Disarm Americans and let the President be the only one with a Gun...
...so he can shoot the Australian Prime Minister instead. ;)

Or maybe its the other way around?
...sort of like the Man who shot the Liberty Valance?
...when we know that in the movie James Stewart's gun went off first ;)

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on Jun 16^th, 2013 at 3:04pm:

Or maybe its the other way around? ...sort of like the Man who shot the Liberty Valance? ...when we know that in the movie James Stewart's gun went off first ;)

But James Stewart didn't shoot Liberty Valance.

I reckon he did.
If you watch the clip closely - you see that his gun goes off before Waynes and Lee Marvin falls away from Stewart, rather than to the side away from Wayne's shot.

Reckon the character of Wayne was just as pathetic as the Liberty Valance was evil. For only a 'pathetic' man would do himself in like he did because Stewart 'got the girl', etc, etc,

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on Jun 16^th, 2013 at 8:25pm:

I reckon he did. If you watch the clip closely - you see that his gun goes off before Waynes and Lee Marvin falls away from Stewart, rather than to the side away from Wayne's shot. Reckon the character of Wayne was just as pathetic as the Liberty Valance was evil. For only a 'pathetic' man would do himself in like he did because Stewart 'got the girl', etc, etc,

Sure his gun went off.....but he didn't hit Liberty, that's the whole point to the movie. Jimmy Stewart didn't know how to shoot straight.

Gizmo got it right. One of the main points of the movie was Jimmy Stewarts characters political career was built off of an achievement that wasn't really his. (Killing Liberty Valence) Though he didn't know it. Further more, the USA doesn't need to be disarmed. We have way to many laws and regulations about guns already. What would be good is firearms safety training programs in government schools.

Only an American would suggest schools handing out guns to kids in the name of safety.

freediver wrote on Nov 29^th, 2013 at 10:34am:

Only an American would suggest schools handing out guns to kids in the name of safety.

Who suggested that?

Jeff from Tennessee wrote on Nov 29^th, 2013 at 7:43am:

What would be good is firearms safety training programs in government schools.

If you want to drive a car without killing other folks on the road, you first need to learn about cars and how to correctly use them. Guns work the same way. Most people that are shot by accident have never been educated about guns. I was trained in gun safety when I was about 6. I started shooting at 10, and got my first rifle at 13. I have never accidently shot anything. By the way, I don't think it's a good idea to give school kids guns.

freediver wrote on Nov 29^th, 2013 at 6:18pm:

Jeff from Tennessee wrote on Nov 29th, 2013 at 7:43am: What would be good is firearms safety training programs in government schools.

Not really all that different to Australian schools having Army cadet groups though, is it?

I am not familiar with your cadet programs but in the usa our cadet programs (ROTC) have only honor guard type training where guns are concerned. Their are some explorer type programs that do weapons training but they are more law enforcement based. I was thinking more of a basic firearms safety class for the kids. More like sex ed, not boot camp.

Jeff from Tennessee wrote on Dec 1^st, 2013 at 3:41pm:

If you want to drive a car without killing other folks on the road, you first need to learn about cars and how to correctly use them. Guns work the same way. Most people that are shot by accident have never been educated about guns. I was trained in gun safety when I was about 6. I started shooting at 10, and got my first rifle at 13. I have never accidently shot anything. By the way, I don't think it's a good idea to give school kids guns.

So you think it would be a good idea to train kids in gun safety, without ever giving them a gun? Do you imagine something like sex education?

Jeff from Tennessee wrote on Dec 1^st, 2013 at 4:15pm:

I am not familiar with your cadet programs but in the usa our cadet programs (ROTC) have only honor guard type training where guns are concerned. Their are some explorer type programs that do weapons training but they are more law enforcement based. I was thinking more of a basic firearms safety class for the kids. More like sex ed, not boot camp.

Well my brother was in the Cadets in high school, and they did do range days. As I recall, there were even rifles stored in the cadet's store room in the school ( mind you, this was 30+ years ago, so it might be very different now)

[quote/]

So you think it would be a good idea to train kids in gun safety, without ever giving them a gun? Do you imagine something like sex education?[/quote]

I think training guns would work fine. If the kids want trigger time they can do that on their own time, with their family. Yes the idea is kind of like sex ed. If the kids want practice they can wait until after school.  ;)

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 1^st, 2013 at 4:27pm:

Well my brother was in the Cadets in high school, and they did do range days. As I recall, there were even rifles stored in the cadet's store room in the school ( mind you, this was 30+ years ago, so it might be very different now)

I have never heard of real rifles stored on campus at high schools etc now a days. A few years ago it was probably common but today it would be unusual thanks to all the gun control laws now a days. I remember picking up my brother from school in the early 90s and kids having their rifles and shotguns in the truck racks because it was hunting season. My how times have changed.

Why is that some are so quick to think that stealing guns from private citizens or regulating weapons is the way to go? I haven't met many crooks that obey the law. In fact, I haven't met any thugs or crooks that care what the law is. Gun control laws only hurt the law abiding.

Jeff from Tennessee wrote on Dec 1^st, 2013 at 5:08pm:

Why is that some are so quick to think that stealing guns from private citizens or regulating weapons is the way to go? I haven't met many crooks that obey the law. In fact, I haven't met any thugs or crooks that care what the law is. Gun control laws only hurt the law abiding.

Yeah, I've been trying to explain that to Jasignature for ages..He just can't seem to grasp it.

HAVE A NATIONAL MASS SHOOTING VICTIMS DAY?!!?  :-?

Jeff from Tennessee wrote on Dec 1^st, 2013 at 5:08pm:

Why is that some are so quick to think that stealing guns from private citizens or regulating weapons is the way to go? I haven't met many crooks that obey the law. In fact, I haven't met any thugs or crooks that care what the law is. Gun control laws only hurt the law abiding.

Yet - in your country 30,000 people die from being shot by guns every year -
that's 10 x as many who died from 911.

Bobby. wrote on Dec 1^st, 2013 at 5:43pm:

Jeff from Tennessee wrote on Dec 1st, 2013 at 5:08pm: Why is that some are so quick to think that stealing guns from private citizens or regulating weapons is the way to go? I haven't met many crooks that obey the law. In fact, I haven't met any thugs or crooks that care what the law is. Gun control laws only hurt the law abiding. Yet - in your country 30,000 people die from being shot by guns every year - that's 10 x as many who died from 911.

And how many die in motor vehicle accidents??

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 1^st, 2013 at 5:48pm:

Bobby. wrote on Dec 1st, 2013 at 5:43pm: Jeff from Tennessee wrote on Dec 1st, 2013 at 5:08pm: Why is that some are so quick to think that stealing guns from private citizens or regulating weapons is the way to go? I haven't met many crooks that obey the law. In fact, I haven't met any thugs or crooks that care what the law is. Gun control laws only hurt the law abiding. Yet - in your country 30,000 people die from being shot by guns every year - that's 10 x as many who died from 911. And how many die in motor vehicle accidents??

At least the criminals aren't better armed than the general population. Like here.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 1^st, 2013 at 5:48pm:

Bobby. wrote on Dec 1st, 2013 at 5:43pm: Jeff from Tennessee wrote on Dec 1st, 2013 at 5:08pm: Why is that some are so quick to think that stealing guns from private citizens or regulating weapons is the way to go? I haven't met many crooks that obey the law. In fact, I haven't met any thugs or crooks that care what the law is. Gun control laws only hurt the law abiding. Yet - in your country 30,000 people die from being shot by guns every year - that's 10 x as many who died from 911. And how many die in motor vehicle accidents??

About the same:    32,000 people


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year

Bobby. wrote on Dec 1^st, 2013 at 5:54pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 1st, 2013 at 5:48pm: Bobby. wrote on Dec 1st, 2013 at 5:43pm: Jeff from Tennessee wrote on Dec 1st, 2013 at 5:08pm: Why is that some are so quick to think that stealing guns from private citizens or regulating weapons is the way to go? I haven't met many crooks that obey the law. In fact, I haven't met any thugs or crooks that care what the law is. Gun control laws only hurt the law abiding. Yet - in your country 30,000 people die from being shot by guns every year - that's 10 x as many who died from 911. And how many die in motor vehicle accidents?? About the same:    32,000 people http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year

And that's out of a population of 300 million..

It's really only about 3.6 people per 100 thousand in the country (the shooting deaths homicides I mean)

almost made a boo-boo there

HAVE A NATIONAL MASS SHOOTING VICTIMS DAY !

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 1^st, 2013 at 5:57pm:

Bobby. wrote on Dec 1st, 2013 at 5:54pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 1st, 2013 at 5:48pm: Bobby. wrote on Dec 1st, 2013 at 5:43pm: Jeff from Tennessee wrote on Dec 1st, 2013 at 5:08pm: Why is that some are so quick to think that stealing guns from private citizens or regulating weapons is the way to go? I haven't met many crooks that obey the law. In fact, I haven't met any thugs or crooks that care what the law is. Gun control laws only hurt the law abiding. Yet - in your country 30,000 people die from being shot by guns every year - that's 10 x as many who died from 911. And how many die in motor vehicle accidents?? About the same:    32,000 people http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year And that's out of a population of 300 million..

What is your point of contention?

30,000 people die every year - that's
82 people die every day from guns in the USA -
that's more than 3 per hour.

Many are suicides & accidents but the figures to me are shocking.

Bobby. wrote on Dec 1^st, 2013 at 6:00pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 1st, 2013 at 5:57pm: Bobby. wrote on Dec 1st, 2013 at 5:54pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 1st, 2013 at 5:48pm: Bobby. wrote on Dec 1st, 2013 at 5:43pm: Jeff from Tennessee wrote on Dec 1st, 2013 at 5:08pm: Why is that some are so quick to think that stealing guns from private citizens or regulating weapons is the way to go? I haven't met many crooks that obey the law. In fact, I haven't met any thugs or crooks that care what the law is. Gun control laws only hurt the law abiding. Yet - in your country 30,000 people die from being shot by guns every year - that's 10 x as many who died from 911. And how many die in motor vehicle accidents?? About the same:    32,000 people http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year And that's out of a population of 300 million.. What is your point of contention? 30,000 people die every year - that's 82 people die every day from guns in the USA - that's more than 3 per hour. Many are suicides & accidents but the figures to me are shocking.

Yeah, and it's only 10 times our shooting death rate, and there's a lot more than 10 times the number of guns in the US, compared to Australia.

Gizmo - 10x our shooting rate?

Can you prove that?

Bobby. wrote on Dec 1^st, 2013 at 6:30pm:

Gizmo - 10x our shooting rate? Can you prove that?

Yeah
Ours was 1.06 per 100,000 firearm related deaths in 2010.
The US was 10.3 per 100,000 firearm related deaths in 2011.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Also of course there are about 89 guns per 100 people in the US (2007) and only 15 per 100 people in Australia (2007)

freediver wrote on Nov 29^th, 2013 at 6:18pm:

Jeff from Tennessee wrote on Nov 29th, 2013 at 7:43am: What would be good is firearms safety training programs in government schools.

I would imagine he meant gun schools not bloody kids schools. And I am sure you knew that FD. ::)

Jeff from Tennessee wrote on Dec 1^st, 2013 at 4:41pm:

Quote: So you think it would be a good idea to train kids in gun safety, without ever giving them a gun? Do you imagine something like sex education? I think training guns would work fine. If the kids want trigger time they can do that on their own time, with their family. Yes the idea is kind of like sex ed. If the kids want practice they can wait until after school.  ;)

You want to teach them gun safety with toy guns? How is that going to work? We are going to teach you to handle firearms safely, but we don't trust you to actually handle a real one? But next time you come across one you will know how to handle it?

How many accidental school shootings have their been lately in your country?


Jeff from Tennessee wrote on Dec 1^st, 2013 at 5:08pm:

Why is that some are so quick to think that stealing guns from private citizens or regulating weapons is the way to go? I haven't met many crooks that obey the law. In fact, I haven't met any thugs or crooks that care what the law is. Gun control laws only hurt the law abiding.

Parroting NRA propaganda eh? It may work on Americans, but not us. Plenty of "armed robberies" are carried out here with machetes, syringes, cricket bats, knives, spearguns etc. Why? Because gun control works. Criminals do not have to "care" about the law for it to work. They merely have to care about the price of a gun, and the risk of going to jail for having one illegally. It's basic economics really. Funny how the yanks throw it out the window when it matters most.

freediver wrote on Dec 1^st, 2013 at 6:58pm:

Jeff from Tennessee wrote on Dec 1st, 2013 at 4:41pm: Quote: So you think it would be a good idea to train kids in gun safety, without ever giving them a gun? Do you imagine something like sex education? I think training guns would work fine. If the kids want trigger time they can do that on their own time, with their family. Yes the idea is kind of like sex ed. If the kids want practice they can wait until after school.  ;) You want to teach them gun safety with toy guns? How is that going to work? We are going to teach you to handle firearms safely, but we don't trust you to actually handle a real one? But next time you come across one you will know how to handle it? How many accidental school shootings have their been lately in your country? Jeff from Tennessee wrote on Dec 1st, 2013 at 5:08pm: Why is that some are so quick to think that stealing guns from private citizens or regulating weapons is the way to go? I haven't met many crooks that obey the law. In fact, I haven't met any thugs or crooks that care what the law is. Gun control laws only hurt the law abiding. Parroting NRA propaganda eh? It may work on Americans, but not us. Plenty of "armed robberies" are carried out here with machetes, syringes, cricket bats, knives, spearguns etc. Why? Because gun control works. Criminals do not have to "care" about the law for it to work. They merely have to care about the price of a gun, and the risk of going to jail for having one illegally. It's basic economics really. Funny how the yanks throw it out the window when it matters most.

Well while the NRA saying might be trite and over-used, it's still fairly accurate though.

It is not accurate. It is wrong and completely misleading, and it is absurd that people can get away with being so wrong in a supposedly educated country. Gun control does have an impact on criminals. It makes guns too expensive for most of them. Of the rest, plenty end up in jail for illegal possession. This NRA bullshit relies on people being mindless drones who will parrot anything without giving it more than 10 seconds thought.

Not a shooter, eh?

Don't have any familiarity with firearms, eh?

It's a bit like riding a bike - once the skill is learned, it's easier to re-acquire.

Let's all hope you never need the skill.

It's all OK, today's society protects you from ever having to fire a shot in self-defence - right?

And it's also ensured that you lack the means anyway.

Good luck, Mahatma!

I've shot plenty of guns before. I just don't think that gives me any special insight into the gun control debate.

Do you currently own one?

Do you possess a firearms license?

If you do, then you have a vested interest in the ongoing debate about firearms ownership in this country.

Are you aware of the growing groundswell of opinion regarding gun ownership in the USA - where such rights are are 'almost' enshrined in their Constitution?

