FreeflyChile

In the beginning.... http://www.allvoices.com/image/18335193

From what's there now, it looks like I did misread what you wrote. The post appears to have been edited, so I don't know if you went back and edited it to read what you meant the first time or if I misread it, but in any event, my apologies for that.

It's not about convenience, it's about freedom. I prefer a few gun massacres rather than not have the freedom to be armed for recreation and self defense. I prefer 41,000 people die in traffic accidents each year, rather than not have the freedom of personal mobility from private ownership of automobiles. I prefer that 9,000 people die from drowning each year, rather than not have the choice to go swimming or own a backyard pool. I prefer that 30 or so people die skydiving every year, rather than not have the freedom to skydive. I could go on and on with such examples, but this should make my point. I'm sure everyone will understand it, except perhaps Emperor Kallend. Freedom isn't free. There is a cost to having the freedom to enjoy all of the things that we like to do in life. I accept the reality of the consequences of those choices. It doesn't mean that I'm cold-hearted and indifferent to the deaths. It doesn't mean that I'm against all regulations of such things to try and prevent deaths. It just means that I choose freedom over "safety". To banish all of these things from public life would certainly save lives. But then we would not be nearly as free, and our quality of life would suffer tremendously. This is part of our Constitution with "the pursuit of happiness". And of course, the kind of governmental tyranny that would be necessary to banish all those dangerous activities from the citizenry, comes with it's own death list, which can be far worse. I choose freedom. While I agree with the whole 'freedom isn't free' (and the immediate song from Team America - it costs a buck-o-five), I don't believe that it's as black and white as you see it. Do you oppose regulations that require automakers to install safety features in their cars? Do you oppose laws that require licenses for motor vehicles? You just stated you oppose ALL REGULATION of such things to try and prevent death. "I prefer that people that come to me with medical problems be worse off after I see them than not have the freedom to practice medicine without a license."

OH NO!!! It's going to become self-aware!!

Those are funny...but this is a trick question... there are no "top ten" country songs!

I think it'd be cool if they made accidental discoveries that prompted a 'research race' - kind of like the space race of the 60's and 70's....It would be cool to have the might of the US and Europe competing in a race for discovery and scientific advancement. Of course, given the current state of things, for this to happen any discovery would likely have to be one of a very destructive/potentially weaponizable variety

he used to be able to scramble like no one else...

And because this thread isn't nearly nerdy enough: http://www.joystiq.com/2008/09/09/terrible-news-gordon-freeman-spotted-near-large-hadron-collider/

Source: The Sun Attached: Ban this "Hello Boys" ad? This whole thread reminds me of the "Smell the Glove" cover conversation in Spinal Tap. "the record company has a problem with your cover. It's sexist." "yeah, we know it's sexy"

Hehe as soon as I saw the thread title I knew it'd be one of these or the opposite - one of those that has a ton of good-sounding qualities and turns out to be Hitler or Saddam or something.

My first thought was "that guy must've not lived here - he would have known to avoid that traffic if he did"

One that wouldn't allow people like the V. Tech shooter to slip through the cracks. So you want the government to maintain a database with individuals medical information to be used during background checks? Now correct me if I am wrong, but don't you need to meet a minimum medical standard in order to drive a car? No one objects to the state indicating on your driver's license that you need glasses Eyes are tested on site. You are not required to show medical records are you? And then there are medicals required if you want to be a pilot, or a tandem master. There's plenty of precedent. Ok, so you advocate giving up mental medical records and your right to privacy to stop a few nuts. Or are you say everyone who wants to own a firearm should go through a mental evaluation? Pilots, as truck drivers do, take specific exames that are not fishing expiditons. Based on tests. Are mental evals as black and white or are they more subjective? I understand the importance of right-to-privacy, and by and large I like as little govt intervention in my personal affairs as possible. That said, there has to be a balance between what we each want in our ideal world and what the reality is out there. What kind of registration/background check/process/training would you propose in order to help with the problem of people who shouldn't have guns getting their hands on guns? Do you think that it is even needed? I brought up driving as an example of government regulations requiring some kind of medical clearance. Your point that for driving/flying are based on tests that are pass/fail is valid. The thing is, and I think you'd agree, that the danger in cars/airplanes is that a lack of skill will cause an accident causing injuries/death and these tests are designed to filter those prone to these accidents. With guns, it appears to me that the danger is not so much in the accidental misuse as in the deliberate misuse. So any standard/check to make sure that the wrong people don't end up armed would HAVE to include a way to filter out those that would have a higher tendency to intentionally misuse a gun. Wouldn't it? Or is everything just fine? And you bring a point from which a good and logical debate could be had. kallend will not be so forthcoming in expressing his opinon on what a "completed" check would be. But to your point, how could what you ask be done? To be perfectly honest, I don't think that asking for medical records to see if there are red flags is too much. I think that while it is a constitutional right, as has been noted it also carries some limitations. Additionally, I think that the nature of guns in and of themselves - how easily they can be used to cause so much harm - means that they can't be treated with the same kind of logic that would be applied to other rights. At the same time, I understand the 'slippery-slope' arguments against further restrictions/allowing government incursion into privacy *just this once* because it only leads to more, etc. So personally, like in other facets of life, I don't think that having evaluations of medical history in order to possess a gun is excessive. In the interest of full disclosure, I live in Chicago and have never felt the need to own a gun or really ever considered it. I've never owned a gun for protection or amusement, so really from a personal perspective more restrictions wouldn't affect me anyway. What I would like, though, is an actual proposal from you, or John Rich, or some others that have experience with guns as to how this problem can be realistically dealt with. Or, as I asked before (and this goes out to everyone) - is everything ok the way it is?

