georgerussia

Any kind of material? Everywhere? Should drug makers exercise their free speech rights and print anything on their drug labels, or do you support government takeover which requires FDA approval of content of such labels? Could you please point out the legal framework which supports this statement, where it would say that if I consider some law to be unconstitutional, I have no duty to obey it, and cannot be penalized for that? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Indeed. For those who want to learn I'd suggest to read at least Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" before judging. It is memoir style (not strictly a historic book supported by research), but it is easy to read and explains a lot of things which may be difficult to understand for those who didn't live in this culture. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Same as above. Computing an average crime rate in Texas plus North Dakota (or Maine plus California) makes exactly the same sense as calculating average income using your and Bill Gates' income. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Then you will be shocked by the reality. This has nothing to do with questions, but everything with the person who asked. After your "You are a sniveling little lying coward" private message (and blocking the replies after you sent it - very honorable!) I do not consider you a worthy opponent to have a civilized discussion with. This is exactly the reason you're not getting answers to your "questions", which as usual are filled with straw man and speculations. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Read the whole discussion, and stop playing your assumption games. Just like that. How do you know what I am talking about? Speak for yourself. You must be kidding. Last time I was in small claims court two weeks ago the courtroom was full of criminals. And nobody controlled them besides a single check at the entrance. I see no reasons for that. You missed the whole point, as usual. They are not relevant. Even if they were, the way you selected it is completely crazy. Brady top 10 states have scores ranged from 79 to 26(!!!) - a whooping difference of 53 points. Putting them into the same basket for statistics purposes is completely insane - pretty much the same way as saying that I and Bill Gates have 60B together, which means each of us should roughly have 30B. Your bottom states, however, range from 2 to 6 and only differs by 4 points (yes, it is FOUR). That's exactly the way to abuse statistics to feet into your agenda. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Maybe, but it indeed is illegal to commit copyright violations as you do by taking copyrighted pictures, modifying them and re-releasing them as your own work without any references or credits. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

"To get a handgun" doesn't mean "to get a concealed carry permit". Read carefully, and do not assume anything. A police officer is an authority first, and only then someone with a gun. Actually he might not even carry a gun. No, mandatory search at the University entrance is much better to prevent guns inside. As I said, I haven't heard a lot of shooting sprees happening inside courthouses, while the concentration of CRIMINALS (who as you say commit crimes) is significantly higher there. And again you didn't read what we were talking about, or ignored it to bring something completely irrelevant. We were discussing D. Kopel's statement that "concealed carry states have much lower violent crime rates than other states". This statement has been proven false using exactly the FBI UCR stats. Brady scorecard is completely irrelevant here. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

This doesn't change what I said. By law only the Supreme Court has the authority to decide whether the law is repugnant to the Constitution or not. If you think it is, follow the procedure to have it struck down as everyone else is doing. Failure to follow this procedure and just ignoring the law because you think it's repugnant will make you a criminal. You can ask those who refused to pay income tax because they thought the law was unconstitutional. I bet they have some valuable experience to share. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Interesting. This is something I have never heard from anyone who is pro gun restrictions. Indeed they do not like the laws, but they work through the system to change the laws using the legitimate tactics. It is typically gun owners writing things like "you will only get my guns after I'm shot dead", basically saying that they consider it fine to disobey the laws they don't like, and they are going to decide for themselves which laws to obey. So much for "law-abiding gun owners" * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Translation: the politicians found one more way to waste tax money. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Thank you for a free circus. Your last four posts were extremely amusing (if they weren't that stupid, but even stupidity can be amusing). Let me know when you at last have something worth to say. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Man accused of fatally shooting ex's new boyfriend Yet another example of how those Texans use guns to protect themselves from criminal exes who are illegally getting a new (and probably non-redneck) boyfriend! * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

This only might have happened in your NRA-sponsored dreams. In reality he screwed up dramatically several times, and each time reverted to insults being able to provide the evidence for his empty groundless claims. Which is very typical behavior from any kind of zealots - both gun and religious. Obviously you prefer not to see it - as your post #193 clearly shows. No surprise. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

You probably didn't see that JohnRich replied to the post when me and aresye discussed the prevention of school/military base shooting (there were even examples of "VA-Tech, Fort Hood, Columbine, etc"). It's no surprise JohnRich reply didn't address the actual discussion but just a phrase ripped out of context (but he always does that, no surprise). You, however, usually were more careful when answering. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Good! While couple of hours work is not that big deal, if you consider it "throwing money down the toilet", that means it's likely a good investment. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

And yet another strawman post. Why don't I see you protesting against "unreasonable" searches in airports and courthouses? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I already did. My $200 donation to Brady (the one made in your name) was a result of that. The last thing I care about is my credibility in the eyes of some NRA zealots, who think it's perfectly fine to have shooting sprees and have children killed as long as they can keep their loved guns. And the value of your opinion about me for me is negative - the more you say I'm wrong, the more I'm sure I am doing the right thing. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

