DaVinci

Agreed, quite a shame. I see us as being in the status quo right now, and your reaction as normal and maybe healthy. The pendulum swings left, then right, then back and forth. It is one "emergency" after another and one reason it swings so hard is people instead of voting for the canidate they like, try to "balance it". The system we have was not designed to be used that way. That is of course, just my opinion.

They voted to support the use of force. Like it or not the little "word games" saying that is not the same, while technically true, amount to the same thing. You can claim otherwise, but that is just playing into the word games. They voted to allow force. That is a fact. If they did not want to use force then they could have voted no. No, but I can show the vote that allowed the President to use force. Notice they ALLOWED him to use force and took a vote and everything. You can claim it is not the same, but they DID do it.

Sad thing is that some just do not care. From a class I am enrolled in I swear this is the actual answer given: The thing is there are people in both parties that vote for the people Daddy did. They even admit it. Don't you think the best answer is to vote for they person you want in office, not just a party, ALL THE TIME?

I see....Last I checked Congress authorized force. I guess they had nothing to do with this then? Or do we now live in the USB? (United States of Bushdom). I guess I missed the vote to change the name of the US. Does your son fight for Bush, or the USA? I think you should be able to do better than these distractions.

I'm sorry, it does not seem to be "common knowledge". You said "This is contrary to the media myth, which you had bought into, that these are somehow rifles designed solely for military purposes." Then went on to say that was wrong. It is not, they were infact designed soley for a military reason, and civilians like them, and used them. My cut and paste job showed that quite clearly. You said something that was wrong and tried to make someone feel bad for being correct. No it does not change anything, but just because they are popular today as a sporting rifle does not mean they were not designed as a weapon for soldiers which is what you had claimed.

I disagree, the removable magazine can easily make a weapon more deadly. The remainder of options I agree do not do anything to increase the weapons level of danger. The AR15/M16 style weapon was designed for the military, just because civilians like them and have found uses for them does not change the fact that the weapon was designed for the military. "1958. Armalite delivers first new rifles, called the AR-15, to the Army for testing. Initial tests display some reliability and accuracy problems with the rifle. 1959. Late that year Fairchild Co, being disappointed with the development of the AR-15, sold all rights for this design to the Colt's Patent Firearms Manufacturing Company. 1960. Eugene Stoner leaves the Armalite and joins the Colt. The same year Colt demonstrated the AR-15 to the US Air Force Vice Chief of Staff, Gen. LeMay. Gen. LeMay wanted to procure some 8 000 AR-15 rifles for US AF Strategic Air Command security forces to replace ageing M1 and M2 carbines. 1962. US DoD Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) purchases 1000 AR-15 rifles from Colt and sends those rifles to the South Vietnam, for field trials. Same year brings glowing reports about the effectiveness of the new "black rifle", used by South Vietnamese forces. 1963. Colt receives contracts for 85 000 rifles for US Army (designated as XM16E1) and for further 19 000 rifles for US Air Forces (M16). The US AF M16 was no more than an AR-15 rifle with appropriate markings. The XM16E1 differed from AR-15/M16 by having an additional device, the so called "forward assist", which was used to manually push the bolt group in place in the case of jams. ." From http://world.guns.ru/assault/as18-e.htm And: Production of the AR-15 rifle was licensed to to Colt Manufacturing Company in 1959. Early Colt AR-15s, their magazines, and their operators manuals were marked with ArmaLite's name. Colt's retained the AR-15 designation on commercial rifles. To this day Colt's has a model designation with the letters AR, which stands for "ArmaLite". The AR-15 was selectable for full and automatic fire. The AR-15 was to have had the same effective range as the M14 rifle, but it was most effective at a range of 215 yards (200m) or less. The M16 used a 5.56mm (.223 cal.) cartridge in 20- or 30-round magazines. To compensate for the reduced size of the 5.56 mm bullet, the AR-15 designers increased the velocity of the bullet so that it would have an adequate range and the flat trajectory needed for accurate aiming. The M16 bullet had a muzzle velocity (velocity on leaving the gun) of 980 meters per second as compared to 870 meters per second for the M14 rifle and 720 metres per second for the Soviet AK-47 7.62 mm rifle, while at a range of 100 meters the velocities of the three bullets were 830, 800, and 630 meters per second respectively. The U.S. Air Force completed tests of the AR-15 in January 1961. The Air Force procured 8,500 rifles in 1961 and standardized the AR-15 in 1963. The weapon was first deployed to the Air Force's Air Police. The original AR-15 was designated the M16 in 1962. The new rifle had the advantage from a military point of view of weighing one- fourth less than the M14, and the ammunition also was lighter, reducing the recoil against the soldier's shoulder and enabling a soldier to carry more rounds. As interest in the problems of counter-insurgency grew under the Kennedy administration in the early 1960s, the US military quietly bought several thousand AR-15s and sent them to Vietnam for testing in combat conditions. In the Vietnam era, DARPA (then ARPA) gained acceptance for the AR-15 by sponsoring its demonstration in combat. Colt brought the weapon to DARPA in 1962. Through Project AGILE, DARPA purchased 1,000 AR-15s and issued them to combat troops in Southeast Asia for field trials, to prove that the high-velocity 5.56 mm round had satisfactory performance. The subsequent DARPA report, documenting the lethality of the AR-15, was instrumental in motivating the Secretary of Defense to reconsider the Army's decision and eventually adopt a modified AR-15 as the US military individual weapon of choice. Although opposed by the Ordnance Corps, the Armalite AR-15 was adopted by the Secretary of Defense as the 5.56mm M16 rifle. The AR-15 was redesignated by the US Army as the M16 rifle, and in 1967 the Army announced that it would be adopted as the standard infantry weapon for US Forces outside NATO. By 1978 the rifle had been exported to 21 countries and was being produced under licence in another three, with various other 5.56 mm rifles in production elsewhere. From : http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m16-history.htm Now to *me* it sure seems like the AR15 was designed as a military weapon. Now I agree that 2nd allows ownership of these weapons, but please do not try to make them out to be anything other than what they are, weapons.

