What seems to be missing in this discussion is our economic climate. Places like Wal-Mart, McDonald’s, etc in many cases would be happy to provide higher wages, full-time jobs, and more jobs in general if they felt like they had an environment conducive to prosperity. You tend to get a better quality of employee when you pay them more or offer them a full-time position. This leads to better customer service, cost savings due to turnover, and more buy-in from your employees to the company’s policies.
But because they can’t control taxes and government intervention, they choose the most controllable expense to trim back: payroll.
April 27, 2012 at 10:49am
What’s with all these people talking about spoiling the kid because he was throwing a tantrum.
First, that was NOT a tantrum. That was sadness. Instead of worrying about teaching this kid some kind of lesson about not always getting what you want, how about teaching the kid that there are good and decent people out there. That it’s good to give and receive. Teach him about the potential kindness of strangers (with mom & dad around, of course).
Mrs. Bila, is obviously the only one with any common sense and done her homework on this show. Wagner is either really stupid, or thinks everyone listening to her is.
She can't possibly think that because their is a law, everyone is going to obey it. That's why we have criminals. They don't give a flip about the law. And the law can't be everywhere or everywhere fast enough. That's why every law abiding citizen needs to carry a handgun - loaded and ready to fire.
As the economy gets worse, the more likely you're going to need to protect yourself, family member or any other innocent fellow you nearby.
I can hardly wait for them to Trot out Gabby, parade her around like a trained seal. Then try to take our guns away.........
2nd Ammendment Gun Ownership of individual Americans is THE REASON that the West Coast wasn't invaded by Japan in the 1940's.
"You cannot invade the mainland United States.There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."
- Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
MSNBC = Modern Socialist Network Brainwashing Citizens
All I know is .. "I" get to own a gun and will use it to protect my family and my rights.
They are baffled because they would not know the Constitution, even if it hit them in the face, who knows, maybe one day it will?
I am going to make sure i burried with my guns just piss them off....
What an arrogant idiotic liberal woman !!!!!!! She is an idiot. Australia ban guns and immediately home invasions went up as well as personal violent crime. Then they took away knives and the problem worsened. There is more hope for a fool than someone wise in their own eyes, seems a fiitting comment for these people.....
EVERYONE at LSD-NBC baffles ME!!!
That's a completely bogus quote, as is the one also attributed to him about "waking a sleeping giant" (movie producers put it in "Tora! Tora! Tora!" for dramatic effect, but there's no record he ever said it). The reason Japan never invaded was because there was no strategic point, it would stretch their forces (already occupied in Asia with Korea/China) too thin, and after the battle of Midway they had no chance to do so anyway.
Doesn't mean the sentiment's not true, but the quote is certainly false.
All you folks need to read "What Police Know". The police have no mandate to keep you safe, when danger is at hand the police are minutes away(up to 30 minutes). A Dallas cop was the first person to tell me get a gun, if you want to live.
What the people that are putting this stuff together don't understand is the difference in time that we are talking about. We didn't have the same crime going on in the 50's so most of the people were not thinking that they needed to protect themselves. Most of the people that had guns back then were just for hunting. Now I carry one for my safety in the city. I lived in a small town and never thought about havng it with me unless I was traveling. Now that I'm back in the city I don't go anywhere without protection.
I was writing the same thing when I saw your post. You are exactly right.
There is a reason these people are against gun ownership.
In an insurrection, the shooters will be Republicans, and the shootees will be Democrats.
These people are idiots, criminals don't buy guns legally. They either steal them or buy them on the street. Fools, ignorant fools that just love to hear the sound of their own voices.
Posted on November 16, 2011 at 2:00pm
You’re exactly right! That’s why I think murder should be legal.]
Nah, what you liberal morons are really saying is that you should make self-defense against attempted murder illegal. That is how utterly and grossly stupid you are.
[After all, murder being illegal hasn’t stopped murders from happening!]
Actually, making murder illegal has slowed down murders. Another thing that has slowed down murders is better armed self-defense. And better armed self-defense is one of the things that you idiot liberals want to make illegal.
[Courts and the public at large have always accepted limits on the first amendment right to free speech when it comes to public safety (for example,“fire” in a crowded theater). Yet somehow when we want to limit the second amendment for the purpose of public safety, it’s condemned as unconstitutional!]
The flaw in your ever stupid argument is that taking away a means of self-defense will make the public less safe. In other words, you want to make screaming fire in a public theater legal.
I wouldn't expect a liberal to understand why guns are important.
