rhaig

so what I'm hearing is that you and andy are ok with the feds trumping state's rights because it's convenient. Not at all. The Feds only banned texting because there are still some people out there who are too stupid to understand the obvious...that texting while driving is distracted driving. which is already illegal***Cautious and attentive drivers rarely cause accidents. Most are caused by careless inattentive drivers. Also, keep in mind that driving on public roads is not a right. It is a privilege. yes. I know. that's not what I'm talking about (nice misdirect. there was no point in this other than politics. Many states were already making this unnecessary law, the feds just wanted to assert themselves and look good while doing it. Interstate commerce is the most abused piece of code on the books. -- Rob

so what I'm hearing is that you and andy are ok with the feds trumping state's rights because it's convenient. -- Rob

didn't used to be that way. I remember driving home from the park with some buddies in college. We each were sipping a beer on the way back (I was driving). Got pulled over for speeding and handed my beer to the passenger and popped a mint. Took the speeding ticket and went home. Yes, my passenger was drinking 2 beers. -- Rob

so are these drivers federally licensed or is this just the administration using interstate commerce to assert control over what should be a state issue? I don't disagree that texting while driving is terribly distracting. And careless driving is already illegal. There didn't need to be laws made, just a definition tweaked. Anyone who's ever read penal code should know that there's usually a definitions section at the beginning of each section of code. Tweak it to define careless driving to include texting or talking while not on a hands-free device. -- Rob

And if I'm still alive when that happens, I'll still love the taste of a fresh apple, or berries, even though I can get the same nutritional value from a pill. Just like today, I still love the taste of a steak, even though I can get equivalent protein through other means. It's personal preference, not evolution, that comes most into play here. -- Rob

ALthough that is the usual joke surrounding the Lebel Rifles... MANY of those same rifles had been used by several dead French soldiers from the trenches of WWI. You will find a lot of them with pretty lousy barrels. Do you have any idea how many young men died with those rifles? Just shy of 1.5M if my memory serves. But that class was a long time ago. -- Rob

for sale: used French WWII rifle. Never fired. Dropped once. -- Rob

Quote There are several types of criminals. For those who are "professional criminals" - i.e. depend on crime to provide for their life style, it depends on penalty. If it is significantly more severe than the penalty for a crime itself (like mandatory life sentence for carrying versus 5 year probation for a crime), and there are financial awards for those who turn them in, some may decide that it does not worth it, and switch to another types of crime (like insurance fraud). yet, a criminal faced with the threat of a possibly armed victim (concealed carry states) wouldn't consider not doing crime (or so I constantly hear from the gun-banners). I didn't realize you were such a study on criminology. Wait, this is all conjecture isn't it.... In any case, we won't ever be able to prove either side of this argument. So until then, I'll call you and your ilk "gun grabbers" or "hoplophobes" or "members of the million moron march" (not so catchy, though I like the alliteration) and you can call us whatever you want. I promise not to ever force you to own a gun. -- Rob

Probably even more. The numbers for gun school shootings for Europe are roughly 1/4 to 1/8 of U.S. depending on how you count it. And gun shooting is obviously a gun-related crime, so a 25% drop (from 40% to 15%) seems to be a reasonable guess. so you believe the criminals that turned in their guns, and/or can't find another criminal to buy guns from, are just going to stop committing all violent crime? Is that correct? Just trying to be clear on your idea. -- Rob

are you stating that you believe a gun ban would lower violent crime by 25% simply by eliminating gun crime? -- Rob

firstly, there's a big difference between "should" and "should have to". I think a lot of people should shut up. Mostly, I don't want to hear it, because I don't care. I also think that the Christians that profess their faith to me are much more annoying than the guy people I know who tell me they're gay. To be more specific, I've not had a single gay person try to convert me. Can't say so much for the Christians (even though I'm already Christian, I'm not THEIR brand of Christian). -- Rob

Yes, instictively that is where you get your satisfaction, it is a primal instinct. sometimes a steel plate is just a steel plate. steels matches are a lot of fun, and bear more resemblance to a carnival game than a body target. -- Rob

I don't shop at those places. I don't spend my money in defenseless victim zones. -- Rob

so you REALLY think all target shooters are practicing for killing people or animals? -- Rob

The flying drones that drop bombs don't bother me so much, but replacing the man on the battlefield with a bot bugs me. Sure... I'm concerned a little about the sci-fi what-if scenarios, but if you remove human cost from war, then it's just monetary cost preventing you from going to war. -- Rob

:) -- Rob

Yeah, you instead put out some vague 'world is going to end' posting, but with none of the specific details that Bill Cole would include. Nice CYA! I do vague very well. I'm in software support for a living. Vague is my job :) -- Rob

notice I didn't define infrastructure. I disagree with you. But that's another thread. -- Rob

they'll likely be lowering the hoops. -- Rob

There will be societal breakdown and infrastructure failure in the US. It's just a matter of when, and how well we'll recover. Any efforts to stop that should really be aimed at minimizing the impact, maximizing the recovery, and preparing the infrastructure. From a personal point of view, are you ready to go 2 weeks without electricity? -- Rob

I wouldn't schedule one there right now, but if I'd scheduled a cruise months ago, I wouldn't cancel it now though (thus removing money from the Haitian economy). -- Rob

Also, it's a pity that some Americans feel that all Americans should have the same ideas that they do. -- Rob

No it wasn't - you were ragging on HIM for saying that some Europeans wanted better access and implied that he didn't know what he was talking about. Yep. Something wrong with that? well if I'd said that all europeans want better access, you'd have been spot on. but that's not what I said. Nor did I imply that. You made an incorrect inference from my statement. -- Rob

well, if you read my original post, you'd see that I answered all of your questions with the exception of when. you'll also notice that I acknowledge the small size of the sample I'm citing. so untwist your knickers and stop being so damn defensive. and I chose my words well. "there exist Europeans ..." implies there are 2 more more. Since my first post (that you clearly didn't read) cites one that I spoke with, and I know (unmentioned of one more), that qualifies as 2 or more. -- Rob

but you still believe making up qualifications is still useful for discounting numbers that don't agree with your ideas? -- Rob