DaVinci

And you will notice that the SC has ruled that it is an individual right, not connected to military service. The Founding Fathers disagreed. Care to find ONE comment where they say the individual should not be armed? The SC in Miller stated that the 2nd protected "Arms suitable for use in the Militia". So who is to d3ecide who can own what? you???? And you have STILL avoided answering this question... I really wish you would: Again.... A lunatic is shooting up your office... would you rather be armed or unarmed?

You can blame that on: * automation ( - demand) * computers (- demand) * outsourcing (- demand) * population increase (- demand) * Women entering the workforce (+ supply) * immigration (+ supply) Unless you are willing to: * close the border * start a one child policy like China * ban automation * Stop outsourcing (increasing the cost of goods) You are not going to do anything.... Studies have shown production in the US is up... We make more now than we did in the 70's. But automation has removed the need for many low skill jobs. Those jobs are not coming back. Further, unions back then drove up wages that CAUSED the push to automate and hurt the American ability to compete on a global market.

You can make that claim.... But that does not make it any more true than my claim of you listening to him, or your claim that I listen to him.

Got it, you are unable and now cussing.

Find where I said I am for protecting lunatics. You will not be able to. Why are you OK with preventing law abiding citizens from the rights in the BoR's???? and you avoided this question: Again.... A lunatic is shooting up your office... would you rather be armed or unarmed?

Then my claim that you do is EXACTLY as accurate as your claim that I do.

I fail to see how you think controlling costs to save money is a bad idea? Are you one of those that makes 40k, but spends 50k a year? Common sense tells most people that that situation is not sustainable.

Show where I have said that. Or at least admit you are making it up. I do not own a gunshop, although I do have an 03FFL I am still waiting to hear YOUR required training for the right to vote and the right of free speech.... Unlike you, I am asking your views instead of just assuming what they are.

It is not about preventing anything bad from happening.... We have learned that it is just not 100% possible. But more gun laws only stop those that try to follow them. "No guns on campus" did not stop Cho, it did not stop Harris and Klebold, laws against murder did not stop them or Whitman. If there was a shooter in your office building blasting your coworkers. Do you wish that you were armed, or unarmed? If it was me, I'd wish to be armed. If it was you, I'd wish you to be armed. I'd want Kallend to be armed. I'd rather each of you have a chance of survival rather than just watch your co-workers be killed and wait for your turn. If you decided to fight, I'd want you to have the better chance that having a firearm can bring. I never said *everyone* should have a gun. I also never said training should not be required to *carry* a gun.... These are positions you have attributed to me that I have not taken. Again.... A lunatic is shooting up your office... would you rather be armed or unarmed?

Got it, you are unable

Irony score is off the chart. I also bet you listen to Rush more than I do.

I have made no such claim. I said uphold current rules (like most of the GOA 1968 - without the "sporting clause"). YOU however have not answered what training you want to require for voters and people to exercise free speech. Feel free to answer those if you are able.

Sure the difference is I am not trying to mandate to you. And you would rather follow a path that has been shown to ALSO not work. So instead of trying to see the trees, you want to cut them all down to improve your view of the forest.

Ah, so your BS claim of people shooting up the place only can have two possible outcomes. 1. A guy shoots and kills everyone cause he is an idiot. 2. A guy runs and wets himself. Never mind the FACTS do not support you. Heck i todays internet age it should be easy for you to find example after example of a CHL holder shooting people by accident in the middle of a situation.... Give that a try and report back. Joseph Zimudie was in AZ at the time of the shooting. He did NEITHER of your two fallacious scenarios. Joseph was at a nearby Walgreens when he heard the shooting start. Instead of running away, Joseph headed *toward* the sound of gunfire (so much for hiding and wetting his pants). Joseph had his CCW on him and had flipped off the safety, prepared to use it in the defense of others. He did not draw his weapon (so much for shooting indiscriminately) , but had his hand on it, ready. When he arrived at the scene, Loughner had been preparing to reload. Another man stepped in and wrestled away Loughner's gun. Zimudie saw the man with the gun and commanded he "drop it." Zimudie still did not draw(So much for shooting indiscriminately) because he saw the slide locked back, Loughner's glock clearly empty. The other man dropped the gun and Zimudie was informed that the shooter was the guy being wrestled to the ground. Zimudie placed his weapon back on safe and proceeded to help restrain Loughner until law enforcement arrived. (So much for running or shooting like crazy) Zimudie demonstrated responsible restraint in a chaotic situation. He demonstrated fearlessness by rushing toward the action instead of away. He demonstrated that the first armed responder to a mass murder could very well be a simple citizen. So once again you have no facts.