Don't cha just LOVE the liberial mentality?? Or should I say, LACK of any mentality. But hey, we're talking about MSNBC here, you know, the network with 2387 viewers on a typical weeknight. :)
You can revisit who gets to own a firearm at the end of my barrel.
First off, trying to talk common sense with a Marxist gets no where. Maybe this Marxist from MSNBC should know that after governments regulate and confiscate firearms over 260 million innocent men, woman and children were killed by government. Obviously, it ain't the innocent that are the problem, heck it ain't the criminals.. it's the big, corrupt governments that are the obvious danger. Read the 2A and look at history you Marxist moron that is why the 2A is in there!
and yet Ms. Wagner...violent crime is trending down in the U.S. Imagine that?
IN their utopian minds it will be a kinder gentler America without guns in our homes. They want this now when America is morally more out of control than ever. It is the good people who are responsible who need guns for defense of their families, homes and other property. It also is a good idea to have them to keep the government on its best behaviour. Everywhere (almost) where guns have been outlawed tyranny reigns. The places it doesn't are the civil societies (for right now) who have progressed to the point where big government is not trying to take over their lives. They also need not worry about national defense over the last 40 plus years in the EU because America has been their international police. When things get bad, they send in the US Mil or the UN. Hence the argument no need for guns in the hands of people. That did not work out to well for the Rwandans.
Um.. you should be able to yell fire in a theatre. Bad "laws" are not a good measurement for bad proposed "laws". It should be up to the people in crowded areas; to citizens arrest that person and try them for reckless endangerment. Or what I would suggest is; pummel the person for endangering them.
You have a skewed sense of how a republic works. You punish the action that violates others liberty. You do not STEAL all liberty under the guise of protecting the people. There should be NO gun control laws. Not a single one. It is not a "constitutional right" as this extremely stupid woman in the video called it. It is a Constitutionally PROTECTED right... that is.. a right that you ALREADY HAVE. It is a right.. .that means it CANNOT be legislated away through laws and regulations. I will own whatever gun I want. No "regulation" will ever change that. You want to get rid of guns legally? Amend the constitution.
"... the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you..." --Savior Obama
I agree with him. You can't have it both ways.
watchtheotherhand, where do you get your information? Not here for sure:
And where do you get that Australia banned knives? Seriously, knives? Can you still have forks?
She should revisit this thing we call The Constitution of the United States, as well as revisit a little thing called History.
I want you, and the MSNBC anchors who believe in making the rest of us helpless, to put a sign up at your houses so it can be read from the street. I want the sign to say, "I do not have a gun and would never use one to protect myself. my family, or my property."
If you wouldn't do that, you don't really believe that gun ownership make us less safe.
The reason you are safe in your house is because the bad guys are afraid its me who lives there and not you.
I thought she was attractive until she overwhelmed me with her sumug elitist arrogance. She disgusts me now. It is that attitude that really disturbs me.
Need we forget people that the man who finally stopped the Arizona shooter was carrying a concealed weapon which is probably why he felt confident enough to go after the gunman rather than run for his life. Somehow that always gets left out of the equation when discussing that incident. And secondly, laws never stop crazy! Funny how Libs say legalize Marijuana to reduce crime and make guns illegal to reduce crime. Shaky reasoning if you ask me. Make guns illegal and you will explode the black market with absolutely no idea of who has what. At least now most law abiding citizens are registered and printed. Yeah libs reasoning is as twisted as it gets.....
BTW for the real story about gun control historically and globally watch this you tube video and educate the liberals......
Gun bans=laws against murder?????!!
Ummm....I have no idea where to even start with that.
"Yet somehow when we want to limit the second amendment for the purpose of public safety, it’s condemned as unconstitutional!"
No, it is condemned as unconstitutional when you want to interfere with the rights of law-abiding citizens to own firearms; no one has any problem with making it illegal for known violent criminals to own firearms, that is an acceptable limitation of the 2nd Amend. "for the purpose of public safety". A general ban applicable to everyone, under the fallacious assumption that guns are evil because they can be misused, is not.
Those who turn their guns to plowshares shall plow for those who do not...
Ask this bimbo to explain the EXPLOSION of firearm related incidents in the UK?
The only ones with firearms are the crooks.....However, baseball bat sales are up by 600%!!
Absolutely awesome history post! Thank you for being on top of it my friend!!!\
Stand Strong America
Too bad the quote is fake.
Case in point: The Tillamook Guerillas.
