beowulf

You are obviously disingenuous with your responses. I would think you would have smarter responses considering your education. But seems all you can do is display your obvious bias against gun owners. If you have any real suggestions then put them out there.

"Limited" "no". No kidding! Could you be a little more condescending! What I got from that study is that the more strict the gun control laws are the less effective they are. People will only comply up to a certain point.

This study was from Austria. Gun control has limited effectiveness. I would think that much is obvious.

It was the least biased study I could find. It's not perfect but then again nothing is.

It's amazing that you came away with that conclusion. He was pointing out what happens regarding gun control. Are you saying this time it will be different??

Just went to my first NHL game last night. Blackhawks at Stars Loved it. I will definitely go again.

http://reason.com/archives/2012/12/22/gun-restrictions-have-always-bred-defian

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:8YcnOvhZd9IJ:www.wfsa.net/pdf/Csaszar.pdf+Gun+Control+and+the+Reduction+of+the+Number+of+Arms+site:http://www.wfsa.net&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESh2XfsyyBc0U1enNhC7UYewNSuDmwu_8RGrawm4yIK-AKUeoVuCILsr5WHMgMHB37hgXdU28v265kt1nNMlK8keRCJ5FoX493wu3Vr0FysObgmpCWtWLSSrNWIxBouGWL-JHKfy&sig=AHIEtbRkKmSp_mcfGgEfkShrSojUyKcYGA

I don't know the answer to that, but if I had to guess, it's probably due to the logistics of building the tunnels. From what I was told the funding has been secured and they are now in the planning and building phase with the Austin tunnel as the first one and Dallas second on the list of locations. The said what the order was for the next four but I don't remember it. Next four are Dallas, Chicago, New York and Houston. Not in that order. All was really paying attention to was the new tunnel that is supposed to be built in Dallas.

Now that was funny

There are wars worth fighting for, but that isn't the issue here. I am saying that the Civil War was fought by the North Not primarily for the abolishment of slavery. I seriously doubt that many of the northern states cared at all about slavery or blacks. The northern blacks were often treated much worse then southern blacks because they were often seen as competing with whites for jobs. The issue is trying to understand history and I think the common historical view of the Civil War has a lot of flaws and doesn't fit the facts.

I was being very conservative with the body count.

The Latin Kings were originally a Chicago gang. I remember them from when I was a kid living in the Chicagoland area. It's a very big gang and very well organized.

That's a meaningless distinction. The Confederate states have long been destroyed and nothing in his writings makes me think he wants it back. Um, I didn't invent the term, and I am hardly the first the use it as DiLorenzo's descriptor. Google the search ("thomas dilorenzo" + "neo-confederate") and you'll get over 2,700 hits. Read them at your leisure. Here you go: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22thomas+dilorenzo%22+%22neo-confederate%22&gbv=2&oq=%22thomas+dilorenzo%22+%22neo-confederate%22&gs_l=heirloom-hp.3..0i30.1711.14377.0.14719.36.36.0.0.0.0.324.2970.28j6j0j2.36.0...0.0...1c.1.g_iFWwYYhaw What I was trying to say was "So What". It doesn't mean anything. Of course it does: it reflects his bias as an extreme partisan on the issue, and not at all an objective analyst. Read his books and check his sources. He does a great job in citing his sources so it's not very hard. His books regarding Lincoln are not that biased.

If my life was threatened I would defend my self as best as possible. But since this happened in a school that would have to be with out a gun. But if I were allowed to carry concealed on campus what I would have done would very much depend on the situation. There is no one size fits all response. Drawing and firing my weapon is a last ditch resort to stay alive and defend myself and others around me. And yes I do have my CHL.

That's a meaningless distinction. The Confederate states have long been destroyed and nothing in his writings makes me think he wants it back. Um, I didn't invent the term, and I am hardly the first the use it as DiLorenzo's descriptor. Google the search ("thomas dilorenzo" + "neo-confederate") and you'll get over 2,700 hits. Read them at your leisure. Here you go: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22thomas+dilorenzo%22+%22neo-confederate%22&gbv=2&oq=%22thomas+dilorenzo%22+%22neo-confederate%22&gs_l=heirloom-hp.3..0i30.1711.14377.0.14719.36.36.0.0.0.0.324.2970.28j6j0j2.36.0...0.0...1c.1.g_iFWwYYhaw What I was trying to say was "So What". It doesn't mean anything.

If you research it more the majority sentiment toward blacks and slavery in the North was not for abolition. I just find it historically interesting. I don't buy the mainstream historian version of Lincoln being the savior of the blacks.

Naming Lincoln as our 'worst President' shows only that you haven't researched the history and doings of all the OTHER Presidents. If you are judging Lincoln strictly because he was minding the store when the Civil War began, well...that conflict was building up for at least a decade beforehand. Lincoln did the right thing by trying to hold the Union together, and our country as it exists today is a direct result of that effort. Not only did the war free the slaves, ending a nearly 250-year ugly history of kidnapping, slave trading, and abuse, but it finally brought us together as a nation. It began the process of civil rights, and enabled us better security because we were still one country from coast to coast. Your comment contains so many profound ramifications that it is difficult to address. Some good things happened later as a result of the War Between The States (preferred Southern name for it) but the war itself was a terrible thing, of course. It still affects us today I think, especially politically. I wouldn't worry about any repeal or severe restrictions on the Second Amendment. That would be worse than when the Feds passed Prohibition. There are between 250 million and up to a BILLION privately-held weapons in America, and that doesn't count anything with the military or in sporting goods stores. What people are saying is that because there are tens of thousands of gun deaths in the US, year in, year out, that sensible rules need to be in place. I'm in favor of banning hi-cap magazines, military-style assault weapons, sure. But I'm MORE in favor of making people who want to own a gun pass a few checks first. And be trained in their use. Like cars, guns can kill if you don't know how to (drive) use them. You seem to assume that the war was the only way to abolish slavery. I don't think this is true. Lincoln was more then just "minding the store" regarding the Civil War. Keeping the Union together at the cost of 600,000 casualties on both sides was not worth it. Would things be better with out that? I don't know, but there would be a lot fewer dead people. I don't think it really contributed that much to Civil Rights. Blacks weren't treated very well before the Civil War or after in both the North and the South.

That's a meaningless distinction. The Confederate states have long been destroyed and nothing in his writings makes me think he wants it back.

I have seen nothing in his writings or speeches to support him being a white supremacist or a fascist. I would not consider him a "neo-conservative". Whatever that means. As for pro-secessionist, that's kind of a non issue. He does a good job of citing his sources in his writings regarding Lincoln. I find his arguments much better then the mainstream Lincoln historians. I find it very unlikely that mid 1800's Northern states people really cared that much about abolition of slavery. Those that did care were just a small minority and Lincoln was clearly not one of them. I just don't see a good argument for slavery being the primary reason for the Civil War.

IN TEXAS where this happened it's not legal to carry concealed on campus.

Oh, seems contrary to the common wisdom around here that concealed weapons stop crime. Another straw man argument. Currently it's illegal to carry concealed on college campuses.

I was born and raised in Illinois. Although I don't have a problem with Mexico that you seem to have. My Dad is from Mexico.

What makes you think I have any justification for any war?

Yeah, I didn't address that part. So silly, it's the old plastic gun bullshit that people used on Glocks.