How about a news source like CBS, CNN, FOX....Not any website with any (or much) bias? One of the first lessons in critical thinking is to consider the source. A blog that includes such "balanced" information as So while I did read your source, if this were a school assignment I would not let you use it. Can you supply a source from a major new network, or a government agency and not a weblog or hate site?

Can you please give me an example of this information? It might make interesting reading, and I am sure some on here would like to read it as well. This I agree with. I try not to put faith in anyone that claims to have been talking to God. Bush does seem a bit fanatic in his religion, as often people are who are "born again".

Bumper stickers? Actually, I agree that the far right seems to think of themselves a bit to much as God's people. I thought that was the job of the Jewish.

Wow, very nicely put.

Why thank you, and your avitar is quite nice. Care to answer the question and have a nice discussion without attacks? I think that would be very nice. So, do you think that another canidate in that position would have come up with a totally different solution given the same information? The question is do you think that the information was slanted, the President took the information and slanted it, or was it a combination of both?

Yes. But the difference was a guy was still in power against a guy that was no longer in power. Your comparison, while close, misses the fact that Saddam was still in power and supported terrorists. The US does not have the same leadership as it did back then. If the US invaded Iraq after Saddam was out of power, then I would agree with your analogy.

Sorry, not blaming the victim. Trying to explain a tactical reason. I thought you be able to understand that. Blaming the victim would be saying they had it coming, not trying to show you the reasons why a nutjob would find a school a nice target. I tried to explain that, but it seems you would rather mis-direct and use one liners. All I have seen is how you are trying to mis-direct instead of looking at the issues. People gave valid reasons why a school would be an ideal target for someone looking to do harm and you refuse to do anything but be a distraction.

I disagree. I see a good bunch of whining from left and right. Just from this thread. "Gee.. when you dont have a religious holier than thou attitude....in everything you do.. it keeps the levels of hypocrisy down. " "No, the party of less bible thumping and finger-pointing.... fewer witch hunts. Now, where's Ken Star?" "And Foley is a member of the party of hypocrites" My point being that both sides seem to whine quite a bit. Not just one side.

Sorry....Wait, no I am not. It is an informal reference to a person, please pick one from the provided list if "dude" is not your style: 1. Guy 2. Homey 3. Buddy 4. Brother 5. Fella 6. Dawg 7. Cowpoke 8. Troop No? You just happend to have the majority of your post about Iraq and used it as a comparison. I would say depends. Parents that support people who want to become suicide bombers are not going to win "Dad of the Year" in most places. Not even close. People who try to distract using how someplace else is worse to try and defend another are wrong. A place can be good even with idiots like this shooter doing stupid things.

Pathetic, but he pulled it off very well. Bush is a crappy public speaker, and if Kerry is not a man of the people. People who want to be President are often not the people I would want in office. I guess we must pick the lesser of the two evils.

So, do you think that another canidate in that position would have come up with a totally different solution given the same information? The question is do you think that the information was slanted, the President took the information and slanted it, or was it a combination of both?

I think thats the case.

Two wrongs do not make a right. So you think it is OK for Saddam to do what he did based on something a different leader did?

Laden was determined to strike the US for years. The biggest miss we had was when OBL was in camp and we knew it, but a Saudi Prince was there as well. We should have taken him out then. But my question was do you believe that anyone else could have made the same choices given the same intellegence, or do you think Bush just flat out wanted to go to war and dd everything to accomplish that? If so, what do you base that on?

And your opinion if the Democrats waited for a more powerful political effect?

As far as I know, I have tried to have conversations with you, and then pointed out your "attack" answers. I have admitted that you have some ideas that have merit, but disagree with your bumper sticker answers. I also said I would bet that if you could get past the knee jerk answers you might be worth talking to.

Do you not think paying money to the families of suicide bombers is supporting terrorism? http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/03/25/1017004766310.html "The hall was packed and the intake of breath was audible as a special announcement was made to the war widows of the West Bank - Saddam Hussein would pay $US25,000 ($47,000) to the family of each suicide bomber as an enticement for others to volunteer for martyrdom in the name of the Palestinian people. The men at the top table then opened Saddam's chequebook and, as the names of 47 martyrs were called, family representatives went up to sign for cheques written in US dollars. " Seems to me that would be considered supporting terrorism.

Well the story is that the things he knew about where weird, but not at the level of the things we now know. This jerk should face time. I would be interested to know who, knew what, when. If the Republicans knew and tried to keep it quiet. Shame on them. If the Democrats knew and waited till it would do more damage for political reasons, shame on them. In truth, it is possibly both. Either way this guy (asshat) should go to jail.

Like it or not, he has a valid point about schools being attractive targets for people looking for fame. A childs death is much more powerful than an adults death and schools are filled with kids. A school being a gun free zone does mean that the gunman will encounter less trouble. What does that have to do with this?