PUBLIUSPENCILMAN, At first your sarcasm really made sense when I was mentally comparing it to other arguments against laws made by the left. Then you really had to go and put your boot in your mouth. Arguments about limiting the 2nd Amendment in comparison to the limits of the 1st Amendment? Really? Are you incapable of seeing the massive number of limitations placed on the 2nd Amendment already? California, Illinois with Chicago getting a special mention, New York, New Jersey, Washington DC, or should I continue. The 2nd Amendment is the part of our Constitution with more illegal limitations on it. Parts of this country will not allow you to protect yourself in your own home even when attacked by multiple armed invaders. The 2nd Amendment is just like any other right we have. it takes responsibility. That equally applies to freedom of speech. Where the public in general has no weapons, the criminals with weapons will multiply.
JZS, if you are still using Snopes as a source you just prove what a dumbass you are. Snopes has been proven to be wrong so many times it's not funny. They also have a left wing agenda....which I suppose fits your world view.
Tell ya what JZS....do a little more research before you question me again and find out for yourself what you should have done before you commented. The research is clear home invasions went up and YES they have passed strict knife laws......
Locked is more or less right. It's most likely a misquote. I would say it stems from the talks of invasion and knowing that the public owned a LOT of military grade weapons and knew how to use them.
I guess the moron has never read the U.S. Constitution.
i'll give you a hint as to who should own a handgun.
Every Man and Woman on the planet.
When seconds count the police are just minutes away.
If everyone around that man had a gun, that man would have been stopped and\or dead before he could pull the trigger.
@Publiuspencilman....what part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED>>>" is giving you trouble? Or is comprehension something you struggle with?
Liberalism will get you killed!
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 12:26pm
“There is a time and place to exercise your First Amendment rights”
OK, but it’s funny how so many people refuse to acknowledge this logic when it comes to Second Amendment rights!
Above is your reply to another posters statement from a recent story.
I asked you this then, but you did not reply. So here goes again.........
Just when is the appropriate time, and where is the appropriate place for one to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights?
If you are going to claim that I am somehow taking you out of context, please clarify exactly what you meant.
Do we not already have many restrictions and regulations?
Haha! Fantastic! I just love all of you who babble on about "law abiding citizens," as if this were a magical category of people that we know for sure would never commit a crime. If we knew for sure in advance whether someone would ever break the law, that would make deterrence a lot easier, wouldn't you say!
But, based on the logic of deterrence, you would assume that because so many young gang members have guns, they must all be safer, right?
If one gang has guns, and their rivals have slingshots, which gang is safer?
a police officer carries a gun to protect him or herself...not us ..i carry one for the same reason.
Just as a believer has not yet proven that the Yamamoto quote is true and accurate, you should never assert that the quote is necessarily false without evidence to back up your assertion.
In any case, the fact that all Americans have the right to bear arms is, in itself, sufficient reason to give pause to any foreign power intent on invading our nation.
Furthermore, it is interesting to note that guns were the most advanced of available weaponry when the Constitution was written, is it not? Yet the Constitution did not limit the rights of citizens to own only inferior arms such as swords, or knives, did it?
Following the extrapolating logic of progressives, that would entitle all citizens to possess nukes today . . . duplicitous morons, every last one of them.
The headline should have read MSNBC Hosts Befuddled! Nuf said! A 30ish vacuous host, who has the Intelligence of a DOORKNOB. Typical.
Locked... the only reason they didn't invade is we took the fight to them.
I want to get an opportunity to debate some left-wing liberal moron, either in a court of law, or a public forum, regarding the meaning of 'inalienable' and 'not to be infringed'.
I am tired of brain-dead "scholars" and "experts" "interpreting" (misinterpreting) our Constitution according to their ideologies.
For all you that are bereft of any ratiocination or education, 'inalienable' and 'not to be infringed' basically mean 'Cut and Dry', Carved in Stone, or not to be "interpreted" by some egotistical idiot, 235 years later.
Hey Bashir, I will buy you a one-way ticket back to England if you promise to stay there.
I stand corrected - it seems that quote cannot be proven to come from Yamamoto. Wherever it came from, the truth behind it is that armed American citizens are a great deterrent to foreign agression and governmental oppression.
"The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms. If they did, the people would surely shake off the yoke of tyranny, as America did." (Source I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789)
"...as if this were a magical category of people..."
....like the "1%", that magical category of people who somehow are siphoning everyone else's money away? Different subject, I know, but I couldn't help but scoff at the irony. All leftists seem to do is talk about "magical categories of people", rather than real individuals.