The knee-jerk reactions of politicians in response to atrocities committed by deranged individuals in no way addresses the real problems in our respective societies - that of the social alienation as a result of the supposed benefits of pandering to our progeny's every whim. Not forgetting the oft touted benefits of 'multiculturalism' and it's blind acceptance of social mores sometimes at odds with our own.

The imminent demise of the Baby Boomer generation may well see future generations regressing to eating with their hands.

Having once trained as an educator, nothing has shocked me more than seeing children sent to schools without basic toilet training, breakfast or any conception of discipline.

Even animals train their young - humanity seems to have missed a generation in that respect. Maybe that's what started the 'War on Drugs' - another 'War' that's unwinnable.

We reap what we sow.

I see. Multiculturalism is the problem. And more guns is the solution. Genius.

The Americans treat their constitution like a religion and use it as an excuse for not thinking for themselves. But the constitution can be changed. It can also be ignored, as is currently the case. It cannot however be enforced, as it currently is.

NATIONAL MASS SHOOTING VICTIMS DAY...

freediver wrote on Dec 1^st, 2013 at 9:06pm:

I see. Multiculturalism is the problem. And more guns is the solution. Genius. Do you make this sh!t up as you type - or do you actually consider what you intend to post before you do so? I never said any of that. I mentioned multiculturalism. It's resulted in numerous societal problems ever since its inception and enforcement. Agree? The Americans treat their constitution like a religion and use it as an excuse for not thinking for themselves. But the constitution can be changed. It can also be ignored, as is currently the case. It cannot however be enforced, as it currently is. Given the current status and arming of Homeland Security in the 'States, one wonders about the future of the citizens living in the 'Home of the Brave'. Do some research!

Guns don't kill people - people do. People have been designing implements to kill since we first banged rocks together.

Ban cigarettes - they possibly kill more people in today's world than guns.  8-)

Or better yet, get people to live together harmoniously - irrespective of differences.

Then we''ll have no need of guns. Or armies. Kumbuya!

NATIONAL MASS SHOOTINGS DAY, FOR THE VICTIMS

Considering there are 3 guns for every person in the US compolsoury gun education at primary school level makes sense. Wouldnt work in australia where we dont consider owning a firearm irrevocably linked to the concept of manhood but perfectly makes sense in the US.

Quote:

Guns don't kill people - people do.

Oh great, more empty headed sloganeering from the NRA. They have spent billions lowering the IQ of the gun debate by 20 points.

freediver wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2013 at 6:56pm:

Quote: Guns don't kill people - people do. Oh great, more empty headed sloganeering from the NRA. They have spent billions lowering the IQ of the gun debate by 20 points.

Look, if you want the complete banning of private firearms ownership in this country, why don't you just come out and say so?

If you support further restrictive measures enacted against the already legalised owners of firearms, why don't you just say so?

If you have a problem with the burgeoning increase in gun related crime, why aren't you willing to discuss the reasons behind it?

I'm merely advocating a common-sense approach to existing problems with regard to the legislation this country already has in place.

I just happen to feel quite comfortable with the ability to pop a rockmelon off a fencepost at 500 metres, given a weapon capable of such a feat.

It's just one of them handy things to be able to do, you know? A bit like being familiar with the use of an axe or a chainsaw - you never know when it could come in handy. 

Are you copying and pasting directly from the NRA website now?

Nice try - but no banana.

I have no idea where you got this tripe about me wanting a complete ban from, but I hope for your sake that you didn't go to the trouble of typing all that nonsense out. It looks like you found a website that gives you a string of random idiotic pro-gun slogans.

freediver wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2013 at 6:56pm:

Quote: Guns don't kill people - people do. Oh great, more empty headed sloganeering from the NRA. They have spent billions lowering the IQ of the gun debate by 20 points.

They certainly got their money's worth.

freediver wrote on Dec 1^st, 2013 at 6:58pm:

Parroting NRA propaganda eh? It may work on Americans, but not us. Plenty of "armed robberies" are carried out here with machetes, syringes, cricket bats, knives, spearguns etc. Why? Because gun control works. Criminals do not have to "care" about the law for it to work. They merely have to care about the price of a gun, and the risk of going to jail for having one illegally. It's basic economics really. Funny how the yanks throw it out the window when it matters most.

So if a thug kills, robs, or injures someone with a knife, bat, or syringe the law doesn't punish them as severely as if they used a gun? Murder is murder no matter what weapon is used. The same is true of armed robbery. What about the crimes that are stopped or prevented by armed citizens? Those events aren't nearly as popular in the news papers as the acts of violence committed by thugs.  Private citizens accounted for about 1/3 of justified homicides (by gun use) in 2011. I dislike thugs as much and probably a lot more than most people so why not make their life a little more difficult by treating them like the dangerous predators they are?  Oh yeah, by the way. I am a proud NRA member and work frequently in my county and state to educate folks about guns and crime.

Bobby. wrote on Dec 1^st, 2013 at 5:43pm:

Jeff from Tennessee wrote on Dec 1st, 2013 at 5:08pm: Why is that some are so quick to think that stealing guns from private citizens or regulating weapons is the way to go? I haven't met many crooks that obey the law. In fact, I haven't met any thugs or crooks that care what the law is. Gun control laws only hurt the law abiding. Yet - in your country 30,000 people die from being shot by guns every year - that's 10 x as many who died from 911.

bump

Jeff, what laws or policies are currently in place to prevent mentally ill people from obtaining firearms in the US?

ian wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2013 at 5:16pm:

Jeff, what laws or policies are currently in place to prevent mentally ill people from obtaining firearms in the US?

The Gun Control Act (GCA) makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms. 18 USC 922(g). Transfers of firearms to any such prohibited persons are also unlawful. 18 USC 922(d).

These categories include any person:
Under indictment or information in any court for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
who is a fugitive from justice;
who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
who is an illegal alien;
who has been discharged from the military under dishonorable conditions;
who has renounced his or her United States citizenship;
who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or
who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (enacted by the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 104-208, effective September 30, 1996). 18 USC 922(g) and (n).
The national background check as denied about 700,000 people so far, but I don't know how many of them were prosecuted for attempting to break the law. Not many from what I have heard.

BobbytheBat1, 30,000 sounds about right but the most current stats have less than 9,000 as murders. The rest were suicides, and accidents. Of the 9,000 or so murders about 1200 were thug vs thug. The USAs violent crime rates have been falling steadily for the last few decades while private firearms ownership, and the wearing of firearms have been increasing.


Also of note, in hospital deaths by medical errors are at 190,000 per year. Hospitals and sleepy doctors are much more dangerous than guns but we aren't banning them.

NaTioNAl masS shOOting vIctims day  :-?

Jeff from Tennessee wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2013 at 5:39pm:

BobbytheBat1, 30,000 sounds about right but the most current stats have less than 9,000 as murders. The rest were suicides, and accidents. Of the 9,000 or so murders about 1200 were thug vs thug. The USAs violent crime rates have been falling steadily for the last few decades while private firearms ownership, and the wearing of firearms have been increasing.

Accidents & suicides statistics are still people who died from guns.

It's the same as having ten  911 incidents every year.

Don't you find that shocking?

Terrible yes, shocking well not very. I work with law enforcement and have attended more than one suicides and even an accidental shooting. That's why I strongly advocate improved and more wide spread safety training for fire arms. As for the tortured souls that end their own life, my sympathies go to their families, but in most cases when the person decides to commit suicide, lack of a gun will not stop them. I had the unpleasant experience of doing CPR on a guy that hanged himself in his jail cell with a towel and his pants. He was charged with murder by the way. A guilty conscience is a powerful thing. That said, I still felt sorry for his family.

Jeff from Tennessee wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2013 at 6:03pm:

Terrible yes, shocking well not very. I work with law enforcement and have attended more than one suicides and even an accidental shooting. That's why I strongly advocate improved and more wide spread safety training for fire arms. As for the tortured souls that end their own life, my sympathies go to their families, but in most cases when the person decides to commit suicide, lack of a gun will not stop them. I had the unpleasant experience of doing CPR on a guy that hanged himself in his jail cell with a towel and his pants. He was charged with murder by the way. A guilty conscience is a powerful thing. That said, I still felt sorry for his family.

To say that suicidal thoughts won't be acted on with easyier access to guns is highly controversial!

Quote:

So if a thug kills, robs, or injures someone with a knife, bat, or syringe the law doesn't punish them as severely as if they used a gun?

My understanding is that they get the same punishment for the assault. If they were also in possession of an illegal firearm, they would probably get a separate additional charge for that.


Quote:

What about the crimes that are stopped or prevented by armed citizens? Those events aren't nearly as popular in the news papers as the acts of violence committed by thugs.

Actually they are quite popular here. You often read articles about junkies holding up stores with a syringe, and the store owner chases them off with a baseball bat. It's not quite the same as in the US, where innocent people end up getting shot because of a junkie with an itchy trigger finger. I am not sure why yanks think a suburban arms race is such a great idea, or why it is so inevitable that the 'bad guys' will always be ahead in that arms race unless the lawmakers let it go a few steps further (before realising maybe it isn't such a good thing after all).


Quote:

Private citizens accounted for about 1/3 of justified homicides (by gun use) in 2011.

You sound like a proud American.


Quote:

Of the 9,000 or so murders about 1200 were thug vs thug.

Do you like those odds?


Quote:

Hospitals and sleepy doctors are much more dangerous than guns but we aren't banning them.

How's that American education system working out for you?


Quote:

As for the tortured souls that end their own life, my sympathies go to their families, but in most cases when the person decides to commit suicide, lack of a gun will not stop them.

You sure about that?

Anti-gun crowd here, Jeff. No sympathy.

Of course, there is unlikely anyone here who has had the experience of crowding approx. 250 'roos into the corner of a wheat paddock and shotgunning the lot. Then heaping them up and burning them so as not to pose a health hazard.

Not a pleasant experience, to be sure - but one that was made from a purely economic point of view, all those years ago.

We did that for six days. Even though the 'roos slowed down, my uncle's wheat harvest was halved that year.

Then again, I've shot pigs that have been eating almost newborn lambs as the ewes have been prostrate in the field giving birth.

Criminals and coppers carry handguns here - at times you would be hard pressed to separate between the two.

Howard and Heston have a lot to answer for. 

Always bear in mind, of course, I've met a lot of people that might have needed shooting - and I've never considered it.  8-)

I've cut throats too - but God never asked it of me. My non-God never asks for sacrifices - unlike some 'gods' who do.

T'was only ever for the table - I had never considered that a sheep could be construed as a victim (especially considering what happens when we export them).

Ferals, introduced species, bloody nuisances, culling - the list goes on.

Don't waste your breath, Jeff - there are none so blind as those who cannot see.

They still think caliber is a measure of an individual's worth!

:o 8-)

Government cannot disarm the United States, because of the 2nd amendment in the US Constitution. It will only go to the Supreme Court with overly obvious winning side (gun owners) as long as the 1776 version exists. 

Plus American can argue there is so much White tail DEER road kill, they'd have to give Americans gun rights.  Gov have to give us self defense rights with all the illegal Latinos in the country. ;D

Detroit is buggered up as it is, there is a 30 to 60  minute 911 Police response in Detroit.  They couldn't disarm guns in Detroit which is retarded.

freediver wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2013 at 7:17pm:

Quote: Private citizens accounted for about 1/3 of justified homicides (by gun use) in 2011. You sound like a proud American.

Perceptive, aren't you?


Quote:

[quote]Of the 9,000 or so murders about 1200 were thug vs thug.

Do you like those odds?[/quote]

No. We need to figure out how to get those 8,000 victims in a better position to shoot back. I recommend gun carry permits and better tactical training.


Quote:

[quote]Hospitals and sleepy doctors are much more dangerous than guns but we aren't banning them.

How's that American education system working out for you?[/quote]

It doesn't. Government schools are a travesty and should never have been allowed in the first place, that's why I was homeschooled. That's also why I am capable of independent thought, unlike many here in the states, and apparently in Australia also.


Quote:

[quote]As for the tortured souls that end their own life, my sympathies go to their families, but in most cases when the person decides to commit suicide, lack of a gun will not stop them.

You sure about that?[/quote]

Yes, I am. When someone has committed to the decision to end their life, the means they use to do it is irrelevant. I've seen inmates hang themselves when they lacked access to sharp objects or firearms and I've seen other inmates poison themselves when they lacked the skills to tie a good knot. According to stats I have seen, there are about 30 countries with suicide rates higher than that of the United States. At least 27 of which, have much more restrictive firearms laws than we do. It doesn't help them, why would it help us?

Jeff,
the fact is that 3,000 people dying during 911 was enough for the USA
to go on a massive global war on terror but every year 30,000
people die from guns in the USA.

Isn't the real terror on the streets & in the homes of Americans
who seem to find any excuse to shoot each other?

Quote:

Government cannot disarm the United States, because of the 2nd amendment in the US Constitution. It will only go to the Supreme Court with overly obvious winning side (gun owners) as long as the 1776 version exists.

It's odd that the Americans still consider this relevant. It was discarded a long time ago. They just forgot to update the piece of paper. It's time the yanks updated their constitution to reflect their reality. It is obviously a flawed document, and ignoring this only undermines the rest of it.


Quote:

No. We need to figure out how to get those 8,000 victims in a better position to shoot back. I recommend gun carry permits and better tactical training.

Perhaps the yanks should make them apply for victimhood status before getting a gun? Victims never kill people, do they? This is another way the NRA has lowered the IQ of the gun debate - by making people see the issue in absurdly simplistic 'good guy' and 'bad guy' terms.


Quote:

That's also why I am capable of independent thought

LOL. All I see is you parroting empty headed NRA propaganda. You struggle once it gets beyond your trite little one-liners.


Quote:

Yes, I am. When someone has committed to the decision to end their life, the means they use to do it is irrelevant. I've seen inmates hang themselves when they lacked access to sharp objects or firearms and I've seen other inmates poison themselves when they lacked the skills to tie a good knot.

So every suicide attempt succeeds? What planet are you on?

Yes, I am. When someone has committed to the decision to end their life, the means they use to do it is irrelevant. I've seen inmates hang themselves when they lacked access to sharp objects or firearms and I've seen other inmates poison themselves when they lacked the skills to tie a good knot. According to stats I have seen, there are about 30 countries with suicide rates higher than that of the United States. At least 27 of which, have much more restrictive firearms laws than we do. It doesn't help them, why would it help us?

<<
When someone decides to end their life is a process. You can't argue it isn't... and you can't even argue it's the same process for all. You, therefore- as someone who obviously thinks he can responsibly make life and death calls, can't say lives wouldn't be saved by easier access to guns.