1. There are plenty of laws in place... Yet we have found out time after time that a person intent on doing harm will just ignore them. Do you really think a criminal intent on killing as many people as he can will not take a gun on a campus because it is illegal? 2. Training should be up to the person. I have no issue with States requiring training to get a CHL... In fact, you are ignoring that most States require training to get a CHL. You really think gun bans on a campus works? I know you will not bother with facts.... But I'll present them anyway. The top three (by body count) school shootings are: 1. VT- 32 2. UT- 16 3. Columbine- 13 In two of those case, guns were not allowed on campus. That did not seem to stop the shooters. In the VT case: * they had strict gun laws in place (one every 30 days) that proved useless * the shooter was already (By law) not allowed to own guns, but reporting failed. * he committed suicide after an armed resistance. In the UT case: * CIVILIANS did help: "once Whitman began facing return fire from the authorities and armed civilians who had brought out their personal firearms to assist police, he used the waterspouts on each side of the tower as gun ports, allowing him to continue shooting largely protected from the gunfire below but also greatly limiting his range of targets. Ramiro Martinez, an officer who participated in stopping Whitman's rampage, later stated that the civilian shooters should be credited as they made it difficult for him to take careful aim. * Austin Police Department (APD) Officers Ramiro Martinez, Houston McCoy and Jerry Day, plus civilian Allen Crum, were the first to reach the tower's observation deck In the Columbine case: * they were not old enough to buy weapons. * they had constructed bombs * they committed suicide after armed resistance. Heck you can look at each school shooting and see many cases of hero's trying to save lives... Unfortunately, the current situation means they are unarmed facing an armed opponent. With your military training you should admit that an armed man will kill and unarmed man with monotonous regularity.

Williams later defended his choice saying: "I did not sign away my right to get the best possible health care for myself when I entered politics" He could have had the procedure done at home, he made a choice to travel to a place that he thought would be better. "a very specialized piece of surgery somebody who's doing this three or four times a day, five, six days a week." -- DW It is exactly a comment on HC in Canada. He made a choice to go somewhere else and had the money to be able to do it.... Not everyone has the money to make that choice.

No, but you did at least try. It is compensation earned by working FOR the Govt... Of course the employer is responsible and would run it. So it is only logical that the Govt would run a compensation program for its employees No, but the military, the police and NASA are socialist programs. So I guess you think that the compensation the police get when they retire is socialist? No, it is compensation for work performed.

I am not surprised some like him... But that does not mean his rhetoric is factual.

But you have CONSISTENTLY avoided what standards you would like to see put into place. And the CURRENT laws state that a person who is mentally unstable is not allowed to own a weapon. What EXACTLY would you want to require as a screening? And would YOU be willing to go through the EXACT same process to get and keep your pilots license? They were not allowed, but criminals often break laws. Maybe you could answer his questions instead of personal attacks? Hey Doc... How many mass shootings happen at gun stores compared to places guns are not allowed? It is already illegal, and WAS already illegal when Cho bought his guns for people with a history of mental problems to own a gun.... Yet the State screwed up. Maybe you could answer the questions instead of making personal attacks and tap dancing around?

Did Biden and McCain SEND their sons, or did their sons enlist in our *volunteer* military? Or are you suggesting bringing back the draft? Like it or not, not everyone WANTS to serve and those that do not currently are not forced to do so. I happen to like it that way, you may not.

And I am waiting to see your proposed training requirements for the right to vote and for free speech. All are rights, all are huge responsibilities.... So where is your demands for training for speech and voting?

Clearly you and I do... Otherwise you would not have tried to prove me wrong. Prove it.

You ignored this part "An example of him being an ass:"

I think it might have to do with the connection of cancer and smoking. Right now if you asked people on the street what is the worst thing that smoking will do to you... they will say cancer. Ask a drinker and they will have a hard time coming up with a single answer, and for many drunk driving is something that happens to "the other guy". Perception is that smoking can give you cancer, but drinking is not dangerous.

His tactics I do find annoying. But it is comments like this that make me think he is a moron http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JO9PqfGUFZE An example of him being an ass: "You are not paying anything in that case because you are dead" And example of him being a moron: "How much this adds to our debt" .... Uh, not taxing does not ADD to the debt. It may not reduce it, but it does not add to it. This is a basic accounting concept.