Again, the fact that something can be misused is not sufficient reason to prohibit its use altogether, and claiming that it is is the fallacy of false cause.
Please try a non-fallacious argument now, Publi.
I wonder if those who push a gun ban agenda and use the laws from England for their basis realize that since the handgun ban in Britan in 1996, their overall crime rate is UP over 300%?
More guns, less crime, PERIOD!!!
It's why we're still free you moron!!!!!!!
I didn't answer your question before because it didn't seem helpful at all, but I'll be happy to let you know what the time and place are--
For one, as part of a "well regulated militia." You know, like the amendment says.
For another, there's no reason why people shouldn't be able to hunt and partipate freely in gun sports (again, well regulated).
Here's an excellent example of leftist inability to reason in clear cogent terms, not because they don't support guns,but because they're anti-gun logic is on a truly moronic level. So much of what they say doesn't make sense on an intellectual level.
And if this inept moderator thinks Bashir is British she's even dumber than she sounds. He's a Muslim pure and simple, born to Muslim parents. Although he claims a conversion to Christianity it's a farce in order to hope to gain credibility with his viewing audience. He has been VERY active in various fund raising endeavors for Muslim causes.
Martin Bashir is a brown-skinned Muslim that despises the white power structure and his rabid leftist meanderings is an attempt to weaken the West any way he can.
"For all you that are bereft of any ratiocination or education, ‘inalienable’ and ‘not to be infringed’ basically mean ‘Cut and Dry’, Carved in Stone, or not to be “interpreted” by some egotistical idiot, 235 years later."
Why not! The Second Amendment should always mean exactly what it meant when the Bill of Rights was passed--you all have the right to keep and bear black powder single-shot muskets!
Ummm...that was TheRightsofBilly's question....
"….like the “1%”, that magical category of people who somehow are siphoning everyone else’s money away?"
Well, I'm not one to talk about the "1%" all the time, but it's pretty clear that the definition of the 1% primarily involves wealth share, with some consideration of income and profession. It is no more difficult a category to understand than the "53%" that conservatives wave around in response.
Categories like the "1%" involve quantitative assessments of current factors. "Law abiding citizens" in this context implies the knowledge that in the future he/she will not commit a crime--that assumption of being able to predict something like this as a basis for public policy is why I dubbed it "magical."
Just because you don't understand a very basic concept does not mean its magical.
Posted on November 16, 2011 at 2:00pm
"You’re exactly right! That’s why I think murder should be legal. After all, murder being illegal hasn’t stopped murders from happening! "
You wanna bet, old boy? You're trying to give parity to the gun issue with your sarcasm, but it's so ludicrous it comes across as really intellectually inept, something out of La La land. or Twinkieville.
Your childish argument isn't a credible argument at all, but it doesn't matter. You can scream hysterically till you're blue in the face, bringing up nonsensical points in favor of gun control, but it will do you no good. Guns are here to stay. Besides we are going to need them when Civil War II begins.
Also, you and your rabid leftist zealots are NEVER going to be able to even put controls on gun ownership, so quit trying. You're just making a fool of yourself............again.
I was the one that asked you the question. You replied to the wrong person.
We certainly would not want someone as scatterbrained as that to be allowed to have a firearm, now would we. Easy enough.
What about all those law abiding hunters with guns? According to you, they are just criminals waiting to happen.
Your position seems to be that someone is safer if he doesn't have a gun.
Sorry to respond to the wrong person, but I suppose that's the peril of arguing with several people at once.
Hunters? Did you read my answer? I directly addressed that. Please try to read more carefully in the future.
In PubliusPencilman's case, that is probably true.
Where exactly did I say I didn't understand the concept the "1%" (or the "53%")? It's quite easy to understand the concept of statistical categories and what quantifications they're based on. Just remarking on the irony.
For the "law-abiding citizen" category's definition...how about everyone who obeys the law? True, we can't know that any particular individual will always obey the law, and everyone is certainly capable of violence, but if that is grounds to deprive everyone of one right, why not all? Why not just throw everyone in jail?
And to your rather flippant remark about muskets, the 2nd Amend. says "arms", not guns---"arms" being defined in Webster's as "a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense".
"Your position seems to be that someone is safer if he doesn’t have a gun."
Sometimes this is true, but it's not the most important point. The most important factor is that everyone is safer if certain guns are banned. Now, I could be very safe is I put landmines around my house, but the threat to society is such that I am not allowed to. Handguns are not as extreme a case by any means, but the question of public safety is key.
For whatever reason, many of you are simply convinced that handguns are falling from the sky, and therefore everyone needs one. This, of course, is not the case. Even an illegal handgun had to be manufactured by someone, and it had to be sold by someone. Sometimes it is bought by someone who will use it to commit a crime. Sometimes it is bought by one of your happy "law abiding citizens," and then stolen by a criminal. Either way, every illegal handgun started out a legal one. I don't believe that there are people in their basements in Compton manufacturing handguns.
It's only a peril if it pertains to something important. Hence the reason for not wanting you to obtain a firearm.
Yes, I read you carefully. You said hunters should be allowed to hunt, (Well regulated). I assume by well regulated you mean that they pass a background check, and that they are law abiding citizens.
But earlier you were making the case that law abiding citizens could very easily become non-law abiding citizens at any time. And that seemed to put you in a quandry.
So what is it? Do we have enough restrictions and regulations in place for you already, or not?
If not, why don't you lay out your detailed plan for us. Make it your ideal wishlist for gun ownership in the U.S.A.
So, your position is that we will be safer if we don't have legal guns.
I had the same type ofdiscussion with 3 journalists and explained that there have been millions of violations of the ethical responsibility of journalists since 1959 creating misery and even death in peoples lives because of it and now, there is nothing left for the US to do except repeal the first amendment of the constitution to prevent these horrors, especially by journalists, in the future.
Don't you agree all you journalists ?
PUBLIUSPENCILMAN~ is just trolling. Let's go ahead and assume EXACTLY what it meant in the past. Shall not be infringed, ok, doesn't mention guns or knives etc at all ,but arms which means weapons in general. So we now know we the people have the right to bear weapons of any any class, ok good. A well regulated militia, little tricky now so keep up, a militia was US. Or at least any able bodied man so once again the time and place is everywhere at any time. You make weird and stupid black and white assumptions that I guess is just you trolling some more. Obviously a law abiding citizen isn't a gangmember, which is a distinction you have issues making, like I said, weird and stupid.
Liberals have the choice of so many countries that they can move to where handguns are banned, in fact, where most gun ownership is banned and they don't even have to leave the North American continent. Please, those of you that have a fundamental disagreement with our Constitution - LEAVE! Follow your dreams, but do it elsewhere.
Where does MSNBC get all the nieve little twits and could their opinion possible be remotely significant to anyone other than themselves
Take my guns Obama.. I have complete and total trust in my government.. I promise I do. .I trust you soo so much and I only believe that you are your ilk desire what's best for me and this Nation.
"A well regulated militia, little tricky now so keep up, a militia was US. Or at least any able bodied man so once again the time and place is everywhere at any time."
That's not tricky so much as completely ahistorical and illogical. In the eighteenth and well into the nineteenth century, the militias were formal organization controled by the state (or before that, the colony). These organizations included formal military rankings and regular drilling. This is what the founders had in mind when they said "well regulated" militia.
WATCHTHEOTHERHAND says, "Tell ya what JZS….do a little more research before you question me again and find out for yourself what you should have done before you commented. The research is clear home invasions went up and YES they have passed strict knife laws……"
Tell ya what OTHERHAND, when you or this website posts "statements of fact" without substantiation, without references, without proof, without evidence, it's not up to me to disprove it. If you claim something as fact, it's not up to me disprove it. It's up to you to prove it. You made the statement, I just called you on it. And I'll question you every time when you make claims out of thin air. I don't need to do any research to question you, zero, none, when you claim a "fact" without some evidence, some link, to support your claim. That's the way it work HAND. I take it your don't understand statistics either.
Knives in Australia? They "passed strict knife laws"? You mean against owning switchblade like in the US? So more switchblades in the US would decrease crime? Can you defend the idea that more switchblade knives reduces crime (you know, a person can whip it out and defeat the criminal)?
Shouldn't you be connecting dots somewhere?
So, you believe that someone is safer if he doesn't have a gun.
Oh my, a certain someone is really feeling his oats today.
And he has no business chastising anyone for posting unsubstantiated facts.
Walkabout, you don't seem to understand graphs, because this shows the opposite of what you're claiming. The graph shows that homicides from guns has been decreasing for the 20 years. So I don't see what your point is. After the "buy back" program in 1997 homicides continued to go down. And notice the r squared value of 0.6278. That's high. If I knew the number of data points, I could give you a significance level for that value.