..be careful of that slippery slope won't ya mr nuclear power bred smart guy!!!!

freediver wrote on Dec 4^th, 2013 at 12:49pm:

Quote: Government cannot disarm the United States, because of the 2nd amendment in the US Constitution. It will only go to the Supreme Court with overly obvious winning side (gun owners) as long as the 1776 version exists. It's odd that the Americans still consider this relevant. It was discarded a long time ago. They just forgot to update the piece of paper. It's time the yanks updated their constitution to reflect their reality. It is obviously a flawed document, and ignoring this only undermines the rest of it. [quote]No. We need to figure out how to get those 8,000 victims in a better position to shoot back. I recommend gun carry permits and better tactical training.

Perhaps the yanks should make them apply for victimhood status before getting a gun? Victims never kill people, do they? This is another way the NRA has lowered the IQ of the gun debate - by making people see the issue in absurdly simplistic 'good guy' and 'bad guy' terms.


Quote:

That's also why I am capable of independent thought

LOL. All I see is you parroting empty headed NRA propaganda. You struggle once it gets beyond your trite little one-liners.


Quote:

Yes, I am. When someone has committed to the decision to end their life, the means they use to do it is irrelevant. I've seen inmates hang themselves when they lacked access to sharp objects or firearms and I've seen other inmates poison themselves when they lacked the skills to tie a good knot.

So every suicide attempt succeeds? What planet are you on?[/quote]


Well argued FD.

The Yanks are gun crazy.

Bobby. wrote on Dec 4^th, 2013 at 5:13pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 4th, 2013 at 12:49pm: Quote: Government cannot disarm the United States, because of the 2nd amendment in the US Constitution. It will only go to the Supreme Court with overly obvious winning side (gun owners) as long as the 1776 version exists. It's odd that the Americans still consider this relevant. It was discarded a long time ago. They just forgot to update the piece of paper. It's time the yanks updated their constitution to reflect their reality. It is obviously a flawed document, and ignoring this only undermines the rest of it. [quote]No. We need to figure out how to get those 8,000 victims in a better position to shoot back. I recommend gun carry permits and better tactical training. Perhaps the yanks should make them apply for victimhood status before getting a gun? Victims never kill people, do they? This is another way the NRA has lowered the IQ of the gun debate - by making people see the issue in absurdly simplistic 'good guy' and 'bad guy' terms. [quote]That's also why I am capable of independent thought

LOL. All I see is you parroting empty headed NRA propaganda. You struggle once it gets beyond your trite little one-liners.


Quote:

Yes, I am. When someone has committed to the decision to end their life, the means they use to do it is irrelevant. I've seen inmates hang themselves when they lacked access to sharp objects or firearms and I've seen other inmates poison themselves when they lacked the skills to tie a good knot.

So every suicide attempt succeeds? What planet are you on?[/quote]


Well argued FD.

The Yanks are gun crazy.[/quote]

There are plenty of countries around the world that have similar gun ownership rates as the USA, and yet DO NOT have the violence and gun related deaths as the USA does.

Why do you think that is the case Bobby?

Incidentally Bobby, the USA only makes up about 5% of the global Population and yet consumes about 85% of the worlds Legal pharmaceutical drugs. A similar percentage for illicit drugs.

About 25% of the US population are on some sort of psychological medication before the age of 30.

Their mass media and Hollywood junk culture is peppered with violence, fear and racism.

I have a hunch that if they didn't have any guns, they would clobber themselves to death with baseball bats.

tackle the root causes first - the access to high powered weapons certainly doesn't help things - but tackle the underlying causes for this insane society

Quote:

tackle the root causes first

Sounds like a deflection to me. Why not tackle all the causes? If the suburban arms race is contributing to the death rate, why not address it at the same time? The "root causes" will never be completely eradicated. As the NRA morons so eloquently point out, guns don't kill people, people do. Are you going to get rid of all the people before the guns? Gotta have priorities eh?

If a person has a right to life and has a right to defend that life against unlawful attack then that person has a right to sufficient means to defend said life.

That sounds great, until you try to draw the line somewhere. Guns are not some kind of fundamental human right. Self defense is pretty far down on the list of reasonable justifications for having one.

freediver wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2013 at 6:56pm:

Quote: Guns don't kill people - people do. Oh great, more empty headed sloganeering from the NRA. They have spent billions lowering the IQ of the gun debate by 20 points.

---

freediver wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2013 at 6:56pm:

Quote: Guns don't kill people - people do. Oh great, more empty headed sloganeering from the NRA. They have spent billions lowering the IQ of the gun debate by 20 points.

---

freediver wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2013 at 6:56pm:

Quote: Guns don't kill people - people do. Oh great, more empty headed sloganeering from the NRA. They have spent billions lowering the IQ of the gun debate by 20 points.

---

freediver wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2013 at 6:56pm:

Quote: Guns don't kill people - people do. Oh great, more empty headed sloganeering from the NRA. They have spent billions lowering the IQ of the gun debate by 20 points.

---

freediver wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2013 at 6:56pm:

Quote: Guns don't kill people - people do. Oh great, more empty headed sloganeering from the NRA. They have spent billions lowering the IQ of the gun debate by 20 points.

---

freediver wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2013 at 6:56pm:

Quote: Guns don't kill people - people do. Oh great, more empty headed sloganeering from the NRA. They have spent billions lowering the IQ of the gun debate by 20 points.

---

freediver wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2013 at 6:56pm:

Quote: Guns don't kill people - people do. Oh great, more empty headed sloganeering from the NRA. They have spent billions lowering the IQ of the gun debate by 20 points.

a better presented pic....

---

freediver wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2013 at 6:56pm:

Quote: Guns don't kill people - people do. Oh great, more empty headed sloganeering from the NRA. They have spent billions lowering the IQ of the gun debate by 20 points.

---

freediver wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2013 at 6:56pm:

Quote: Guns don't kill people - people do. Oh great, more empty headed sloganeering from the NRA. They have spent billions lowering the IQ of the gun debate by 20 points.

---

freediver wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2013 at 6:56pm:

Quote: Guns don't kill people - people do. Oh great, more empty headed sloganeering from the NRA. They have spent billions lowering the IQ of the gun debate by 20 points.

---

If firearms are too dangerous for [peaceful, law-abiding] citizens to have possession of, then they are too dangerous for police officers [and other agents of a government] to have possession of too!

e.g.
Many police officers have been known to be criminals, and serving police officers have been known to use their own service weapon, to murder their own family members. [<----- at least one incident of this type has occurred in Western Australia]

One death is too many.          :P




Texting while driving, has caused many serious accidents and deaths.

Cell phones are dangerous devices, that have been the cause of many deaths, and in the interests of public safety they should be banned.          :P

One death is too many.

All children should receive firearm training, firearm safety is very important. It is after they or anyone receives training they be allowed to handle real firearms, pistols or rifles and be allowed to shoot under supervision. That's what the process is here in sunny Australia, once a child is 12 years and 1 day old, training begins, some state shave minor variations to this. many an Olympic and Commonwealth games shooter started that way. Shooting again a very fast growing sport. As at 2014 there are 750,000 licensed shooters and from memory 1.7 million firearms, and growing daily. The more shooters we have the less vermin and pest roam our country, less foxes, pigs, rabbits and that is a good thing.

I can't think of many things more boring than sport shooting.  Point, shoot, repeat, yawn, zzzzzzzzz.

... wrote on Jan 15^th, 2015 at 1:33pm:

I can't think of many things more boring than sport shooting.  Point, shoot, repeat, yawn, zzzzzzzzz.

You obviously know nothing of pistol shooting, have never watched a Western Action shooting event or Bianchi Cup, or other pistol match involving movement and running like hell and engaging more targets and then some more. You need to get out more, try shooting and fishing, that's fun also.

nasus wrote on Jan 15^th, 2015 at 1:37pm:

... wrote on Jan 15th, 2015 at 1:33pm: I can't think of many things more boring than sport shooting.  Point, shoot, repeat, yawn, zzzzzzzzz. You obviously know nothing of pistol shooting, have never watched a Western Action shooting event or Bianchi Cup, or other pistol match involving movement and running like hell and engaging more targets and then some more. You need to get out more, try shooting and fishing, that's fun also.

You're right, there is something more boring than sport shooting - watching sport shooting.

nasus wrote on Jan 15^th, 2015 at 1:31pm:

The more shooters we have the less vermin and pest roam our country, less foxes, pigs, rabbits and that is a good thing.

Give me a few bunnies, over a mad man with a gun, any day.


http://reallycuteanimals.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/20130127-rabbits_thumb.jpg

Yadda wrote on Feb 26^th, 2014 at 8:41am:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/album/forum-attachments/ATT00006.jpeg


http://images.tvnz.co.nz/tvnz_images/news2009/united_states/lapd_door_1.jpg

Stupid bitch, can't read.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Dec 4^th, 2013 at 9:27pm:

There are plenty of countries around the world that have similar gun ownership rates as the USA, and yet DO NOT have the violence and gun related deaths as the USA does.

Really?

And which countries would they be?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Guns.png

The United States owns more guns per resident, at around 0.89, than any other nation in the world. The U.S. has over 50% more firearms per capita than the next two highest nations, Serbia and Yemen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/A-Yearbook/2007/en/Small-Arms-Survey-2007-Chapter-02-annexe-4-EN.pdf

Firearm death rates, shooting are most interesting. However people on this forum who wish to be mischievous do not quote those figures. Firearm deaths in America are low compared to numerous countries, the statistics or deaths per 100,000 are featured in many documented lists. Wonder why no-one who is anti gun never posts them. Countries that have far higher murder rates per capita start with Mexico from memory, then there are many more before America gets a mention. Also gun ownership per head of population are another interesting set of figures. hence, careful where you throw stones.

nasus wrote on Jan 15^th, 2015 at 2:40pm:

Firearm deaths in America are low compared to numerous countries, the statistics or deaths per 100,000 are featured in many documented lists. Wonder why no-one who is anti gun never posts them. Countries that have far higher murder rates per capita start with Mexico from memory, then there are many more before America gets a mention.

Mexico is roughly the same as the US (only slightly higher).

If you're looking at firearm-related death rates per 100,000 population, per year, Venezuela, Jamaica, El Salvador, and Honduras are some of the big players.

Countries with similar rates to the US are: Mexico, Argentina, and Paraguay.

Australia is way, way down the list.

(Americans are still gun nuts, though)

If you are looking at firearm death the states is way behind many nations. Africa and the ratbag muslim countries would take the prize.

Rocketanski wrote on Jan 15^th, 2015 at 2:56pm:

If you are looking at firearm death the states is way behind many nations. Africa and the ratbag muslim countries would take the prize.

Well, Africa isn't a country.

However, South Africa's rate is double that of the USA.

The rate in Honduras is three times more than South Africa.


(Americans are still gun nuts, though)

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 15^th, 2015 at 2:59pm:

Rocketanski wrote on Jan 15th, 2015 at 2:56pm: If you are looking at firearm death the states is way behind many nations. Africa and the ratbag muslim countries would take the prize. Well, Africa isn't a country. However, South Africa's rate is double that of the USA. The rate in Honduras is three times more than South Africa. (Americans are still gun nuts, though)

I didn't say Africa was a country. You can't put the numerous countries who's rule of law is a gun ahead of the states for gun crime. There's no proper stats to compare anyway. I'm sure Syria and Afghanistan don't keep stats.

Rocketanski wrote on Jan 15^th, 2015 at 3:06pm:

You can't put the numerous countries who's rule of law is a gun ahead of the states for gun crime.

Doesn't take anything away from the fact that Americans are gun nuts.

http://yellowhammernews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/GUns.png

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 15^th, 2015 at 3:17pm:

Rocketanski wrote on Jan 15th, 2015 at 3:06pm: You can't put the numerous countries who's rule of law is a gun ahead of the states for gun crime. Doesn't take anything away from the fact that Americans are gun nuts. http://yellowhammernews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/GUns.png

I can't argue there.

Who in their wildest dreams thinks that there is a force on earth that can disarm all the American Citizens of their personal weapons, much less disarm the USA?

JFYI ......... It has been suggested that American Citizens have a larger arsenal than the US Federal Government does.

Possibly true, DrymriderX but then, what does it matter?  Americans, despite their worst fears actually control their own government.  It is a reflection of their society I fear.   ::)

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 1^st, 2013 at 4:27pm:

Jeff from Tennessee wrote on Dec 1st, 2013 at 4:15pm: I am not familiar with your cadet programs but in the usa our cadet programs (ROTC) have only honor guard type training where guns are concerned. Their are some explorer type programs that do weapons training but they are more law enforcement based. I was thinking more of a basic firearms safety class for the kids. More like sex ed, not boot camp. Well my brother was in the Cadets in high school, and they did do range days. As I recall, there were even rifles stored in the cadet's store room in the school ( mind you, this was 30+ years ago, so it might be very different now)

Been there, done that. My high school was the same - cadets with real guns and live-fire training. Bivouacs and ANZAC days.

Mind you, this was during the tail-end of Vietnam and the draft.

And no-one really wanted to go there - we'd already got the news.

Missed out on that experience by THAT much.

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 17^th, 2015 at 8:31pm:

Possibly true, DrymriderX but then, what does it matter?  Americans, despite their worst fears actually control their own government.  It is a reflection of their society I fear.   ::)

Better than the government controlling the people. When the people have the upper hand, somehow the government remains the servant of the people, & that's the way it's meant to be.

100+ million gun owners ensures no invasion, & government that stays in line.

The people tell government to jump, the government asks ..... how high??

There are some that say if the government attempted to disarm the people, the people couldn't compete with the arms of the police force & the army.

Well, it has been determined that over 70% of both law enforcement & the armed services would side with the people, simply because they are the people, against any totalitarian/tyrannical government.

The people already have military grade weaponry, & the former law enforcement & military will bring whatever weaponry they have in their possession.

American Gun Owners are already astute in the art of gorilla warfare.

Panther wrote on Feb 17^th, 2015 at 9:42pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 17th, 2015 at 8:31pm: Possibly true, DrymriderX but then, what does it matter?  Americans, despite their worst fears actually control their own government.  It is a reflection of their society I fear.   ::) Better than the government controlling the people. When the people have the upper hand, somehow the government remains the servant of the people, & that's the way it's meant to be.

So, we have an American People, controlling their government, which is made up of American people, who are reflecting the society from which they are drawn?  So, what are the Americans so afraid of DrymriderX?  So fearful that they feel they must arm themselves against it to the point where they dress like the soldiers they are going to fight against and act like them?   I've been there, I've seen the US militias running up and down hill and dale and I'm still unable to figure out what they're guarding against that can't be blatted with one of the Nukes they control!?!   :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D

Panther wrote on Feb 17^th, 2015 at 9:42pm:

American Gun Owners are already astute in the art of gorilla warfare.

http://media.giphy.com/media/10AcCnCWAFjsre/giphy.gif

|dev|null wrote on Feb 18^th, 2015 at 1:57pm:

Panther wrote on Feb 17th, 2015 at 9:42pm: Brian Ross wrote on Feb 17th, 2015 at 8:31pm: Possibly true, DrymriderX but then, what does it matter?  Americans, despite their worst fears actually control their own government.  It is a reflection of their society I fear.   ::) Better than the government controlling the people. When the people have the upper hand, somehow the government remains the servant of the people, & that's the way it's meant to be. So, we have an American People, controlling their government.........So, what are the Americans so afraid of DrymriderX?

