one of your plan, so I'll stop there on my plan of dealing with the unstable. Where I'm going with step two is obvious. Hey look!! Our plans have something in common!! -- Rob

So how would you deal with mentally unstable people like Cho and Loughner? Concentration camp? Did you really ask that? Don't be intentionally obtuse. Well how do we deal with mentally unstable people now? Mental institution. next! -- Rob

I don't see what can be done without changing the constitution. But you've not supplied your answer, so we have to believe you have none. You seem to be suggesting a state-sponsored snooping into everything ever done by someone in order to predict if they might go nutter. Either that or you're wanting an outright ban and confiscation. We've established (even if it's only between a few of us) that there is a violence problem. I don't see how any of this would change the violence problem in the US. -- Rob

so you're just going to continue to bitch and moan then... ok, that's what I thought. -- Rob

how about this then: Democrats aren't allowed to purchase firearms. Upon registration with the Democratic party, they must turn in or sell all firearms and submit their property to inspection. -- Rob

so what would you change? You've only been asked that a half a dozen times in this thread. choosing not to answer or at least admit that you don't have the answer pretty much identifies you as a troll. I don't think you're a troll, just stubborn and close-minded. -- Rob

go up thread a bit and read... we have a horrible violence problem. If the guns went away, I don't believe things would get "all better". You've been asked several times to post your suggestions. You apparently have none except to complain. I've seen several suggestions or enumerations of possibilities. But none from you. -- Rob

go for it. It might work. The only downside would be the cost of housing the violent criminals. Paying the prison system to keep them off the streets? Ok. -- Rob

the US has a problem with violent crime. Much of that crime is committed with firearms. Those firearms by and large are not purchased through legal means. Making laws to restrict the availability of firearms will not affect criminals' ability to purchase a firearm. It WILL affect a law abiding citizen's ability to purchase a firearm. If the intent is to solve the violent crime problem, then we should start with laws that affect those committing the crimes. If your intent is to remove guns from the population alltogether, then you need to start by changing the constitution. -- Rob

and yours come over as intransigent. Do you have a better solution than the current one, an outright ban, or the future prediction method? Please. Let's work together to solve this problem. What could have been done? -- Rob

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/07/16/2009-07-16_teen_brutally_stabbed_to_death_with_screwdriver.html . . . But he seemed fine until he stabbed the guy . . . There should be at least a three day waiting period on screwdrivers. But, but ...what if something needs screwing right now?!? that's ok... I can wait to be screwed. -- Rob

so admit you want to ban guns. it's going to take an amendment. you want to make it happen, get started. Here is not the place. -- Rob

did you get a doctor's diagnosis on that one? Or is that your professional medical opinion?? So now you want to remove someone's constitutional rights without any due process whatsoever because of what they post online somewhere?? -- Rob

Are you saying that the system we have in place now works? I'm saying that the system you apparently want which seems to be "don't let anyone have a gun who might ever use it to kill another person" is not implementable without an out-right ban which is not constitutional. I think that our system keeps those defined by the "system" as nutjobs from buying weapons from a licensed firearms dealer. -- Rob

so how do we determine which people are going to open fire on the crowds? Where's your future crime machine? -- Rob

right. you have no evidence either way. so there is no case to be made other than on belief. You make a case on evidence, not belief, therefor no conclusion can be drawn. -- Rob