In any case, this graph seems to say that as gun homicides have gone down, knife homicides have gone up. I guess the idea is that if you don't have a gun, you're still gonna kill the guy. Okay, if that's your point, fine. But if you look at the r squared value, 0.1137, that's not statistically significant. You can't tell if that's a trend or not because it's so heavily influenced by that last data point, something which occurred nine years after the buy back.
The graph does show however, that homicides from guns in Australia - a country that does not guarantee gun rights - has steadily decreased for the last 20 years.
The 2nd Amendment exists because our Founder's knew... Oppressive governments always take away Freedom of the Press and Gun Ownership, so they have total control of ALL of the people. When you fear the government, you have tyranny. When your government fears your vote, you have liberty and freedom.
Never make it easy for the government to gain control of the masses... You, your kids or grand kids!!!
Our elected officials... the presumed good guys that only worry about us, The People, have completely laughed at the Constitution... to gain more power!
They have bankrupted the country while getting RICH, through insider trading, that THEY made legal. And you fools think that they want to get rid of guns to protect... Us the People?
Just for giggles.....
Funny that Scots and Brits are moving to my neck of the woods (NC USA) more than ever. I keep hearing that they are afraid of Muslims taking over and no way to getting ahead as two main reasons. One guy that sold me a car said he loves the fact that you are allowed to defend your family here in the states. He loves it so much that he's moving to Texas! Actually a good idea.
Democrats getting warmed-up for massive voter cheating in 2012. Learn more here...
Murder is a verb. Gun is a noun. Murder is what one person does to another. Gun is a tool like any other. It can be used for good or evil. It depends on the intent of the user.
What exactly are you claiming that WALKABOUT was claiming?
I don't see that he made any claims at all about the graph. Unless a post of his was removed.
Can you imagine that over a third of their population thinks their own home will be burgled in the coming year?
And then they give tips on how to prevent burgles. How rich.
These nitwits don't realize that every time they open their mouths about gun control a few more people go to the store to get one while they still can.
Just did a little more research on that website.
Did you know that sexual assaults down under have been rising at a YEARLY rate of 4% ?
How could that be possible?
Now you may say my claim is unsubstantiated, but you already have the link. Just do a little bit of your own research. Make Glenn proud.
Quit whining you freaking bleeding heart, why should your desire not to own a gun effect whether I own one or not? Your whiny ass will not have to worry about me having a gun unless you intend to assault or rob myself or someone in my family. The person who is going to assault you with a gun is not someone who actually cares what the law is, why is it that you morons don't get that fact? Law abiding citizens don't go out to shoot your pansy ass but criminals do. Why don't you just worry about yourself and quit worrying about everyone else for a change? Surely there is something in your life that needs your attention.
I wonder if Obama, Pelosi and other liberal anti gun politicians would be willing to have their 'security' teams give up their guns if strict gun laws were passed?? I'm sure the answer is 'No.' So why should we law abiding home-ownvers give up our guns?
bashir might like to review how well the police in england prevent crime. these idiots seem to think that if there are no guns there will be no crime. we will soon have to protect ourselves from the police. there seem to be increasing problems with police harrasing people who are going about their peacful legal business.
JZS, your intelligence, or lack thereof belies you. Get your head out of your azz, smell some fresh air and look around. The country is going to Hell in a hand basket, and you continually make post after post on the blaze which regularly either show your ignorance or your purposeful intent to bring confusion instead of clarity to the issues at hand, which are many. Unfortunately the themes and threads that you seem to support and the rest of the liberal left who are either knowingly or unknowingly bent on destroying this great nation, need a check up from the neck up. If you dare to find out about yourself, read, "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness" by Dr. Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., MD, Forensic Psychiatrist. You seem to pride yourself in research and knowledge. Dig into that if you dare. If you don't, consider yourself permanently resigned to exist in the cosmic goop that makes up the rest of liberal insanity
TH30PH1LUS, EXACTLY! For the love of God more people need to hear that quote
Robotech34 . . . Where did Jared Lautner get his gun? Mark David Chapmann? John Hinckley?
Therightsofbilly says, "Did you know that sexual assaults down under have been rising at a YEARLY rate of 4%? How could that be possible?
Hey Billy. I don't know why. Maybe the population is increasing at 4% a year. Maybe the population is increasing at 8% a year, in which case rapes are decreasing.
Japanese have no private gun ownership and the crime rate in Japan is far lower than the US. Why is that? It's too complicated an issue to address with simplistic ideas.
CARBON, you think I'm stupid and destroying the country. Okay. I understand what you have said.
no need to be baffled as to why their ratings are so low.
Haha! A dozen-on-one here and I win another argument. This is just much too easy.
Is your real name......Amanda B. Reckonwith ?
It's 4th and 19
The ball rests on the 23 yard line
There's the snap
JZS is under heavy pressure
He get's the kick off
What a punt
Good one JZS, I'll have to remember that.
Just claim that an issue is too complex for simplistic ideas.
Here's another unsubstantiated, simplistic fact for you to research.
With all of our guns, our crime rates have been on a steady downward slope.
Puzz puzz puzz
@ your sensei
“Where did Jared Lautner get his gun? Mark David Chapmann? John Hinckley?”
That there are people like these are the reason why people need to be armed.
Posted on November 16, 2011 at 1:48pm
2nd Ammendment Gun Ownership of individual Americans is THE REASON that the West Coast wasn‘t invaded by Japan in the 1940’s.
“You cannot invade the mainland United States.There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.”
- Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
MSNBC = Modern Socialist Network Brainwashing Citizens"
Don't forget came right out of Joseph Stolons own mouth the only reason why he didn't want to go to war with us because all the Citizens had guns
Billy, keep your day job. Crime rates are decreasing? Okay, I'll buy that. It's probably related to the increase in world temperature. Or Obama's election. Or the 11 year solar cycle which is nearing it's peak. Or because this is the age of aquarius.
Since this is a fact and logic free zone, one guess is as good as another.
Shouldn't you be working harder organizing a community or something, like Mao did during the revolution? When I think about your unionizing efforts (although, sure, don't call it a union to be safe) it makes me afraid for this once great nation. People have rights, not communities, you Stalinist.
You actually stumbled on a truth there. I guess it is true what they say about blind squirrels.
Crime rates are lower in Japan with relatively few guns. They are ALSO lower in Switzerland, with a large majority of the populace armed. Why? Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
What are the reasons that people are 'law-abiding citizens'?
For some, its due to a moral compass
For others, they are afraid of the consequences
Liberal theology ends tragically time and time again because its followers can't/won't accept the fact that human nature can't be changed. Some people will always have to be deterred.
Perhaps you recall reading about the 'knifing/stabbing' problem that was steadily growing in the UK over the past several years. It's almost as if a human being is intelligent enough to develop all sorts of elaborate means of killing/maiming one another - just ask a prison guard.
What was the knee-jerk reaction to the stabbings in the U.K.? Ban the knives!!! Then people buy baseball bats. Better ban those too.
Here ya go buddy. Just one of many you can find on the internets.
Like I said, puzz, puzz, puzz
And what are you rambling about me & unionizing?
Anybody bring up the Pandemic use of Knives in the UK
We all better lock and load........................The country is going straight down the path to doom unless people wise up and start to use their INDIVIDUAL God-given rights. Those in power would like to believe we are all part of the midless herd......GUESS WHAT
RIGEL_ORION, there wasn't a lot of stumbling there (although of course I expect gratuitous insults). Yes, Switzerland is often mentioned in that context. I've looked for and never found a study that showed gun ownership, by itself, either lowers or raises the crime rate. It's more complicated than that. But I'd disagree about "human nature" being the cause. Asians don't have better "human nature" than anywhere else IMO. It's more a cultural thing.
Anyway, that's why I objected when someone claimed that they "took away" guns in Australia (which they didn't, it was voluntary) and then claimed the crime rate went up as a result. I objected to the claim, which is nonsence, but nobody else did - including you - because it fits with their ideology.
As far as knives, nobody wants to "ban knives." Certain kinds of knives, like switchblades and Bowie knives, yes. Switchblades in the US have been banned for 60 years. Not saying I agree or disagree, but I don't feel any less safe because I don't have one.
Also, both Switzerland and Japan are homogenous populations. Our population heterogeneous. Sometime the heat of the melting pot cooks off conflicts.
Sometimes different communities have different mores and morality, and conflict.
An apple can't ever be an orange.
Well, congratulations to Publio....errr...wait no, you actually didn't refute anything....It's pretty hard to "win" an argument without refuting your opponents, however many there may be. But whatever you makes you feel better...
Nothing gratuitous about them JZS, you earn every one of them. :-}
Now, did you read the NYT article? If not, I suggest that you should, the entire article. Very informative.