It is very interesting that you didn't consider this a PA to begin with, but considered this a PA. You are indeed very unbiased. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I firmly believe that when someone posted something to prove their position, it is their job to spend time searching Google to provide the references. As you can see, I do it myself - I didn't just tell you that "what Kopel said is incorrect and you can find it in Google". I spent extra time to find a relevant link, and copy some relevant data from it to support my point. And I expect the same in return. I went through this article. Basically this is cut-and-paste from another research (mostly Klesk), and they do not provide their own data. Makes it very useless for our purpose - pretty much the same way as you'd write your article, and cite the one you provided as reference. Unfortunately they do not provide this statistics, so it is not possible to verify this claim directly. What we can compare, however, is the robbery rate. A burglar entering an occupied home is committing a robbery, not a burglary. And the robbery rates per 100K are very similar between US and UK as we discussed very recently in another thread. According to this, in 1982 Kennesaw, GA had population of 5,000 (with 80% of white population). You still consider it a relevant example? You do think we can really compare crime rate there with, for example, Atlanta? Basically the main issue with this link is that it does not cite any 3rd party source which can be considered unbiased. It is completely based on what other pro-gun writers claimed. Now if you look on my sources, they are pretty much gun-neutral. I do not quote data from Brady or other pro-control advocates. Makes it a little different. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Why knives? He only used a sword! Do you want to strip your fellow Americans of their rights? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

No, it does matter. For example, when an opponent provides false information and does not want to admit that he does not have any sources to confirm it (despite his several claims he did), the post directed to him is not directed (or even relevant) to you unless you also provide false information. And I also consider this kind of "advice" being a PA, but I will wait the moderator's decision on that matter. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

You did it right in post #53 - you asked it as loaded question, assuming that Kallend said that tenure and union contracts are alike while this was not the case. (and then you did it again asking yet another loaded question in #62) And you got the obvious comment - "You could always try reading what is written, instead of what you would like to be written." Why should he? He didn't say they are or they aren't. And you didn't prove your point. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Not exactly - I do not have problems with carefully selected concealed carry licensees (like undercover cops). However at this moment to get a handgun basically all you need is to be 21, be able to write and have no major troubles with the law - this "criteria" matches virtually 90% of population and is pretty much not a restriction at all. Now regarding concealed holders and crime prevention - statements like "concealed carry holders would reduce crime rate because criminals wouldn't know who is carrying" sound logical until you look deeper into the issue. The obvious issue with it is that to be a working solution, you would have to have a significant number of people around carrying. However the gun owners are only 25-30% of population, so chance that a specific teacher has a gun even at home is around 27%. And even Kopel admitted that only few are actually getting concealed carry permit in states where it's not that difficult to get. Then a chance for a specific teacher to a) own a gun, b) have a permit to carry and c) be carrying it with him is not significant enough to prevent anything. What would work is mandatory search. Those who keep telling us that it is criminals which commit violent crimes, and tools don't matter somehow ignore the courts. Inside any court the concentration of criminals is typically much higher than anywhere else (except a jail), and still the number of violent crimes committed there seems to be quite low (and I do not remember any shooting sprees happening past the security check). Which is a surprise, because as we were told, that's criminals who commit crimes, and criminals obviously didn't change just because they were searched - it's removal of a tool which made it difficult/impossible to commit a crime. Airport sterile areas seems to be pretty much crime-free too. Again, it's pretty clear that areas, cities or countries where guns are restricted and this restriction is actually enforced have lower gun crime. I need an article which provides references so I can verify them on my own. Otherwise it would be possible to quote something like that: States which have passed concealed-carry laws have seen their murder rate fall by 8.5 percent, rapes by 5 percent, aggravated assaults by 7 percent and robbery by 3 percent. Which immediately makes me wonder how much the same crime rate fell in other states which did not pass concealed-carry laws? It may be the case of NRA-style claims like "crime rates significantly dropped in DC after lifting the gun ban" - without even mentioning that crime rate dropped pretty much nationwide, and therefore has nothing to do with gun ban. They also conveniently didn't provide years, so it is impossible to get this information from a 3rd party source like FBI statistics to even confirm that what they said is true. I'd politely remind that Kopel talks about "concealed carry states have much lower violent crime rates than other states". Sorry, but 533 versus 516 is not "much lower" - it is 5% difference. Having a population for the whole state twice of Washington, DC it is no surprise. But this is cherry-picking. Indeed you can mention Iowa, NH, ND and so, which have pretty low violent crime rate. However you cannot get FL, TX, NV, MD, LA and AZ out of equation (and I think you'd agree that it makes more sense comparing CA with TX/NV rather than with NH, and it makes more sense to compare NY with FL and not with Maine). Therefore it completely invalidates Kopel's statement that concealed carry states have much lower violent crime rates than other states. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

If you said that "tenure provides similar job protection comparing to a typical union contracts", this would be correct. Note that union contract may still provide more protection which tenure does not. But when you say "tenure is alike (provides all similar terms, not just job protection) with union contracts", this goes too far. Since some of you tend to misquote opponents and after a couple of posts of misquoting tend to forget that it was your interpretation and not original words, it's important to correct the mistake. It is that simple. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Do I give you advice? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *