birdlike

"Murder" is a term defined by a given society. Our society does not include execution after a trial as "murder." So your use of the term is inappropriate. Not only that, but it is not "state sponsored" because it is a JURY of CITIZENS who make the decision of guilt, and usually who recommend the sentence. And even if it were the decision of a "state" body, don't we elect them to represent us? So if it's a decision of a state body, it's still "the people" deciding. If a death sentence is "state sponsored," then so is the decision to imprison a convict for life. Why are you ok with "the state" making SO MANY decisions that bind our daily lives, but not how to ultimately punish a murderer and protect society from him? It's punishment. But based on your statement above, I have to conclude that your favoring the "fate worse than death" of life imprisonment is, itself, VENGEANCE. You clearly, based on your own statement, favor it because it's horrible for the condemned to endure it. You don't call that vengeance? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

The system kills OBVIOUSLY innocent people? Oh, that is SUCH BULLSHIT! ONE reason people oppose capital punishment is the potential to execute an innocent. Did you forget that plenty of bleeding hearts cite the, "It makes us as bad as the murderers" line of shit? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

We can show that some people have murdered, gone to prison, been released by a liberal system that for some reason does not keep people who have murdered stay in prison until they die one way or another, and then murdered again. Executing them DEFENDS the public from these monsters; and I'm sure that some judges, prosecutors, jurors and executioners feel that they are DEFENDING, as well. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

I heard it on the radio a short time ago. They mentioned that Biden had survived two brain aneurysms. My first thought was I guess that having a candidate with troubles like that will easily be used to cancel attacks on McCain that he's too old, and risks being infirmed. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Oh, um, I thought you said "adios". Not true to your word, then? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Get in line! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

I haven't met the anti-gunner yet who doesn't react like you just did when faced with logic and facts he can't counter. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Child torturer/murderer on trial This piece of shit-covered pig penis is on videotape doing his crimes. There is NO QUESTION WE HAVE THE GUILTY ONE. Explain to me why this despicable piece of filth deserves to take a single breath more. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

All the space got bought up by those morons at the Brady Center "warning" tourists that Florida allows people to use self defense. Imagine, billboards were thought necessary to warn people that if they commit a crime against someone in Florida, that someone may legally resist them and won't be punished for using deadly force! I guess the Brady-ites are worried about the criminal element's safety, as usual. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Jumping the Lodestar I had never been aware of this tragedy, and it strikes my heart. It's that much worse to have to perish never having been able to exit. BSBD... Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Maybe his ideas on health care, energy, taxes, government waste, foreign policy, education, veterans, immigration, civil rights, etc. Gee, let's see... - He wants everyone to have health care - He wants us to have abundant energy - He wants people to have to pay as little as possible in taxes - He opposes government waste - He wants us to have peace with the other nations of the world - He wants everyone to get a quality education - He thinks we should take good care of our veterans - He thinks we should be able to enforce our immigration laws - He thinks everyone is entitled to protection of their civil rights WOW, how DIFFERENT his beliefs are from what every OTHER politician avows to stand for! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

1) Everyone knows, including you, that the reason "H" is used is to imply an association with Islam. It plays with the Islamophobia propagation. Using "H" or "BHO" or "Hussein" during the political discussions is this season's version of the "Iraq" and "al Qaeda" and "9/11" juxtaposition. It's the guy's fucking name, and you are acting like using it is off-limits because it's pandering to islamaphobia. Sorry, using the guy's actual fucking name is not some kind of unfair swipe at him. If he doesn't like what people think when they think of his actual name, the fucker should CHANGE IT!! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

What am I missing? Is there a concealed insult in "BH Obama"? Honestly askin', here... I am "guessing" it is the middle name thingy. Guess I should have posted BHO. But the "H" should be left out. So, using "W" must have been an insult too? That's what I was guessing, too. Evidently even when those who dislike Obama use his INITIAL, we're still harping on the whole "Hussein" thing. Face it, folks, Americans rightly don't want a president with that kind of name. Anyone who tells you otherwise obviously thinks you're a moron. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

I'd bet my bottom dollar on Hillary. Whomever wins either way we're still fucked. Break out the popcorn. I'm moving to Mexico Wayyyyyy south on a fuckin sailboat. Many guns. Or Canada. Ice fishin tho. You didn't, by any chance, "shoot your woman down, shoot her down to the ground," did you? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Of course it would. You'd be taking criminals out of circulation and those of us who have our guns for lawful, moral uses would not have any problem. Unless you're talking about malum prohibitum bullshit "crimes" like having a carry license but carrying into a place where the law defines you as a "criminal" just because you crossed over an imaginary border. Like if a Vermonter drove into Assachusetts, got pulled over for speeding, and they found a gun on him. Oooooh, big criminal, gotta "fry his brain!" Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Don't let the facts get in the way of your rant. The number of overall offences involving firearms fell by 13% in 2006/07 compared to the previous year. Firearms were involved in 566 serious or fatal injuries in 2006/07, compared to 645 the previous year - a drop of 12%. The number of armed robberies involving guns dropped by 3% There were 13% fewer serious and fatal injuries related to gun crimes in 2006/07. The number of reported crimes involving imitation guns dropped by 15% in 2006/07. The number of reported crimes involving air guns dropped by 15% in 2006/07 over 2005/06. Source: UK Home Office Fine. Maybe you can answer the question, "WHY are there ANY gun crimes in a country that has quite nearly BANNED ALL GUN POSSESSION?" Your stats cite 2006/2007 changes (alleged declines). I wonder why you focus on that year? Could it be because in previous years that occurred after Britain's gun ban went into effect in 1997, gun crime hit heights never seen in Britain before? It seems strange that for a number of years after a gun ban gun crime became more prevalent than it ever had been before tight controls on legal ownership... And here's more fodder for the "whose stats are telling the truth?" war. It helps make my point that your stats selectively focus on a decrease in 2007 that followed huge INCREASES in the post-ban years that preceded 2007: Gun crime soars 35% "Gun crime has risen by 35% in a year, new Home Office figures show. There were 9,974 incidents involving firearms in the 12 months to April 2002 - a rise from 7,362 over the previous year. RECORDED CRIME RISES Overall crime: 9.3% Gun crime: 35% Robbery: 14.5% Domestic burglary: 7.9% Drug offences: 12.3% Sexual offences: 18.2% Source: Home Office That represents an average of 27 offences involving firearms every day in England and Wales, with guns fired in nearly a quarter of cases. Overall crime in the year to September was up 9.3%, with domestic burglary up 7.9%, drugs offences up 12.3% and sex offences up 18.2%." Your cited page includes this statement by the Home Office: "Contrary to public perception, the overall level of gun crime in England and Wales is very low – less than 0.5% of all crime recorded by the police." Gee, what a way to skew perceptions. "0.5% of all crime recorded by the police," huh? I wonder what that figure would be in the U.S. Haven't seen a stat on it. But let's think about it: "all crime recorded by the police" includes petty shoplifting, corporate embezzlement, prostitution, drug possession, jaywalking, unarmed assault and battery... ad nauseum. Of course gun crime is going to represent a very small percentage of all crimes recorded by the police. There are LOADS of other crimes people commit very frequently that never involve guns. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Yeah... right. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Hey, McCain has so many homes he can't even count them. Maybe he could offer some housing to indigents. I can't believe you would stoop to using the "iN" word! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

In Kenya, huh? Yeah, I'll bet there are just loads of untapped opportunities lying around Kenya. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Do you live in a place where it would be illegal, and get you into trouble, to have defended yourself with a gun against such a dog, were you to do so? Only if you live in a place like MA, CA, or IL where you would have to jeopardize your freedom just to have the means to defend against an attack would I excuse the failure to obtain such means. You want to benefit from the sound of a gunfire without having to fire a gun? I guess you could always call a cop when a dog attacks you, and when he gets there with his gun, he'll fire it. Mission accomplished. (Of course, his shot will be fired at the dog...) Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

When gun owners do this kind of post, we are chastised for using NRA-supported studies to bolster pro-gun positions, and the "findings" are immediately cast into doubt. Why would this be any more valid about dogs? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Amen, brudder!

It would be easier and less time-consuming for you to just give us the final list of things that aren't banned in the UK. Just lookin' out for ya. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

I want to ask you, have you ever given thought to exactly what you would do if one of these dogs decided to not stop a foot from you, but instead leapt at your throat and would not break off his attack no matter how hard you tried to pummel it? I mean, what I read from your post is that you stand there and hope that he dog won't be a true mauler. That is no kind of plan. You went on to say that you don't want to hurt a dog with pepper spray -- so I assume that for you, shooting an attacking dog would be out of the question. I don't mean to condescend, I mean this simply as an objective observation: you appear to be someone who has pre-decided that a dog's life is worth more to you than yours is. I can think of no ontehr way to look at it when you have actually been charged by mean dogs and all you did was stand there and fortunately they finally stopped, rather than beginning the process of taking large, ragged red chunks out of you. You've recognized that irresponsible people exist who will let their dogs run loose. You have even been accosted. And yet, what is your plan for the next time? Hope all over again that this is another dog that won't carry out the mauling? I encourage you to, as you contemplate this, do your best to imagine what it must feel like to die by having a dog tear your flesh off of you piece by piece. Imagine thinking, panicked, "Holy shit, that's a piece of my arm in his mouth! Those are three of my fucking FINGERS!! They say that there are none so blind as those who will not see. In this case, I think that applies. Not to put too fine a point on it, but you have already been quasi-attacked by loose dogs, and the experiences still have not taught you what they should have. I wish you luck dealing with your neighborhood dog situation, but you should neither have to remain in your house because of the dogs running wild nor should you have to venture out and HOPE no dogs attack you. The difference is preparedness, and a willingness to defend yourself. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

So, you don't see the potential utility of a gun when a vicious dog charges at you on the street, huh? You also don't see that maybe the guy was actually trying to avoid having to fire a lethal shot, so he gave the "scare" shot a try? (Although what the hell he was doing having a gun loaded with a BLANK I'll never figure out. EVER. ) I find it amazing, truly amazing, that you are implying that saving oneself from death by dog mauling is a bad argument for gun ownership. I suppose the guy should have, um, gotten on his cellular phone and called the police, right? Asked the dog to hold off for a few minutes until the cops got there to settle the dispute? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire