DaVinci

So I guess you would support GPS trackers on every vehicle as well? Think about the benefit the cops would have on not only violent crime, but also theft. 12/22/01 18:35 Car started - reporting enabled for ident 755456 12/22/01 18:35 Ident 755456 Location 34.0526,-118.2462 12/22/01 18:35 Ident 755456 Car stopped 12/22/01 18:35 Ident 755456 Door opened 12/22/01 18:36 Ident 755456 Door closed 12/22/01 18:38 Ident 755456 Location 34.0586,-118.2446 12/22/01 18:39 Ident 755456 Door opened/car started 12/22/01 18:40 Ident 755456 Location 34.0742,-118.2588 12/22/01 18:41 Ident 755456 Location 34.0742,-118.2588 12/22/01 18:42 Ident 755456 Car stopped/door opened/closed 12/22/01 18:43 Ident 755456 Location 34.0742,-118.2588 Think about how easy it would be for police if they had a GPS tag on everyones car!!!!! They could just look at who was in the area, and then use the GPS to find and question them. Since you want to reduce crime.... You support GPS tracking for every car then right?

I prefer military since that is the real reason for the 2nd... But the police angle is not bad.

You clearly are. You tried to claim something was a loophole, when it is clearly not a loophole. Well then I guess you would be fine with not allowing cars over 100HP to be driven on the road.... You could still get a permit and trailer them to a track if you like.

Nonsense... I guess you have never heard of an ultralight airplane? Maybe you should read title 14: Aeronautics and Space, Part 103 - Ultralight Vehicles. Plus, it is perfectly legal for me to own any type of plane. Further, if you want to SHOOT your gun legally in the US, there are plenty of additional regulations. But you want them just to OWN a gun. Go fish.

Firearm owners have more regulations and restrictions than either pilots or drivers.... And firearms are in the Constitution, cars and planes are not. Get out from your own rock.

Wow, way to bob and weave..... Shame you just are unable to be honest and answer a question honestly.

Clearly..... You are unable to distinguish between earned compensation (Military vets and the VA. They earned the right based on service, not unlike how my company pays my HC costs) and giving away the store. The best part is you COULD provide HC to your employees (just like the VA provides HC to vets) but you just choose not to to make your wallet fatter.

Gun Owners Protection Act of 1986 cleared this issues up. You are allowed to transit THROUGH any STATE as long as it is not your destination. This includes overnight stops. The guns need to be "secured" and unloaded unless the State says something different.

No he wants OTHERS to pay for his employees HC. While HE only pays for HIS and refuses to provide it for them to make more money.

Get a special license, pass a background check, get insurance, trailer it locked up to the track. You could still have them, we just want "reasonable" restrictions to prevent you from speeding down the road and taking out a buss load of orphans trying to get down to the soup kitchen. You mean this one? I think that if a parent wants to take care of their child, they know better than some un-named person. Next you are going to suggest that kids only wear brand "X" shoes. I think parents have a responsibility to their kids. If they do not live up to that responsibility.... We already have laws to handle that situation. Why pass ANOTHER law when some parents will just ignore the first one?

How about you just answer the question I asked? You don't see pointing out how one side got up in arms about a target, yet then makes comments about "getting bloody" as fair?

Bullshit. You just want it to be paid in TAXES instead of out of a paycheck. It is clear you want others to pay for the things you want. You clearly COULD pay for HC for your office staff... But you choose NOT TO and would rather make guys like me pay for it so you can protect your wallet.

No, the discussion is removing RIGHTS in the Constitution and how you are fine with that, but not fine with your toys being legislated. You really should be able to do better than that.

England's system runs in the red France's has been in the red for over 20 years. In Canada people SUED to be allowed to have PRIVATE HC. Newfoundland's Premier Danny Williams went to FL to have heart surgery..... None of your data is actually supporting your position.

"Everyone" does not want the "people" to pay for HC. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law 53% Favor Repeal of Health Care Law 53% is > half. Anyway, it is not "Everyone". But even for those who voiced their support for the legislation, the President's plan is less than ideal. Only 36 percent of all poll participants thought the plan was a "good idea". 36% is ALSO not "Everyone"...... And when you say "Everyone" you seem to try to make people think that is more than half.... Which is not even true.

Yes, people that have been FOUND GUILTY in a TRIAL, or committed. I guess you would support tighter regulations on airplanes and toy rocket engines? They are not even covered in the Constitution. Try harder next time.

Hey Mods... Isn't that a personal attack????

No, limiting a car to 100HP would make passing on a two lane road much more difficult that having 400HP. So you are missing again. I can't help but think this is your your attempt to dodge the point. Why would you NOT support banning cars with over 100HP??? Why would you NOT support banning cars that go over 75???? Not agreeing does not make it a loophole like you claimed.

Nice try, but we are not discussing ME. We are discussing people who DO believe in a God and ACT on that belief. I do, you don't see me excusing those people based on the reason they did the act... So another swing and a miss. Maybe YOU can't. But I can clearly blame a preacher that tells his followers to kill Bob based on something he claims God said. If it were not for the belief in a God... the person would not have committed the crime. You can't blame the gun.... No more that you can blame a pencil for writing a bad paper. But you seem to want to blame spoons for people being fat, pencils for misspellings, cars for drunk driving.... Etc. I blame the person for their actions, not the object.... You want to blame the object.

I see, you cant debate my arguments, so you go after me. Typical. But this is not some debate on what is the best cutaway method and my experience should be taken into consideration ... So your argument just shows the weakness in your position..... and your frustration with being unable to discuss the TOPIC. As soon as YOU do the same.... I have been very clear. A Zygote, Embryo, and Fetus are CYCLES of the HUMAN life. You just choose to try and debate some fungus.

And now the CBO agrees with that number. Remember, that is just tax burden, it does NOT include anything you pay for the HC you receive. Still better than just throwing around large numbers that do not mean anything to the average person. I also think we should have to have a balanced budget.

Now, why would you not support that? Especially since: Driving slower would help prevent the #1 leading cause of deaths of children 1-4.... think of the children!!!!

So being required to 'blow start' your car is not an impact to you? Not being able to pass on a two lane road would not impact you? Cool, so you support: * Banning cars with over 100hp * Banning cars that go over 75MPH * Requiring all cars to be equipped with an alcohol interlock No loophole. The law allowed the judge to choose to treat him like an adult or a minor. He choose to handle him like a minor.

Methodology is the major issue between the numbers. One takes into account things like mandatory gun locks being provided, the requirement of an FFL to point out the "youth firearm safety notice"... Things that do not have any impact on crime and others only looking at things like prohibitions to carry or own. IMO the last good gun law was the Gun Control Act of 1968. The following list of prohibited persons[5] are ineligible to own firearms under the Gun Control Act of 1968.[6] * Those convicted of felonies and certain misdemeanors * Fugitives from justice * Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs * Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution and currently containing a dangerous mental illness. * Non-US citizens, unless permanently immigrating into the U.S. or in possession of a hunting license legally issued in the U.S. * Illegal Aliens * Those who have renounced U.S. citizenship * Those persons dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces * Minors defined as under the age of eighteen for long guns and handguns, with the exception of Vermont, eligible at age sixteen. * Persons subject to a restraining order * Persons under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year are ineligible to receive, transport, or ship any firearm or ammunition Those who already own firearms would normally be required to relinquish them upon conviction This was added later * Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (an addition) Now, what additional laws should be added to that? Remember any 'bad' thing you can do with a gun is already illegal.

Really???? One is a REASON for the ACTION, one is a METHOD. Besides, I'd bet much more were killed with swords.... you for banning swords over that? You need to read twice, comment once. "I have no issue with a belief in a higher power... Just acting like a jackass because of it." Because your reply makes zero sense.