An American once said that ".... there is nothing to fear but fear itself......"

Their having arms, & being free to bear them.....without having a "need", other than the need to be adequately prepared for anything that might come their way.

And if nothing comes their way, they can rest assuredly in the knowledge that they are prepared nonetheless.

I think the only "fear" is the fear that you may have that Americans have this inalienable Right & Freedom, that you could have, but don't want, which is your personal right.   ;)

Still doesn't convince me.  Americans controlling the American government which in turn controls all those nuclear weapons they have...  Makes me wonder if we should be fearing this schizophrenic American society which believes the American government is going to blow all them up, despite them controlling it.   Reminds me of your viewpoint actually...   ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D

|dev|null wrote on Feb 19^th, 2015 at 3:55pm:

......Makes me wonder if we should be fearing this schizophrenic American society which believes the American government is going to blow all them up, despite them controlling it.

Don't be silly. Americans stopped being concerned about Nuclear weapons when the wall came down & the Soviet Union dissolved. 

Even with all the hoopla in the Ukraine, Americans were more focused on illegals coming across the border with Islamists mixed in. 

That issue is more explosive than your Nuclear straw man.

Lionel Edriess wrote on Feb 17^th, 2015 at 9:08pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 1st, 2013 at 4:27pm: Jeff from Tennessee wrote on Dec 1st, 2013 at 4:15pm: I am not familiar with your cadet programs but in the usa our cadet programs (ROTC) have only honor guard type training where guns are concerned. Their are some explorer type programs that do weapons training but they are more law enforcement based. I was thinking more of a basic firearms safety class for the kids. More like sex ed, not boot camp. Well my brother was in the Cadets in high school, and they did do range days. As I recall, there were even rifles stored in the cadet's store room in the school ( mind you, this was 30+ years ago, so it might be very different now) Been there, done that. My high school was the same - cadets with real guns and live-fire training. Bivouacs and ANZAC days. Mind you, this was during the tail-end of Vietnam and the draft. And no-one really wanted to go there - we'd already got the news. Missed out on that experience by THAT much.

We had cadets at school until about 1977. We had a heap of .22 Lee Enfield/SMLE rifles, a few .303 SMLE, a couple of Bren guns and a couple of .22 cal pistols.

Had a go with the .22 a couple of times. Saw one of the Brens being used, but no real interest to join the cadets....

Everything was stored under one of the school buildings. Pretty lax security as we managed to pilfer enough spare parts to put together a functional .22.

Panther wrote on Feb 19^th, 2015 at 9:59pm:

|dev|null wrote on Feb 19th, 2015 at 3:55pm: ......Makes me wonder if we should be fearing this schizophrenic American society which believes the American government is going to blow all them up, despite them controlling it.  Don't be silly. Americans stopped being concerned about Nuclear weapons when the wall came down & the Soviet Union dissolved.  Even with all the hoopla in the Ukraine, Americans were more focused on illegals coming across the border with Islamists mixed in.  That issue is more explosive than your Nuclear straw man.

Is it?  According to who?  You or the people I read on the interweb thingie?  Mmm?   ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D :D :D

|dev|null wrote on Feb 19^th, 2015 at 3:55pm:

Still doesn't convince me.  ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D

Being an idiot of great thickness, no reasonable argument could EVER convince you, by definition.
You will always be on the side of dark, stupid and harmful forces in this world. Shoulder to shoulder with Brain, PB and the rest of the sinister, stumbling and gormless agents of evil. That is your inescapable function in life.

Panther wrote on Feb 17^th, 2015 at 9:39am:

Who in their wildest dreams thinks that there is a force on earth that can disarm all the American Citizens of their personal weapons, much less disarm the USA? JFYI ......... It has been suggested that American Citizens have a larger arsenal than the US Federal Government does.

You are fairly clueless arent you? The US has disarmed many its citizens on  large scale quite a number of times in history. Pretend tough guys with guns no matter what the calibre are no match for a well trained army.

rhino wrote on Feb 20^th, 2015 at 9:13pm:

Panther wrote on Feb 17th, 2015 at 9:39am: Who in their wildest dreams thinks that there is a force on earth that can disarm all the American Citizens of their personal weapons, much less disarm the USA? JFYI ......... It has been suggested that American Citizens have a larger arsenal than the US Federal Government does. You are fairly clueless arent you? The US has disarmed many its citizens on  large scale quite a number of times in history.

You know absolutely nothing of which you speak.

You're beyond delusional in this regard......It's never been done on a large scale, even a small scale, but by all means feel free to prove your imagination has become occupant of some corner of reality. (outside of to you that is)

IMHO I reckon some of yer melted cheese has completely slid off yer cracker. 



Quote:

Pretend tough guys with guns no matter what the calibre are no match for a well trained army.

That is, with all due respect, complete lunacy. They would never have to face the Army, because on the scale you speak, the Army would not fire upon American Citizens protecting their Second Amendment Rights.

The well trained army you speak of are all volunteer American Citizens, firearms lovers -- Second Amendment protectors to a man (they swear a solemn sworn oath to defend the U.S. Constitution first & foremost, not to a Country, not to a Flag, not to a 2-bit Political Leader, President, or General) if it came down to confiscating firearms from the general public (an illegal order), they'd not follow those orders because it would be breaking their solemn sworn oaths, & they are acutely aware of that. Unalike too many here in Australia, that means heaps more than any political party's agenda.

You are, again, with all due respect, completely ignorant about America, & The Right to Keep & Bear Arms (The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is the law of the land, & close to the hearts of virtually every American regardless of station).

The President, the Commander-in-Chief of all the Armed Forces, wouldn't have a chance in hell of having that order followed (except by a few here & there), much less realistically enforced!  ;D ;D

I bet you didn't know that if an order is contrary to the U.S. Constitution (illegal), no military leader from top all the way down, or soldier, is required to follow it, in fact would be held personally accountable to court marshal if he/they did.

So, might I suggest, at your earliest convenience,  brush up on your   American History & Law   fella, before flexin' yer pie hole.

You know absolutely nothing of which you speak.



As American's know & see it:

http://i.imgur.com/D9M9v2C.jpg
Thomas Jefferson
Author of the American Declaration of Independence
American Founding Father
Third President of the United States of America


American Gun Trivia:
http://i.imgur.com/OFALSoF.png
The actual number of American Gun Owners is unknown, & probably much higher.




As you probably see it???

http://i.imgur.com/DURT5iz.gif

DreamryderX, you a Septic?   ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D :D :D

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 15^th, 2015 at 3:17pm:

Rocketanski wrote on Jan 15th, 2015 at 3:06pm: You can't put the numerous countries who's rule of law is a gun ahead of the states for gun crime. Doesn't take anything away from the fact that Americans are gun nuts. http://yellowhammernews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/GUns.png

Gun ownership is around 35% of the population in the USA.

There are many who own more than 1 gun,there is a serious flaw in your picture which claims gun ownership based on gun numbers assuming 1 gun per person.

The guy who runs gunpolicy.org Philip Alpers had his funding cut by Sydney Uni because he isn't a real Professor.

The firearm homicide rate has dropped by over 49% since 1992 in the USA.

This drop in firearm homicides has happened at the exact same time concealed carry was allowed in the USA.

Did the USA drop their firearm homicide rate by half by allowing concealed carry?

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2015 at 12:57pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 15th, 2015 at 3:17pm: Rocketanski wrote on Jan 15th, 2015 at 3:06pm: You can't put the numerous countries who's rule of law is a gun ahead of the states for gun crime. Doesn't take anything away from the fact that Americans are gun nuts. http://yellowhammernews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/GUns.png Gun ownership is around 35% of the population in the USA. There are many who own more than 1 gun,there is a serious flaw in your picture which claims gun ownership based on gun numbers assuming 1 gun per person. The guy who runs gunpolicy.org Philip Alpers had his funding cut by Sydney Uni because he isn't a real Professor.

Funny, his website still claims:

Quote:

GunPolicy.org is hosted by the Sydney School of Public Health, the University of Sydney. The School provides internationally recognised leadership in public health by advancing and disseminating knowledge — in this case, supporting global efforts to prevent gun injury.

[http://www.gunpolicy.org/about]
And carries the Uni of Sydney's crest!  So, is he telling likes now as well Baron?   :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D

|dev|null wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2015 at 1:21pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 23rd, 2015 at 12:57pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 15th, 2015 at 3:17pm: Rocketanski wrote on Jan 15th, 2015 at 3:06pm: You can't put the numerous countries who's rule of law is a gun ahead of the states for gun crime. Doesn't take anything away from the fact that Americans are gun nuts. http://yellowhammernews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/GUns.png Gun ownership is around 35% of the population in the USA. There are many who own more than 1 gun,there is a serious flaw in your picture which claims gun ownership based on gun numbers assuming 1 gun per person. The guy who runs gunpolicy.org Philip Alpers had his funding cut by Sydney Uni because he isn't a real Professor. Funny, his website still claims: Quote: GunPolicy.org is hosted by the Sydney School of Public Health, the University of Sydney. The School provides internationally recognised leadership in public health by advancing and disseminating knowledge — in this case, supporting global efforts to prevent gun injury. [http://www.gunpolicy.org/about] And carries the Uni of Sydney's crest!  So, is he telling likes now as well Baron?   :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D

That website hasn't been updated for a few years, there have been no updates since they cut his funding.

Philip Alpers never enrolled at University, he did drugs by day and partied at night,Sydney Uni realised he was full of BS and cut his funding.
www.examiner.com/article/does-gun-website-arm-with-facts-or-with-propaganda

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2015 at 1:37pm:

|dev|null wrote on Feb 23rd, 2015 at 1:21pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 23rd, 2015 at 12:57pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 15th, 2015 at 3:17pm: Rocketanski wrote on Jan 15th, 2015 at 3:06pm: You can't put the numerous countries who's rule of law is a gun ahead of the states for gun crime. Doesn't take anything away from the fact that Americans are gun nuts. http://yellowhammernews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/GUns.png Gun ownership is around 35% of the population in the USA. There are many who own more than 1 gun,there is a serious flaw in your picture which claims gun ownership based on gun numbers assuming 1 gun per person. The guy who runs gunpolicy.org Philip Alpers had his funding cut by Sydney Uni because he isn't a real Professor. Funny, his website still claims: Quote: GunPolicy.org is hosted by the Sydney School of Public Health, the University of Sydney. The School provides internationally recognised leadership in public health by advancing and disseminating knowledge — in this case, supporting global efforts to prevent gun injury. [http://www.gunpolicy.org/about] And carries the Uni of Sydney's crest!  So, is he telling likes now as well Baron?   :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D That website hasn't been updated for a few years, there have been no updates since they cut his funding. Philip Alpers never enrolled at University, he did drugs by day and partied at night,Sydney Uni realised he was full of BS and cut his funding. www.examiner.com/article/does-gun-website-arm-with-facts-or-with-propaganda

A right-wing neo-Fascist viewpoint website?  Really Baron, I'd expect better of you!   ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D :D :D

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2015 at 12:59pm:

The firearm homicide rate has dropped by over 49% since 1992 in the USA. This drop in firearm homicides has happened at the exact same time concealed carry was allowed in the USA. Did the USA drop their firearm homicide rate by half by allowing concealed carry?

All violent crime has dropped since American States went 90% + must/will permit concealed carry.

Reported road rage is down dramatically all across America.

A version of a famous quote:

"An armed society becomes a polite society"

Actually, when inmates were asked, over 85% of hardened American criminals polled said they preferred their victims to be unarmed, & when in doubt over 70% said they would move on to find a more suitable prey rather than take the chance their target was armed.

A logical conclusion could be if more Americans are Concealed carrying, the crims are on the back-peddle.

It would also seem to follow that if more households are armed, burglaries would drop too (which it has).

http://i.imgur.com/U5281Ps.jpg

The Sandy Hook Project suggests your claims about Orlando are based on bad statistical analysis.   Rather typical I've found of most pro-gun memes.   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2015 at 11:13pm:

The Sandy Hook Project suggests your claims about Orlando are based on bad statistical analysis.   Rather typical I've found of most pro-gun memes.   ::)

And what does that have anything to do with disarming America?

Do you in your wildest dreams feel that your link, whether true or false is totally debatable, do you feel that Americans will walk up like Australian sheep, & politely hand in their firearms like good little boys & girls because of whats in your link??

Fat chance in hell!!!!  http://imgur.com/fJzxHfk.gif

In America the largest firearm growth group, especially Concealed Carry, is amongst women.

They are arming themselves in record numbers, & the Concealed Carry Tactical Training Courses are filled to the brim with women wanting firearm (handgun) training nationwide.

Remember, in America you don't have to present a 'need' to qualify for a Concealed Carry Permit, you just have to be able to pay the fee, & present a documented training completion certificate. 

I'm almost positive that Americans can own, & concealed carry any pistol they wish in 48 of 50 States.

The Genie is already out of the bottle. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-basic/cool.gif

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2015 at 12:57pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 15th, 2015 at 3:17pm: Rocketanski wrote on Jan 15th, 2015 at 3:06pm: You can't put the numerous countries who's rule of law is a gun ahead of the states for gun crime. Doesn't take anything away from the fact that Americans are gun nuts. http://yellowhammernews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/GUns.png Gun ownership is around 35% of the population in the USA. There are many who own more than 1 gun,there is a serious flaw in your picture which claims gun ownership based on gun numbers assuming 1 gun per person.

@Baronvonrort


Well, almost.

Because in America registration of firearm ownership is not required in the greater majority of circumstances.

Therefore, the number of those owning firearms, & the number of firearms they own are almost completely unknown.

Those figures you quote, while accepted by many, are just made up -- educated guesses, but not based on any actual fact.

That would be impossible to ascertain.

Panther wrote on Feb 24^th, 2015 at 7:15am:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 23rd, 2015 at 11:13pm: The Sandy Hook Project suggests your claims about Orlando are based on bad statistical analysis.   Rather typical I've found of most pro-gun memes.   ::) And what does that have anything to do with disarming America?

Bad evidence produces bad arguments?  Nah, of course not!!  ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D

Someone asked a while back why the Government of the United States could never disarm the Citizens of the United States.

Sorry it took so long for me to post this.

Besides being against the Law of the Land, the order to do so, to disarm American Citizens, would be disobeyed on a grand scale by those hired by the people to enforce their laws -- Local Sheriffs, & Law Enforcement (note: their laws...the people's laws....not the government's laws, because the government is merely the employees of the people & all power is delegated by the people)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2wgOxoktq8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHAbYbTjzxY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC2fj3xcqq8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3Nx5MJNINQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbnwA1v_5No

These are but a few of the hundreds upon hundreds of local law enforcement that would refuse to enforce, & confiscate firearms under any order, & respond violently if necessary to protect the Citizens right to protect themselves.....protect their right to self-defense.

Search the internet yourselves, & you will see that disarming the American People would be impossible, & if nothing else, may cause a second American Revolution (I kid you not) if government should try to disarm them.

Americans will not hand in their firearms for any reason, especially under any order from government, because they know their right to keep & bear arms is not for sport shooting, not to hunt duck or other game, it's to protect themselves from tyranny, from a tyrannical government who some day might just want to take away all their rights....one by one.

You sure you're not an American?   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 6^th, 2015 at 12:34am:

You sure you're not an American?   ::)

That's on a need to know basis, & you don't need to know.

Panther wrote on Mar 6^th, 2015 at 5:37am:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 6th, 2015 at 12:34am: You sure you're not an American?   ::) That's on a need to know basis, & you don't need to know.

That tells me all I need to know!   ;)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 6^th, 2015 at 7:16pm:

Panther wrote on Mar 6th, 2015 at 5:37am: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 6th, 2015 at 12:34am: You sure you're not an American?   ::) That's on a need to know basis, & you don't need to know. That tells me all I need to know!   ;)

Yer much obliged. http://imgur.com/6whPFXX.gif

You, this question has been trying me for ages.  I thought I'd consult someone about it.  Did you DreamryderX?  Seems so many Americans live in fear of having their toys taken away.  I wonder why? ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D

|dev|null wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 12:24pm:

You, this question has been trying me for ages.  I thought I'd consult someone about it.  Did you DreamryderX?  Seems so many Americans live in fear of having their toys taken away.  I wonder why? ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D

Well, in a country of 325 million, there's probably a few hundred thousand that might be concerned. Most gun owners there are just waitin' for the government to try it. They won't go down easy, & they have plenty of firepower too. See, nobody knows what they have, because registration isn't a top priority, matter in fact, its not a priority at all, it's actually illegal.


Quote:

......Since the mid 1980s, it’s been against federal law for information from background checks to be "recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established." That’s why, if you’re cleared to purchase a gun (simply said..cleared by a background database check that you're not a felon, or have a diagnosed mental disorder), the FBI is required to destroy all identifying information about you before the next business day......

See, there they run the show (the people do) & government exists at the people's pleasure, not the other way around.

Government attempts to circumvent the Second Amendment........you're talking Civil War on a grand scale. Those people are serious about their gun rights. They aren't the lay down, & obey types....more than 100 million very serious gun owners strong, & a contingent of tens of millions that just own guns, but will probably back the others in a fight, simply because above all things, they despise government.

Panther wrote on Mar 7^th, 2015 at 11:15am:

That's on a need to know basis, & you don't need to know.

Let me guess. You're a Libertarian? You sure talk like one. 

Marla wrote on Mar 19^th, 2015 at 1:42pm:

Panther wrote on Mar 7th, 2015 at 11:15am: That's on a need to know basis, & you don't need to know. Let me guess. You're a Libertarian? You sure talk like one.

He apears to have changed his pseudonym.  I suspect it's Matty again.   ::)

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/661/LVKSqK.jpg

How to sneak chocolates into a US cinema...   ;)

Your picture could be funny in a different context. James Holmes drove past other Movie Houses and picked the "Gun Free Zone" Cinema for his own safety. Any time someone commits this type of atrocity the Media will make them a household name. They even tried to tie it to an older man with the same first and last name who was a TEA party member. What they had was a Liberal Millennial nobody who became a somebody due to this horrible act!

Mortdooley wrote on Apr 26^th, 2015 at 10:35pm:

Your picture could be funny in a different context. James Holmes drove past other Movie Houses and picked the "Gun Free Zone" Cinema for his own safety. Any time someone commits this type of atrocity the Media will make them a household name. They even tried to tie it to an older man with the same first and last name who was a TEA party member. What they had was a Liberal Millennial nobody who became a somebody due to this horrible act!

Oh dear! Not a Tea Party member! What victims! You know, Homes is pleading not guilty by reason of insanity. Strange, really, when one thinks the entire Tea Party itself is insane.
http://angryblackladychronicles.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/tea-party-meeting-versus-reality1.gif

Liberty, Personal Freedom, lower taxes and less bureaucracy in our lives are bad things?

Bigger government, ever higher taxes, bloated welfare programs and a general feeling of entitlement is good?

I worked for 36 years in the Oil and Gas Industry, 11 building operating units and 25 running them. Every pay check I ever received represented real value, not like the Parasites in the Cube Farms that tell each other how important they are. If my SS deductions and my employers match had been privatized from day one it could have been all the retirement income I would need.

If you don't know how wealth is created then government creating it out of nothing makes sense.

NO:  From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs) is a slogan popularized by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program. The phrase summarizes the idea that, under a communist system, every person shall produce to the best of their ability in accordance with their talent, and each person shall receive the fruits of this production in accordance with their need, irrespective of what they have produced. In the Marxist view, such an arrangement will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services that a developed communist society will produce; the idea is that there will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs. Maybe you can do it right, no one in history has yet.

YES: Read the story of The Ant and The Grasshopper.

Stop being the Grasshopper!

And some people say Americans are stupid. ::)

And some people are comfortable in their servitude and others are not.

Mortdooley wrote on Apr 27^th, 2015 at 2:10am:

And some people are comfortable in their servitude and others are not.

So you feel everyone lives in servitude. Interesting mind set. Wouldnt go down too well in Australia, we value our freedom.

I don't know what you perceive as invasions of your rights or what restrictions you give up for the common good.

We are required to have Health Insurance even if we have the ability to be self insured and face a large fine if we refuse.

We are subjected to indignities before we are allowed to board Commercial Airplanes in order to travel by air. Its all Theater to employ a bunch of Perverts that molest grandma, hot women and little boys. They got so many complaints about their nudie scopes that those got removed. If you want to discourage skyjacking just include a piglet in a pet carrier. I'll keep the pig for the entire flight.

We see small businesses bullied to work for individuals involved in activities that violate the Religious Beliefs of the owners.

We are denied employment, Collage Entrance and promotions to make room for less qualified groups.

We have a Bill Of Rights which are the first ten Amendments to our Constitution and the only one not being violated is the third about the Quartering of Soldiers.

Mortdooley wrote on Apr 27^th, 2015 at 1:14am:

Liberty, Personal Freedom, lower taxes and less bureaucracy in our lives are bad things?

Problem is, not one of you Tea Party dweebs actually believes that much less can define the words.


Mortdooley wrote on Apr 27^th, 2015 at 1:14am:

Bigger government, ever higher taxes, bloated welfare programs and a general feeling of entitlement is good?

Also odd, when one considers just how many Tea Party members are living off welfare.


Mortdooley wrote on Apr 27^th, 2015 at 1:14am:

I worked for 36 years in the Oil and Gas Industry, 11 building operating units and 25 running them. Every pay check I ever received represented real value, not like the Parasites in the Cube Farms that tell each other how important they are. If my SS deductions and my employers match had been privatized from day one it could have been all the retirement income I would need.

Yeah, it's called a "401K" Too bad so many in your party couldn't keep their grubby hands off of them.

I have never heard of TEA party people on welfare, that would be the Obongo supporters using the WIC and Lone Star card I see at Walmart. They are the ones whose children get free breakfast and lunch at school and live in government housing.

I retired with about 400 other people in 2009 and most of the Union Represented hourly employees left with over a million dollars  in combined lump sum and 401k from that greedy,dirty Oil Company. The only person I knew who couldn't stay out of his savings plan was apolitical.

Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said Socialism works until you run out of other peoples money.

Mortdooley wrote on Apr 27^th, 2015 at 8:47am:

I have never heard of TEA party people on welfare Socialism works until you run out of other peoples money.

Your Thatcher quote is quite appropriate, & spot on.  The Progressive Left avoids admitting that fact like the plague, always opting to find other forms of borrowing and debt advancement rather than admit their policies will eventually need to be paid for, and are a 'failing' system, to extend the lifespan of their blindly expanding socialistic agendas.
As far as Tea Party people being on welfare, I would have to think there are an average amount of TPers on some sort of government system that they didn't pay into, for the Tea Party membership crosses across just about every socio-economic and ethnic component of society and are not what the Left want's everyone to believe, that they are all white, rich, right-wing, gun toting, extremists.  The Tea Party is far from that, and only fools fall for that drivel.

Mortdooley wrote on Apr 27^th, 2015 at 8:47am:

I have never heard of TEA party people on welfare,

I'm not surprised. Most of the tea party people I see are born with a silver spoon and therefore never experienced tough times. Hard to identify with poverty when you've never experienced it.

But then Craig T Nelson seems to be a Tea Party type of guy and he said  "I've been on food stamps and welfare, did anybody help me out? No. No."[8]

Panther wrote on Apr 27^th, 2015 at 10:23am:

Mortdooley wrote on Apr 27th, 2015 at 8:47am: I have never heard of TEA party people on welfare Socialism works until you run out of other peoples money. Your Thatcher quote is quite appropriate, & spot on.  The Progressive Left avoids admitting that fact like the plague, always opting to find other forms of borrowing and debt advancement rather than admit their policies will eventually need to be paid for, and are a 'failing' system, to extend the lifespan of their blindly expanding socialistic agendas. As far as Tea Party people being on welfare, I would have to think there are an average amount of TPers on some sort of government system that they didn't pay into, for the Tea Party membership crosses across just about every socio-economic and ethnic component of society and are not what the Left want's everyone to believe, that they are all white, rich, right-wing, gun toting, extremists.  The Tea Party is far from that, and only fools fall for that drivel.

So could you provide an example of a Tea party person who isnt right wing.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 27^th, 2015 at 10:59am:

Panther wrote on Apr 27th, 2015 at 10:23am: Mortdooley wrote on Apr 27th, 2015 at 8:47am: I have never heard of TEA party people on welfare Socialism works until you run out of other peoples money. Your Thatcher quote is quite appropriate, & spot on.  The Progressive Left avoids admitting that fact like the plague, always opting to find other forms of borrowing and debt advancement rather than admit their policies will eventually need to be paid for, and are a 'failing' system, to extend the lifespan of their blindly expanding socialistic agendas. As far as Tea Party people being on welfare, I would have to think there are an average amount of TPers on some sort of government system that they didn't pay into, for the Tea Party membership crosses across just about every socio-economic and ethnic component of society and are not what the Left want's everyone to believe, that they are all white, rich, right-wing, gun toting, extremists.  The Tea Party is far from that, and only fools fall for that drivel. So could you provide an example of a Tea party person who isn't right wing.

Quite a few of them are devout Libertarians. Would you consider Libertarians right wing? I wouldn't.

Otherwise, no, personally I can't.

Then again I know beyond a doubt that they aren't the stereotypical extremist hodgepodge as the Left wants everyone to believe. 

From what I read of left libertarianism hardly any are tea partiers

But then again I know beyond a doubt you're wrong.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 27^th, 2015 at 11:27am:

From what I read of left libertarianism hardly any are tea partiers But then again I know beyond a doubt you're wrong.

How, & about what?

Well I was more having a go at your statement about knowing beyond a doubt. You probably do think you know beyond a doubt, but thats some sort of cognitive bias.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 27^th, 2015 at 11:38am:

Well I was more having a go at your statement about knowing beyond a doubt. You probably do think you know beyond a doubt, but thats some sort of cognitive bias.

That's fair. You're entitled to your opinion.  ;)

Brian Ross wrote on Apr 26^th, 2015 at 6:54pm:

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/661/LVKSqK.jpg How to sneak chocolates into a US cinema...   ;)

Perhaps your ignorance is why nobody goes to your sad pathetic forum bwian,you don't need to sneak chocolates into the movies you dim wit.


Quote:

Since at least 1950,all but 2 public mass shootings in America have taken place where general citizens are banned from carrying guns. In the Aurora ,Co movie theatre shooting,out of the seven theaters showing the Batman movie premiere within 20 minutes of the suspects apartment,only 1 banned permitted concealed handguns. The suspect didn't go to the closest or the largest,but the one that banned self defence.Time after time the story is the same. www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/gun-free-zones-put-innocent-danger

http://imgur.com/dXT3WAz.jpg
http://imgur.com/sNll5Mn.jpg

Panther wrote on Apr 27^th, 2015 at 10:23am:

Panther wrote on Apr 27th, 2015 at 10:23am: The Progressive Left avoids admitting that fact like the plague, always opting to find other forms of borrowing and debt advancement rather than admit their policies will eventually need to be paid for, and are a 'failing' system, to extend the lifespan of their blindly expanding socialistic agendas. Oh right, right. Like, for example, how many "lefties" out there are paying for Bush's War on socialistic agendas. [quote author=DreamRyderX link=1371358984/137#137 date=1430094234]As far as Tea Party people being on welfare, I would have to think there are an average amount of TPers on some sort of government system that they didn't pay into, for the Tea Party membership crosses across just about every socio-economic and ethnic component of society and are not what the Left want's everyone to believe, that they are all white, rich, right-wing, gun toting, extremists.  The Tea Party is far from that, and only fools fall for that drivel.

Well, you're half-right. What's that term you Aussie's use.."bogans" or something like that? Think of disenfranchised bogans only with guns living in trailer parks with their second cousins and that is essentially the American Tea Party.

Marla wrote on Apr 27^th, 2015 at 12:36pm:

What's that term you Aussie's use.."bogans" or something like that? Think of disenfranchised bogans only with guns living in trailer parks with their second cousins and that is essentially the American Tea Party.

Bogan is a derogatory racist term,if you are not a bogan it's racist to call someone a bogan

Really? Interesting.

The Urban Dictionary describes Bogans as:
"A fascinating beast. The majority of the species are hideously repugnant and unintelligent, and yet they manage to breed in ever-increasing numbers and populate an area known as the outer west. It is quite common to find five or six offspring in each family group, often with a different father for each new baby.

Their habitat consists of a weatherboard or brick-veneer dwelling and is characterised by an early-model Holden or Ford in the driveway surrounded by a group of males discussing why the carby is stuffed and the results of last night's footy (a primitive gladiator-like spectator sport enjoyed by most bogans)."

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/imagebuzz/web03/2010/11/23/20/the-most-white-trash-family-photo-ever-taken-19376-1290562379-10.jpg
Uncanny.

Marla wrote on Apr 27^th, 2015 at 12:36pm:

Well, you're half-right. What's that term you Aussie's use.."bogans" or something like that? Think of disenfranchised bogans only with guns living in trailer parks with their second cousins and that is essentially the American Tea Party.

See, I was right, the American Progressive Left only wants everyone to believe that the TPers are what we Aussies call  "bogans".

I see you are a believer in the political ideology depicted in this quote:

"If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it." ?

Well, Aussies are smarter than that......we do know how to read.

Only in the sense bogans haven't started their own political party...yet.

Marla wrote on Apr 27^th, 2015 at 1:09pm:

Only in the sense bogans haven't started their own political party...yet.

Neither has the Tea Party, which everyone knows it's a conservative populist social and political movement.

In 2010 the NY TIMES stated:


Quote:

Tea Party supporters are wealthier and more well-educated than the general public, and are no more or less afraid of falling into a lower socioeconomic class.......

Your deceptions are falling on deaf ears Marla, because like I said, Australians are much smarter than you personally think, & Aussies wont be played a fool of, or do you think otherwise?

Panther wrote on Apr 27^th, 2015 at 1:36pm:

Neither has the Tea Party, which everyone knows it's a conservative populist social and political movement. In 2010 the NY TIMES stated: Quote: Tea Party supporters are wealthier and more well-educated than the general public, and are no more or less afraid of falling into a lower socioeconomic class....... Your lies are falling on deaf ears Marla, because like I said, Australians are much smarter than you personally think, & we wont be played a fool, or do you think otherwise?

Right, so much "smarter" they believe the New York Times (a fish wrap heavily influenced by the Koch Brothers - just like the Tea Party) at face value.

Marla wrote on Apr 27^th, 2015 at 1:44pm:

Panther wrote on Apr 27th, 2015 at 1:36pm: Neither has the Tea Party, which everyone knows it's a conservative populist social and political movement. In 2010 the NY TIMES stated: Quote: Tea Party supporters are wealthier and more well-educated than the general public, and are no more or less afraid of falling into a lower socioeconomic class....... Your lies are falling on deaf ears Marla, because like I said, Australians are much smarter than you personally think, & we wont be played a fool, or do you think otherwise? Right, so much "smarter" they believe the New York Times (a fish wrap heavily influenced by the Koch Brothers - just like the Tea Party) at face value.

;D The ultra right wing New York Times!!  ;D ;D :D ;D ;D


Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times#Political_persuasion_overall Political persuasion overall According to a 2007 survey by conservative-leaning[105] Rasmussen Reports of public perceptions of major media outlets, 40% saw the paper as having a liberal slant, 20% no political slant and 11% believe it has a conservative slant.[106] In December 2004, a University of California, Los Angeles study by former fellows of a conservative think tank gave The New York Times a score of 63.5 on a 100-point scale, with 0 being most conservative and 100 being most liberal. Special Report, an evening program on Fox News, comparatively, received 39.7.[107] The validity of the study has been questioned by organizations, including the liberal media "watchdog" group Media Matters for America.[108] In mid-2004, the newspaper's then public editor (ombudsman), Daniel Okrent, wrote an opinion piece in which he said that The New York Times did have a liberal bias in news coverage of certain social issues such as abortion and permitting gay marriage. He stated that this bias reflected the paper's cosmopolitanism, which arose naturally from its roots as a hometown paper of New York City. Okrent did not comment at length on the issue of bias in coverage of other "hard news", such as fiscal policy, foreign policy, or civil liberties.[109] The New York Times has not endorsed a Republican for president since Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956; since that year it has endorsed every Democratic nominee;[110] although it did endorse incumbent Republican Mayors of New York City Rudy Giuliani in 1997[111] and Michael Bloomberg in 2005[112] and 2009,[113] respectively. The Huffington Post criticized The New York Times for its coverage of foreign leaders through profiles. It cited a glowing report for Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti versus a dismissive report on Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa, despite the fact that the two men have similar background in getting PhDs in economics from U.S. schools.[114]

Please...........your blind leftist conspiratorial bias is making you to be a babbling fool, but please by all means continue to single-handedly dismantle your already shaky credibility.  ;)

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 27^th, 2015 at 12:40pm:

Marla wrote on Apr 27th, 2015 at 12:36pm: What's that term you Aussie's use.."bogans" or something like that? Think of disenfranchised bogans only with guns living in trailer parks with their second cousins and that is essentially the American Tea Party. Bogan is a derogatory racist term,if you are not a bogan it's racist to call someone a bogan

Bogans are a race? Since when? I'm waiting for some sort of well anti-Islam is racist analogy

Panther wrote on Apr 27^th, 2015 at 1:58pm:

According to a 2007 survey by conservative-leaning[105] Rasmussen Reports of public perceptions of major media outlets, 40% saw the paper as having a liberal slant, 20% no political slant and 11% believe it has a conservative slant.[106] In December 2004, a University of California, Los Angeles study by former fellows of a conservative think tank gave The New York Times a score of 63.5 on a 100-point scale, with 0 being most conservative and 100 being most liberal. Special Report, an evening program on Fox News, comparatively, received 39.7.[107] The validity of the study has been questioned by organizations, including the liberal media "watchdog" group Media Matters for America.[108] In mid-2004, the newspaper's then public editor (ombudsman), Daniel Okrent, wrote an opinion piece in which he said that The New York Times did have a liberal bias in news coverage of certain social issues such as abortion and permitting gay marriage. He stated that this bias reflected the paper's cosmopolitanism, which arose naturally from its roots as a hometown paper of New York City. Okrent did not comment at length on the issue of bias in coverage of other "hard news", such as fiscal policy, foreign policy, or civil liberties.[109] The New York Times has not endorsed a Republican for president since Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956; since that year it has endorsed every Democratic nominee;[110] although it did endorse incumbent Republican Mayors of New York City Rudy Giuliani in 1997[111] and Michael Bloomberg in 2005[112] and 2009,[113] respectively. The Huffington Post criticized The New York Times for its coverage of foreign leaders through profiles. It cited a glowing report for Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti versus a dismissive report on Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa, despite the fact that the two men have similar background in getting PhDs in economics from U.S. schools.[114]

Please...........your blind leftist conspiratorial bias is making you to be a babbling fool, but please by all means continue to single-handedly dismantle your already shaky credibility.  ;)
[/quote]


Quoting Wikipedia to form arguments is no argumentative stance at all. Nice try.

Mortdooley wrote on Apr 27^th, 2015 at 6:02am:

We have a Bill Of Rights which are the first ten Amendments to our Constitution and the only one not being violated is the third about the Quartering of Soldiers.

Such a shame that those rights weren't extended to people of colour within the newly formed United States.  Such a shame that those rights enshrined the carrying of arms in public by citizens who had come to fear the very government that they had elected.    ::)

Panther wrote on Apr 27^th, 2015 at 11:20am:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 27th, 2015 at 10:59am: Panther wrote on Apr 27th, 2015 at 10:23am: Mortdooley wrote on Apr 27th, 2015 at 8:47am: I have never heard of TEA party people on welfare Socialism works until you run out of other peoples money. Your Thatcher quote is quite appropriate, & spot on.  The Progressive Left avoids admitting that fact like the plague, always opting to find other forms of borrowing and debt advancement rather than admit their policies will eventually need to be paid for, and are a 'failing' system, to extend the lifespan of their blindly expanding socialistic agendas. As far as Tea Party people being on welfare, I would have to think there are an average amount of TPers on some sort of government system that they didn't pay into, for the Tea Party membership crosses across just about every socio-economic and ethnic component of society and are not what the Left want's everyone to believe, that they are all white, rich, right-wing, gun toting, extremists.  The Tea Party is far from that, and only fools fall for that drivel. So could you provide an example of a Tea party person who isn't right wing. Quite a few of them are devout Libertarians. Would you consider Libertarians right wing? I wouldn't.

This is the problem with Americans in general and in particular Right Wingers.  They live in an alternative reality, separate to the rest of us.

Of course Libertarians are Right Wingers, as the rest of the world perceives the right-left political spectrum on the basis of economic policies.


Quote:

Then again I know beyond a doubt that they aren't the stereotypical extremist hodgepodge as the Left wants everyone to believe.

I have no idea and in reality, I don't really care.   ::)

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 27^th, 2015 at 12:16pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Apr 26th, 2015 at 6:54pm: http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/661/LVKSqK.jpg How to sneak chocolates into a US cinema...   ;) Perhaps your ignorance is why nobody goes to your sad pathetic forum bwian,you don't need to sneak chocolates into the movies you dim wit.

Thats what I love about gun nuts like you, Baron.  Absolutely no sense of humour.    ::)

Today James Holmes goes before a Judge to try an insanity Plea in the Colorado Theater murders. He drove past other Theaters where some patrons were probably armed and attacked people in the Gun Free Zone Theater. That proves he wasn't insane, just evil!

Mortdooley wrote on Apr 27^th, 2015 at 11:38pm:

Today James Holmes goes before a Judge to try an insanity Plea in the Colorado Theater murders. He drove past other Theaters where some patrons were probably armed and attacked people in the Gun Free Zone Theater. That proves he wasn't insane, just evil!

what it does prove that gun free zones in a country where there are 3 guns for every person are idiotic.

The Constitution is a restriction on Government to protect our God given Rights.(Natural Rights for you atheists)

Firearms were never restricted nationally based on race. My Great-Grandmother was murdered by a black man with a gun in front of my Grandfather when he was 12 years old.

Mortdooley wrote on Apr 27^th, 2015 at 11:38pm:

He drove past other Theaters where some patrons were probably armed and attacked people in the Gun Free Zone Theater. That proves he wasn't insane, just evil!

No, it does prove he was insane and most likely a methodical sociopath. You NRA nitwits use the "Gun Free Zone" as an excuse to extend your own brand of violence. News flash: you're not the "good guys" with guns. You're not even close.

Brian Ross wrote on Apr 27^th, 2015 at 11:13pm:

Of course Libertarians are Right Wingers, as the rest of the world perceives the right-left political spectrum on the basis of economic policies.

Libertardians are nothing more than highly disenfranchised/fading middle class American Rethuglicons who love guns, and god but hate the poor and women. They live in a bubble world of make believe where everybody is white.

I know you are a passionate, true believer in the Cause and truth doesn't matter just results. If you can just force people to follow your path the world can be saved!

Truth, huh?

You just keep on watching Fox News believing EVERYTHING they tell you.

Lol@Americans. Nice people. Wouldnt want your daughter to marry one though.

No kidding. Who would want a mutant racist, xenophobic, Aussie half-breed?

Ive been to the US Marla. my personal experience doesnt give credence to your assertion.  ;)

I've been to this site, Rhino. I believe it does.

Actually since they dropped Judge Napolitano I don't watch much Fox News, however I do watch a fair amount of Fox Business channel in the mornings.

From what I've seen of Fox Business, its just as bad.

Mortdooley wrote on Apr 27^th, 2015 at 11:54pm:

The Constitution is a restriction on Government to protect our God given Rights.(Natural Rights for you atheists)

Yes, us Atheists are really rather misguided on the whole matter of rights, now aren't we?   ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D


Quote:

Firearms were never restricted nationally based on race. My Great-Grandmother was murdered by a black man with a gun in front of my Grandfather when he was 12 years old.

Yep, never should ha' allowed them black folk access to firearms, now should we?  They jus' don' know how to use 'im right.  Instead o' huntin' people, white folk who kep' them in their natural state o' slavery as our good Lor' intended, they should ha' been huntin' animals like them Red folk!   ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D

You really have a twisted view of American History. Is Quigly Down Under based on the way you treated the Aborigine?

Last I read them folks are mostly using bricks against the Police cars and local property in Baltimore! You will not find even one Black Voice condemning their actions.

Marla wrote on Apr 28^th, 2015 at 5:12am:

I've been to this site, Rhino. I believe it does.

Theres more than a few American females who dont share your view.

Mortdooley wrote on Apr 28^th, 2015 at 8:34pm:

You really have a twisted view of American History. Is Quigly Down Under based on the way you treated the Aborigine?

I'd be careful going down that path, mate.  HB's partner is a Noonga from Western Australia!   8-)


Quote:

Last I read them folks are mostly using bricks against the Police cars and local property in Baltimore! You will not find even one Black Voice condemning their actions.

Really?  ::)

rhino wrote on Apr 28^th, 2015 at 9:49pm:

Marla wrote on Apr 28th, 2015 at 5:12am: I've been to this site, Rhino. I believe it does. Theres more than a few American females who dont share your view.

Interesting. I did not know you are the spokesperson for all American females.

Mortdooley wrote on Apr 28^th, 2015 at 8:34pm:

You really have a twisted view of American History. Is Quigly Down Under based on the way you treated the Aborigine?

What is your view of Australia based on, Mad Max?


Mortdooley wrote on Apr 28^th, 2015 at 8:34pm:

Last I read them folks are mostly using bricks against the Police cars and local property in Baltimore! You will not find even one Black Voice condemning their actions.

Judging by a lot of your post, I seriously doubt you spend much time reading anything. As for blacks...
http://i881.photobucket.com/albums/ac14/barbtries/black%20men%20dead%20this%20month%20apr%202015.jpg

Because, you know, you like to read.

How many police died in the line of duty protecting your safety in the US last month? Lets see those incidents and how they died.

"Line of duty" is vague. So when a police officer saves a black person from say, a rattlesnake bite and then that snake bites the police officer do other police officers have to right to imbue violence on all blacks now?

This is how you warped conservatives think. 

Let me help you out here Marla, heres a list of police officers killed so far in 2015
https://www.odmp.org/search/year
Last month 16 were killed.

Do you even read what you haphazardly Google? Most of those officers died by heart attacks (because you know, cops are rarely overweight in America) or by vehicular accidents. Not one report of any black person pulling them over and beating the crap out of them until they later died of injuries.

Yeah, struck by car. And do you reckon stress might bring on a heart attack Marla? Regardless, these people died protecting your safety. Imagine Marla, if you had a job where you had to run towards danger instead of away from it like normal people. You condemn me for allegedly slurring all black people but you do the same to the coppers when you post your cr@p, these people are after all just doing their job.

rhino wrote on Apr 29^th, 2015 at 1:40am:

Yeah, struck by car. And do you reckon stress might bring on a heart attack Marla? Regardless, these people died protecting your safety. Imagine Marla, if you had a job where you had to run towards danger instead of away from it like normal people. You condemn me for allegedly slurring all black people but you do the same to the coppers when you post your cr@p, these people are after all just doing their job.

No, the majority of them died by making unhealthy decisions. Oh, and please inform me where blatant murder part of any job description..apart from legal war, of course. 

Please, keep on talking. I admire the way you clutch at straws to make no point whatsoever.

Oh, and I served three years in the US Marines. I don't run from anybody.

Unhealthy decisions, lol. Yes dealing constantly with the worst in society is definitely an unhealthy decision. No doubt about that. Guessing you are from an upper  middle class background Marla, parents paid for your education, right? Not much dealings with the police or the people you bravely defend here.

Marla wrote on Apr 29^th, 2015 at 1:45am:

Oh, and I served three years in the US Marines. I don't run from anybody.

Big woop.

the Baltimore cops need to get a bit tougher in my opinion, start firing real bullets and send a strong message.

rhino wrote on Apr 29^th, 2015 at 1:50am:

Unhealthy decisions, lol. Yes dealing constantly with the worst in society is definitely an unhealthy decision. No doubt about that. Guessing you are from an upper middle class background Marla, parents paid for your education, right? Not much dealings with the police or the people you bravely defend here.

Judgmental, much? I was born and raised in a small Colorado mountian town of Ouray
http://www.mountainphotographer.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/ourayoaksummit.jpg

Hardly "upper middle class." Both are my parents are dead. Neither one of them paid for my education much less anything I own in life. Therefore, I am in debt. I have never been on any form of governmental assistance, never asked for a handout, served in the armed forces and made my own way through life. I'm not so sure the same can be said for a delusional, judgmental troll such as yourself.

Oh, as for your 'bog woop' comment. You obviously have no understanding what serving and protecting means. 

Marla wrote on Apr 29^th, 2015 at 2:10am:

[ Oh, as for your 'bog woop' comment. You obviously have no understanding what serving and protecting means.

Sure I do. Training  to shoot foreign people from a  distance for no other reason than you are told to do so isnt protecting anyone Marla. Try training to save lives instead, like these police officers you hold such contempt for. The people who really make a positive difference.

Obviously, I was right. You are a troll.

I hope the marines dont handle a battle the way you handle an argument Marla.

Nice try, troll.

I think I hear someone sounding the retreat.

Must be lonely for you living under a bridge.

Mortdooley wrote on Apr 28^th, 2015 at 8:34pm:

You really have a twisted view of American History. Is Quigly Down Under based on the way you treated the Aborigine?

Dunno, never seen that piece of American trash!   :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D

As my partner is a Noonga, I have a much better idea than most white Australians about how blacks were treated downunder and it wasn't nice.   Obviously, not as bad as SLAVERY - something your own nation went to war over!


Quote:

Last I read them folks are mostly using bricks against the Police cars and local property in Baltimore! You will not find even one Black Voice condemning their actions.

I believe Brian has addressed that.   ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D

Since history is written by the winners I'm sure you believe the War between the States was all about slavery. Slavery could have been Legislated away, the South didn't have the votes to prevent it. Even the current definition of the Morrill Tariff is only half a story, it disproportionally taxed the agricultural South by a wide margin. Basically the South could support almost the entire federal government while the north reaped most of the benefits. The Cash Cow tried to secede which it had every right to do under the Constitution.

Black people owned slaves in America too. The first recorded slave holder was Anthony Johnson a Negro from modern-day Angola. By 1830 there were 3,775 black families living in the South who owned black slaves. By 1860 there were about 3,000 slaves owned by black households in the city of New Orleans alone.

Do internet search on John Casor, Anthony Johnson and slavery..

Mortdooley wrote on Apr 29^th, 2015 at 9:02pm:

Black people owned slaves in America too. The first recorded slave holder was Anthony Johnson a Negro from modern-day Angola. By 1830 there were 3,775 black families living in the South who owned black slaves. By 1860 there were about 3,000 slaves owned by black households in the city of New Orleans alone.

And the total population of New Orleans was how many in 1860?

You're talking about a minority of black slave holders.  How many blacks were slaves in the United States before the end of the Civil War?  Millions?   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Apr 29^th, 2015 at 11:23pm:

And the total population of New Orleans was how many in 1860? You're talking about a minority of black slave holders.  How many blacks were slaves in the United States before the end of the Civil War?  Millions?   ::)

Go easy on him. After all, he was taught in the Texas public educational system (which ranks dead last in the USA).

Maybe we became last because three fourth of today's  Texas public school students don't  speak  English  at home and at least  one parent  doesn't  speak  English at all. Our private schools and home  schooled  students  do as well  as anyone .

And there is Texas intellectualism for you: blame all of society's ills on everyone but yourselves.

If Cloward  Piven  ever becomes reality I am sure you will think it is wonderful, I doubt  you will have  a future there.

Is this another Texas-warped political view on socialism even though you cannot define the word itself?

I take it you are a wannabe Libertardian who only loves America as long you can crap all over the poor, own guns without any regulation, believe Jesus is real, and only elect numbskulls like Ted Nugent. 

I wonder what your future will be like.

Why are Texans so suspicious of their own government that they feel this is necessary?  Afterall, they did elect the present Government of America, didn't they and Barack Obama swore to defend the US constitution, didn't he?  Crazy.   ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D

If you've ever had the misfortune of finding yourself in Texas you'll soon find yourself surrounded by a lot of paranoid people with an anti-Obama/cloaked racist agenda.

I had one tell me Obama is "in it" with the aliens to take away all of America's guns and that they are already here living in underground bunkers at the Denver airport. This was back in 2010. Has yet to happen.

I've often wondered what America would have turned out like if say, a Monarchy had been created in 1776, rather than the ramshackle republic which was created.  Marla, what do you think it would have been like?  ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D

Well HB, as a monarchy America would have stayed small. Texas was founded as an Independent Nation, if the US was a week little monarchy it would have stayed its own country. Texas probably would have grown to include all of the American West and been the dominant Nation in the western hemisphere. Even part of modern day Colorado was inside the boarders of the Nation of Texas.

Or there would have been no strong allies in WW2 and Imperial Japan would now be your Master!

You ask why we are suspicious of our Government? Because it has too many corrupt, power hungry bureaucrats and self-important parasites. If they could have disallowed the Overseas Military vote in 2000 Al Gore would have been President for at least four years and never founded the Church Of Global Warming. They did disallow it in 2008 and 2012. They allowed election day voter registration without any form of Identification and far more people voted then lived in those precincts, hundreds used the same addresses. Electronic voting machines in some precincts recorded 100% of the votes for Pokey even though there were registered Republicans who voted. So you might wonder why the Republicans didn't make more of a fuss over all the fraud? After all the dirty tricks they used to win the Primaries for the Washington Insiders they didn't have any moral ground to complain. I watched almost all the Primary Debates and the questions were designed to steer opinion in favor of certain candidates. 

And Marla, you should read the books by Dave Ramsey rather then Saul Alinsky, by the time you are debt free you won't be a Liberal anymore!

https://youtu.be/Vm_NY-N0hUc

|dev|null wrote on Apr 30^th, 2015 at 4:42pm:

I've often wondered what America would have turned out like if say, a Monarchy had been created in 1776, rather than the ramshackle republic which was created.  Marla, what do you think it would have been like?  ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D

Not much different from what it is today. Substitute traditional monarchy rule with corporations - particularly those who make smart bombs, tanks, fighter planes, etc and their bed buddies the oil industry and what you have is a near monarchy that exist solely for its own purpose.

If America was ever a democracy, much less a republic as I have been lied to in school then it was short-lived.

Mortdooley wrote on Apr 30^th, 2015 at 10:02pm:

Well HB, as a monarchy America would have stayed small. Texas was founded as an Independent Nation, if the US was a week little monarchy it would have stayed its own country. Texas probably would have grown to include all of the American West and been the dominant Nation in the western hemisphere. Even part of modern day Colorado was inside the boarders of the Nation of Texas.

I wonder how the Native Americans would have been treated?


Quote:

Or there would have been no strong allies in WW2 and Imperial Japan would now be your Master!

Japan didn't have plans to invade Australia, therefore, how would it have become our, "Master"?

[quote[
You ask why we are suspicious of our Government? Because it has too many corrupt, power hungry bureaucrats and self-important parasites. If they could have disallowed the Overseas Military vote in 2000 Al Gore would have been President for at least four years and never founded the Church Of Global Warming. They did disallow it in 2008 and 2012. They allowed election day voter registration without any form of Identification and far more people voted then lived in those precincts, hundreds used the same addresses. Electronic voting machines in some precincts recorded 100% of the votes for Pokey even though there were registered Republicans who voted. So you might wonder why the Republicans didn't make more of a fuss over all the fraud? After all the dirty tricks they used to win the Primaries for the Washington Insiders they didn't have any moral ground to complain. I watched almost all the Primary Debates and the questions were designed to steer opinion in favor of certain candidates. 
[/quote]

I think that's a problem with your political system and it's lack of strong, centralised control.  In reality perhaps it's too late for America and Americans to grow up?

What happened to the USA?  In the last 50 years we've seen it slowly dissolve before our very eyes as people have forgotten how to be a nation in favour of 320,206,000 individuals, all moaning and whinging about something or other.   ::)


Quote:

And Marla, you should read the books by Dave Ramsey rather then Saul Alinsky, by the time you are debt free you won't be a Liberal anymore!

I'm surprised you're not pushing Ayn Rand...   ::)

Mortdooley wrote on Apr 30^th, 2015 at 10:02pm:

Well HB, as a monarchy America would have stayed small. Texas was founded as an Independent Nation, if the US was a week little monarchy it would have stayed its own country. Texas probably would have grown to include all of the American West and been the dominant Nation in the western hemisphere. Even part of modern day Colorado was inside the boarders of the Nation of Texas.

Heh, Texas educated propaganda. No wonder your state is always going backwards.


Mortdooley wrote on Apr 30^th, 2015 at 10:02pm:

Or there would have been no strong allies in WW2 and Imperial Japan would now be your Master!

Really!? So Texas alone took on the Japanese Imperial Army all by themselves? Wow. Now I know where revisionist history comes from. So, for example, when Darwin was bombed, where were you Stetson-sporting Alamo freaks? You do "remember" the Alamo, right? You lost. But feel free to rewrite that history as well.


Mortdooley wrote on Apr 30^th, 2015 at 10:02pm:

You ask why we are suspicious of our Government? Because it has too many corrupt, power hungry bureaucrats and self-important parasites.

Ironically, many of them from your home state.


Mortdooley wrote on Apr 30^th, 2015 at 10:02pm:

If they could have disallowed the Overseas Military vote in 2000 Al Gore would have been President for at least four years and never founded the Church Of Global Warming. They did disallow it in 2008 and 2012. They allowed election day voter registration without any form of Identification and far more people voted then lived in those precincts, hundreds used the same addresses. Electronic voting machines in some precincts recorded 100% of the votes for Pokey even though there were registered Republicans who voted. So you might wonder why the Republicans didn't make more of a fuss over all the fraud? After all the dirty tricks they used to win the Primaries for the Washington Insiders they didn't have any moral ground to complain. I watched almost all the Primary Debates and the questions were designed to steer opinion in favor of certain candidates.

More Texas revisionism.


Mortdooley wrote on Apr 30^th, 2015 at 10:02pm:

And Marla, you should read the books by Dave Ramsey rather then Saul Alinsky, by the time you are debt free you won't be a Liberal anymore!

Where did I ever say that I'm a liberal?

I support the first Amendment right of this Ass Clown to speak his mind no matter how small his mind is!

And I support your right to bad grammar.

That's what truly makes America great.

Read Dave Ramsey and stop being a useful idiot. Debt is slavery!

Wrong. Debt is the American way.


Or are you some sort of a Communist?

Disarming the USA.

I get the impression the topic means guns in some way. The British tried disarming America (the colonies at the time), & that didn't go too well for the Brits, did it?
There are only two forces that can disarm the USA. A foreign force, more powerful than all of America's National Militaries, or the other force, America's own government, or the people.
Trying to disarm the American people is no small task. There are about 325 million Americans. Over 100 million of them own guns, an estimated 300+ million guns.

Some American history regarding Disarming the USA:


Quote:

This Article reviews the British gun control program that precipitated the American Revolution: the 1774 import ban on firearms and gunpowder; the 1774-75 confiscations of firearms and gunpowder; and the use of violence to effectuate the confiscations. It was these events that changed a situation of political tension into a shooting war. Each of these British abuses provides insights into the scope of the modern Second Amendment. Furious at the December 1773 Boston Tea Party, Parliament in 1774 passed the Coercive Acts. The particular provisions of the Coercive Acts were offensive to Americans, but it was the possibility that the British might deploy the army to enforce them that primed many colonists for armed resistance. The Patriots of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, resolved: “That in the event of Great Britain attempting to force unjust laws upon us by the strength of arms, our cause we leave to heaven and our rifles.” A South Carolina newspaper essay, reprinted in Virginia, urged that any law that had to be enforced by the military was necessarily illegitimate...................

This is continued here, in this document. Please continue reading it. I personally found it very, very interesting how the minds of free men worked to preserve what future Americans held precious, their liberty.
American minds haven't changed. The only change has been the date.

Sounds and reads like reconstituted NRA propaganda. The Brits in Colonial war times were more interested in exploiting the commonwealth of the colonies then they were in gun seizure. The two were compatible in the sense that in order for the Brits to do that, they have to break down any resistance and by that time, the Colonists were too busy themselves exploiting the native populations.

Believe it or not, I'm all for the Second Amendment - in its truest form. A "right" to properly organize a militia against governmental tyranny should be commonplace in every nation. I'm a gun owner myself of a Glock 40 and a Beretta 9mm. I believe in the right to protect myself and personal property but I'll be god damned if I'm going to carry either one of them on my hip and walk into a Chipotle restaurant claiming I have a right to do that as some sort of warped anti-Obama/government statement.

I grew up around guns. Hunted since I was 9, served in the military where I shot M4's. I was also taught to respect guns and to know what their purpose it for. What scares me about America is how the Second Amendment has become polluted by both the right and left. Yes, left. You'd be surprised just how many liberals love their guns in this country more than conservatives.

Owning a gun does not give anyone the right to be an ass with it. The Forefathers could never have envisioned an average citizen with arsenal of quasi-military semi-automatics. Then again, they also couldn't see the local police becoming more militarized as well.

What gets me is no matter how violent America has become or exponentiated that violence there has to be gun control and regulation and contrary to so many paranoid 'Mercia gun owners it is not some kind of government ploy to circumvent the Second Amendment. I'm so tired of these asshats screaming "socialism" as a means to have such firepower unchecked. I'm willing to bet such individuals wouldn't know what a socialist was if Karl Marx himself was behind the counter of a McDonald's they walked into.

Marla, you read like some self-avowed Goddam Commie!  Don' know what they be teachin' you in the US Marines but in my day, it was all John Wayne and Sands of Iwo Jima!  Americans love their guns more than themselves and their families I find!  And so they should, as those guns defend their freedoms against the gun grabbers in Washington!  You know them black-sympathetic folk who think that 'cause the Police and White people have guns, to defend themselves against all them Black people, they need to have them removed to allow them Black people to take what those White people are payin' the banks to own!   ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D

Quote:

Sounds and reads like reconstituted NRA propaganda. Facts can do that at times, especially if facts are contrary to a political philosophy, a philosophy that holds the true meaning of the Second Amendment in contempt. History has happened, it's been clearly documented, & can be easily verified. Believe it or not, I'm all for the Second Amendment - in its truest form. A "right" to properly organize a militia against governmental tyranny should be commonplace in every nation. In it's purest form, "you" are the Militia.......the individual can be a Militia , that is until it joins up with another, then they become a Militia of two (2), then they join up with another, etc, etc, etc. It always starts with one (1). Owning a gun does not give anyone the right to be an ass with it. Exactly, but if you do no harm to your fellow citizen, government should leave you be. If you break the law, and as you call it, you become an "ass" with guns, then you should be held accountable to the rule of law. Until then though, government's only business is to observe, serve, and protect. What gets me is no matter how violent America has become or exponentiated that violence there has to be gun control and regulation and contrary to so many paranoid 'Mercia gun owners it is not some kind of government ploy to circumvent the Second Amendment. If no one is doing wrong by breaking the law to cause harm to his fellow citizens, there is no need for regulation, and government/politicians needn't create regulations to fulfill their self-serving need(s) to exist. Regulations for the sole sake of regulation is the grass roots of tyranny.

Have a beer on me, it's my shout.  11 am here so it's beer o'clock!  ;)

Mortdooley wrote on Apr 30^th, 2015 at 10:02pm:

Well HB, as a monarchy America would have stayed small. Texas was founded as an Independent Nation, if the US was a week little monarchy it would have stayed its own country. Texas probably would have grown to include all of the American West and been the dominant Nation in the western hemisphere. Even part of modern day Colorado was inside the boarders of the Nation of Texas.

You don't think a US based monarchy would have helped to protect the property and other rights of the minorities in colonial American society?  You know the Native Americans and Blacks?  The people your constitution didn't apply to?  Despite it's proclamation that all men are equal?


Quote:

Or there would have been no strong allies in WW2 and Imperial Japan would now be your Master!

I think Brian has addressed this.  It's a myth.

If, as you believe the US would have remained weak and small, there wouldn't have been any Commodore Peary so Japan would have remained weak and small and far less ambitious...   ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D


Quote:

You ask why we are suspicious of our Government? Because it has too many corrupt, power hungry bureaucrats and self-important parasites. If they could have disallowed the Overseas Military vote in 2000 Al Gore would have been President for at least four years and never founded the Church Of Global Warming.

Except Global Warming exists...   ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D


Quote:

They did disallow it in 2008 and 2012. They allowed election day voter registration without any form of Identification and far more people voted then lived in those precincts, hundreds used the same addresses. Electronic voting machines in some precincts recorded 100% of the votes for Pokey even though there were registered Republicans who voted. So you might wonder why the Republicans didn't make more of a fuss over all the fraud? After all the dirty tricks they used to win the Primaries for the Washington Insiders they didn't have any moral ground to complain. I watched almost all the Primary Debates and the questions were designed to steer opinion in favor of certain candidates.

Or perhaps certain candidates were able to answer the questions better?  Heave forbid that instead of some god-fearin' fruit loop an intelligent person won the candidature! Who'd have thought such a thing would ha' happened, hey?   ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D

Tap wrote on May 1^st, 2015 at 11:02am:

Have a beer on me, it's my shout.  11 am here so it's beer o'clock!  ;)

In the morning or the evening?

Either way, I think we can finally agree on something!  Cheers!   ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D

|dev|null wrote on May 1^st, 2015 at 11:11am:

Tap wrote on May 1st, 2015 at 11:02am: Have a beer on me, it's my shout.  11 am here so it's beer o'clock!  ;) In the morning or the evening? Either way, I think we can finally agree on something!  Cheers!   ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D

AM is usually in the morning, that is unless your passed out under the sundial.  :D :D  :P ;D

Cheers  ;)

Live from Baltimore
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gxozs1VpkhA

I'm sure you will get  a lot of panties  in a bunch with that.

Naw. The more I spend on this site, the more blatant racism and xenophobia I find.

Marla wrote on May 2^nd, 2015 at 11:00am:

Naw. The more I spend on this site, the more blatant racism and xenophobia I find.

The population of Australia is only about 23,000,000. The USA has more racists & xenophobes than that, but who cares, everybody has the right to their own opinions, likes, & dislikes. God loves everyone. ;)

Now, drink up, it's Hot Breath's shout!  ;D :D :D ;D :P

::) ::)

Marla wrote on May 2^nd, 2015 at 11:00am:

Naw. The more I spend on this site, the more blatant racism and xenophobia I find.

Glad you feel at home here.

Tap wrote on May 2^nd, 2015 at 11:36am:

The USA has more racists & xenophobes...

Yes, they do.

Marla wrote on May 4^th, 2015 at 4:48am:

Tap wrote on May 2nd, 2015 at 11:36am: The USA has more racists & xenophobes... Yes, they do.

See fellas, now who was saying that Marla was a little miss know it all. I guess you got that right!  ;D :D :D ;D ::)

Belly-up fellas, it's Marla's Shout!   ;D ;D ;)

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/05/13/dems-have-a-bunch-of-new-ideas-to-stop-you-from-buying-ammunition/

Democrats are not your friend!

A criminal or careless fool only needs a few rounds to cause a world of grief, this is not about any ones safety.

People who own thousands of rounds are not the people that commit crimes. I buy components, surplus and overrun whenever the price is right and shoot 200 to 300 rounds most trips to the range. Plenty of other shooters do the same thing, this legislation would do nothing for crime and only affect honest shooters.i

Mortdooley wrote on May 15^th, 2015 at 10:05pm:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/05/13/dems-have-a-bunch-of-new-ideas-to-stop-you-from-buying-ammunition/ Democrats are not your friend! A criminal or careless fool only needs a few rounds to cause a world of grief, this is not about any ones safety. People who own thousands of rounds are not the people that commit crimes. I buy components, surplus and overrun whenever the price is right and shoot 200 to 300 rounds most trips to the range. Plenty of other shooters do the same thing, this legislation would do nothing for crime and only affect honest shooters.

And the formerly honest ones...    ::)

Mortdooley wrote on May 15^th, 2015 at 10:05pm:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/05/13/dems-have-a-bunch-of-new-ideas-to-stop-you-from-buying-ammunition/ Democrats are not your friend!

Really? Seems they love their guns more than any Rethuglicon. And who reads The Blaze? That's the best you can do?

Mortdooley wrote on May 15^th, 2015 at 10:05pm:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/05/13/dems-have-a-bunch-of-new-ideas-to-stop-you-from-buying-ammunition/ Democrats are not your friend! A criminal or careless fool only needs a few rounds to cause a world of grief, this is not about any ones safety. People who own thousands of rounds are not the people that commit crimes. I buy components, surplus and overrun whenever the price is right and shoot 200 to 300 rounds most trips to the range. Plenty of other shooters do the same thing, this legislation would do nothing for crime and only affect honest shooters.

Real men settle their arguments face to face with fists Mort. To most Australians, quite frankly, you guys are just pussies. No offence, I happen to like Americans but you are just scared of things.

I'm scared of 600 black bears, rattlesnakes and Rethuglicons. Does that make me a "pussy" in your Australian machismo world?    

Women cant be pussies Maria. Its a derogatory term reserved for males. You can be a moll if you like.

[/quote]Real men settle their arguments face to face with fists Mort. To most Australians, quite frankly, you guys are just pussies. No offence, I happen to like Americans but you are just scared of things.
[/quote]

What in the world are you talking about? How often do you engage in fisticuffs over the other mans watch and wallet?

Adult Americans do not get into fist fights, some of the less civilized grown children do in their Hood or with the Police.

My post was about a couple of nobody politicians trying to get noticed proposing a law that was repealed about 30 years ago because it didn't accomplish anything positive.

So, Marla, with respect to disarming America -Jade Helm 15.


Any thoughts?

Yeah, "InfoWars" paranoid nonsense to sell you vitamins and water filters.

Not worth my time.

Mortdooley wrote on May 16^th, 2015 at 4:07am:

Adult Americans do not get into fist fights, some of the less civilized grown children do in their Hood or with the Police. M

of course you dont. you shoot each other from a distance with guns. Thats much more manly. We know this because of John wayne.

Actually we don't shoot each other either unless you are talking about Obama supporters! The  only honest people I know who had to shoot someone were In mortal danger, when it almost happened to me I let the thug run away.

You must suffer from  little  man syndrome  or your medication needs adjusting. Are you known to the police  as a regular troublemaker who gets in fights with strangers to prove his manhood or just for extra  pocket money?

So how often do you get into these fist fights?

What about those of us who don't get into gun fights or fist fights, because we exercise intelligence, common sense and restraint

rhino wrote on May 18^th, 2015 at 1:43am:

Mortdooley wrote on May 16th, 2015 at 4:07am: Adult Americans do not get into fist fights, some of the less civilized grown children do in their Hood or with the Police. of course you dont. you shoot each other from a distance with guns. Thats much more manly. We know this because of John wayne.

Sirs, how about a pint of Sydney Bitch-Slap, or a brave shot of Melbourne King-Hit?  ::)

Belly-up fellas, its Mort's Shout!  ;)

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 18^th, 2015 at 10:00am:

What about those of us who don't get into gun fights or fist fights, because we exercise intelligence, common sense and restraint

Seems to have been sadly lacking in Waco, Texas overnight!  ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D :D :D

|dev|null wrote on May 18^th, 2015 at 11:09am:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 18th, 2015 at 10:00am: What about those of us who don't get into gun fights or fist fights, because we exercise intelligence, common sense and restraint Seems to have been sadly lacking in Waco, Texas overnight!  ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D :D :D

YeeeeeeHaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!  Just guess they didn't appreciate the BBQ!! :D :D :D :D :D :D ;D

Government will never disarm America. Americans would rather die in a blaze of glory than give up their guns, and government cant stomach a second, much bigger and bloodier Civil War!

Those horses have already bolted from the barn! 

The people have the guns. The government obeys the people, because all the power for government is bestowed on them by the people, who are empowered by their "for the people, of the people, by the people" Constitution to withdraw governmental power at any time they choose.  ;D ;D ;D

The Sons of Anarchy  came to Waco today.

Mortdooley wrote on May 18^th, 2015 at 4:19am:

Actually we don't shoot each other either unless you are talking about Obama supporters! The  only honest people I know who had to shoot someone were In mortal danger, when it almost happened to me I let the thug run away. You must suffer from  little  man syndrome  or your medication needs adjusting. Are you known to the police  as a regular troublemaker who gets in fights with strangers to prove his manhood or just for extra  pocket money?

Pay attention Mort, I didnt say I get into fist fights. But I dont need a big gun to prove my manhood either. You americans are too scared of things, thats what your high rate of gun ownership is based on, fear, not courage.

rhino wrote on May 18^th, 2015 at 12:18pm:

Mortdooley wrote on May 18th, 2015 at 4:19am: Actually we don't shoot each other either unless you are talking about Obama supporters! The  only honest people I know who had to shoot someone were In mortal danger, when it almost happened to me I let the thug run away. You must suffer from  little  man syndrome  or your medication needs adjusting. Are you known to the police  as a regular troublemaker who gets in fights with strangers to prove his manhood or just for extra  pocket money? Pay attention Mort, I didnt say I get into fist fights. But I dont need a big gun to prove my manhood either. You americans are too scared of things, thats what your high rate of gun ownership is based on, fear, not courage.

The Americans do get into fist fights.

FBI stats homicide deaths 2012-
Handguns- 6371
Rifles including so called assault rifles- 322
knives or cutting instruments- 1,589
Hammers clubs etc- 518
Hands fists feet- 678

Twice as many people are killed with fists/feet/hands in the USA compared to rifles.

Mortdooley wrote on May 18^th, 2015 at 11:35am:

The Sons of Anarchy  came to Waco today.

White trash bikers. Cartman was right
https://youtu.be/xGyKBFCd_u4

Tap wrote on May 18^th, 2015 at 11:21am:

Government will never disarm America. Americans would rather die in a blaze of glory than give up their guns, and government cant stomach a second, much bigger and bloodier Civil War! Those horses have already bolted from the barn!  The people have the guns. The government obeys the people, because all the power for government is bestowed on them by the people, who are empowered by their "for the people, of the people, by the people" Constitution to withdraw governmental power at any time they choose.  ;D ;D ;D

If government power is "bestowed on them by the people who are empowered by their 'for the people, of the people, by the people' Constitution, why are so many Texans worried about the US military's exercises in their state?   ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D

Look at the Texas educational system for one:
http://www.texastribune.org/2010/07/26/why-does-texas-rank-last-in-high-school-diplomas/

Baronvonrort wrote on May 18^th, 2015 at 1:05pm:

rhino wrote on May 18th, 2015 at 12:18pm: Mortdooley wrote on May 18th, 2015 at 4:19am: Actually we don't shoot each other either unless you are talking about Obama supporters! The  only honest people I know who had to shoot someone were In mortal danger, when it almost happened to me I let the thug run away. You must suffer from  little  man syndrome  or your medication needs adjusting. Are you known to the police  as a regular troublemaker who gets in fights with strangers to prove his manhood or just for extra  pocket money? Pay attention Mort, I didnt say I get into fist fights. But I dont need a big gun to prove my manhood either. You americans are too scared of things, thats what your high rate of gun ownership is based on, fear, not courage. The Americans do get into fist fights. FBI stats homicide deaths 2012- Handguns- 6371 Rifles including so called assault rifles- 322 knives or cutting instruments- 1,589 Hammers clubs etc- 518 Hands fists feet- 678 Twice as many people are killed with fists/feet/hands in the USA compared to rifles.

Why you relying on 2012 data when 2013 was released last November Baron?

Region      Total all      Firearms      Knives or            Unknown            Personal
           weapons2                        cutting                  or other      weapons
                                               instruments            dangerous      (hands, fists,
                                                                       weapons      feet, etc.)3
Total      100.0            69.0            12.2                  13.3            5.6
[per 100,000 population]
[http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_7_murder_types_of_weapons_used_percent_distribution_by_region_2013.xls]

Murder Victims by Weapon, 2009–2013                              
Weapons                  2009      2010      2011      2012      2013
Total                  13,752      13,164      12,795      12,888      12,253
Total firearms:      9,199      8,874      8,653      8,897      8,454
Handguns            6,501      6,115      6,251      6,404      5,782
Rifles                  351            367            332            298            285
Shotguns            423            366            362            310            308
Other guns            96            93            97            116            123
Firearms,
type not stated      1,828      1,933      1,611      1,769      1,956
Knives or
cutting
instruments            1,836      1,732      1,716      1,604      1,490
Blunt objects
(clubs, hammers,
etc.)                  623            549            502            522            428
Personal weapons
(hands, fists,
feet, etc.)1      817            769            751            707            687
Poison                  7            11            5            13            11
Explosives            2            4            6            8            2
Fire                  98            78            76            87            94
Narcotics            52            45            33            38            53
Drowning            8            10            15            14            4
Strangulation      122            122            88            90            85
Asphyxiation      84            98            92            106            95
Other weapons
or weapons not
stated                  904            872            858            802            850
1 Pushed is included in personal weapons.
[http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2009-2013.xls]
:D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D