One that wouldn't allow people like the V. Tech shooter to slip through the cracks. So you want the government to maintain a database with individuals medical information to be used during background checks? Now correct me if I am wrong, but don't you need to meet a minimum medical standard in order to drive a car? No one objects to the state indicating on your driver's license that you need glasses Eyes are tested on site. You are not required to show medical records are you? And then there are medicals required if you want to be a pilot, or a tandem master. There's plenty of precedent. Ok, so you advocate giving up mental medical records and your right to privacy to stop a few nuts. Or are you say everyone who wants to own a firearm should go through a mental evaluation? Pilots, as truck drivers do, take specific exames that are not fishing expiditons. Based on tests. Are mental evals as black and white or are they more subjective? I understand the importance of right-to-privacy, and by and large I like as little govt intervention in my personal affairs as possible. That said, there has to be a balance between what we each want in our ideal world and what the reality is out there. What kind of registration/background check/process/training would you propose in order to help with the problem of people who shouldn't have guns getting their hands on guns? Do you think that it is even needed? I brought up driving as an example of government regulations requiring some kind of medical clearance. Your point that for driving/flying are based on tests that are pass/fail is valid. The thing is, and I think you'd agree, that the danger in cars/airplanes is that a lack of skill will cause an accident causing injuries/death and these tests are designed to filter those prone to these accidents. With guns, it appears to me that the danger is not so much in the accidental misuse as in the deliberate misuse. So any standard/check to make sure that the wrong people don't end up armed would HAVE to include a way to filter out those that would have a higher tendency to intentionally misuse a gun. Wouldn't it? Or is everything just fine?

One that wouldn't allow people like the V. Tech shooter to slip through the cracks. So you want the government to maintain a database with individuals medical information to be used during background checks? Now correct me if I am wrong, but don't you need to meet a minimum medical standard in order to drive a car? No one objects to the state indicating on your driver's license that you need glasses

So you want to impose YOUR personal views on everyone else. NICE! I speak for myself and the unborn who can not speak for themselves. By that rationale.... every illegal that doesn't speak English should automatically get citizenship and be supported by those who pay taxes! Hey, don't look at me...I'm just speaking for those that can't speak for themselves.

Of course, in civil court - if you're poor you may not get sued where a rich guy would since they can't collect.

Yes - they can afford better lawyers.

another thing you can do is find a dz that's open over the winter. i think archway in vandalia, il is open throughout the winter so even tho it's freakin freezing, at least you'll be able to stay current.

I don't for the simple reason that it's one of the Republicans' largest rallying cry - we'll make abortion illegal. Problem is that if you actually make it happen, you can't use that to drum up support for elections any longer.

Its more like the victim of a crime bears responsibility for a further crime. That's even more ridiculous. Why is it more ridiculous? If, for example, a construction worker at the end of the day leaves the keys in the ignition of a bulldozer and someone then hops in the bulldozer and, because of the keys being in there, joyrides and does a ton of damage..why *shouldn't* the construction worker bear some responsibility? maybe not criminal charges, but certainly some kind of civil liability. I think that with certain rights/privileges comes a heightened level of responsibility that applies in the exercise of those rights/privileges. I am sick of the attribution of criminal wrongdoing to the people who did not commit the crime! It's not a crime to leave the keys there, right? So whatever someone does after criminally taking possession of those keys is the one responsible. There can be no logical end to the path you are attempting to put us on with this. Soon, if a woman is walking around with a diamond necklace, and it's snatched from her neck by a mugger, and he sells it for cash with which he buys a gun on the black market, you'll say that she bears responsibility for the killings he commits with that gun because she did not safeguard the diamond necklace that got him the cash to buy the gun to use to kill people! WHERE [I]CAN[/I] THIS ABSURD "LOGIC" END? I think that the cause/effect from the situation/hypothetical I presented and the one you presented are vastly different. I was getting at the 'responsibility' aspect, not so much the 'criminal' aspect.

Its more like the victim of a crime bears responsibility for a further crime. That's even more ridiculous. Why is it more ridiculous? If, for example, a construction worker at the end of the day leaves the keys in the ignition of a bulldozer and someone then hops in the bulldozer and, because of the keys being in there, joyrides and does a ton of damage..why *shouldn't* the construction worker bear some responsibility? maybe not criminal charges, but certainly some kind of civil liability. I think that with certain rights/privileges comes a heightened level of responsibility that applies in the exercise of those rights/privileges.

Its more like the victim of a crime bears responsibility for a further crime.

right, right, guvnor, where's me crumpets? th'bobby says not'to get my knickers in a bunch, the lorry blocking my flat won't be long now. look't me teef, they's ghastly!

Well if she is under 40 then I suppose I could understand the reaction. Still the thought of "Jane..." cracks me up! Or they would think it was a reference to "The Office"

I thought the Who wanted to die before they got old.