Regarding Gabby ... could we not say it was a Gun that saved her life? wasn't it a gun carrying dude that stopped the shooter dead-cold?
So, you seem to believe someone is safer if they don't have a gun.
Billy, you are a twit.
If by TWIT, you mean.....
Then I agree wholeheartedly.
Now you did it. You ran off one of the girlymen. Now who are you going to beat on?
Billy, I always wondered what the acronym "twit" stood for. Now that I know, I see that I've mispoken just like President Obama does all the time. You're nothing but a big ol' anti-twit. You are whatever the antonym of twit is.
Worse, you are a community organizer.
Oh, so that's what you were talking about with the unionizing thing. I remember now.
Hate to break it to you, but that was a joke, you know.....sarcasm.
Remember about 9 months ago when I said I enjoy dangling a piece of yarn in front of your face?
Well, that was one of those times.
You liberals really need to learn how to read "between the lions", and how to recognize abstract humor when you see it.
"Wagner is either really stupid, or thinks everyone listening to her is."
October 26, 2011 at 5:03pm
I wish the GOP would make the same points to ALL of the American people
The only American GOP'ers are a few scattered before the elections plus the ones after the elections. The remaining are a bunch of moderate Democraps.
Then American People would elect Ron Paul - the only one who advocates liberty and free-market, not bailing out monopolies and supporting spending (either domestic or overseas.)
That is so much needed . The repubs are looking like whimpy whiney babies taking jabs back and forth at a time when we desprately need to show a party united.
Then American People would elect Ron Paul – the only one who advocates liberty and free-market,
What will happen when Ron Paul loses the nomination? Will you drop the "sky" off your username and be just "blue?" I wonder if you will ever realize that your messianic mantras resemble those of the zombie on the left.
Posted on October 26, 2011 at 8:18pm
Then American People would elect Ron Paul – the only one who advocates liberty and free-market,
What will happen when Ron Paul loses the nomination? Will you drop the “sky” off your username and be just “blue?” I wonder if you will ever realize that your messianic mantras resemble those of the zombie on the left.
@kryptonite. I agree with most everything Ron Paul stands for. I have serious reservations with respect to isolantionism. Either we fight wars and use ALL of our military might, or don't do it at all. Ron Paul has only one problem to be electable. He want's to change to many progressives too fast into becoming respectful citizens not of, but for the United States of America. I believe most Americans desire to return to exceptionalism. The liberals wish to tear that down and turn us into Europe who are seriously trying to figure out how to get out of the quasi socialism they thought would work so well. It will end in disaster for Europe. Germany will lead the charge out of it if there is a chance and will set the example.
@TIRED OF CODE NAMES
The terrible thing about Paul's isolationist and laissez-faire libertarianism is that Islamists/jihadists, commies, common criminals and druggies interpret it as WEAKNESS and will use it to attack and/or undermine our country and institutions. Paul has a fringe ideology, and like you said, most of what he proposes is not even feasible. Take for example his plan to amend the 14th Amendment to curb illegal immigration. The only way he could actually accomplish that is if he declared himself a dictator or started a civil war and won. Legally, it would never pass.
As for foreign policy, it is insane to even HINT that Israel and the Muslim world can fend for themselves. What would happen to the oil fields? It is not true that we can become oil-independent in two years. Also, we cannot give Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda and other jihadist groups free rein. Even the commie Muslim in the WH realizes that. Just SAYING we will not intervene is extremely dangerous. Carterism was costly, but at this stage, when Islamists have heard Allah's call to take over the world, it would be fatal. I know we are broke, and that's why we must, first and foremost, get rid of the traitor in the WH. Four more years and the Republic will be gone – which leads me to the second reason why Paul is dangerous. (CONT.)
TIRED OF CODE NAMES (CONT.)
Sorry, had to step out. Paul has managed to develop a political-personality cult. You can figure that out by the number of young followers he has, despite his age (thankfully YAF gave him the boot). Many of his followers use messianic language to refer to Paul (e.g., Blue-Sky). They claim they will vote Republican ONLY if Paul is the nominee, another sign of cultic behavior. I find that egregious, given that America is at a crossroads.
I also condemn Paul’s shenanigans. He purports to belong to a different breed of politicians, but he is a typical Washington insider: He is running as a Republican for self-gain. Neither he nor his followers show loyalty to the Party that is enabling his campaign. He now claims to be pro-life and denies being a 9/11 truther or truther sympathizer (whatever that means), but the record shows otherwise:
The Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth video is on YouTube.
This may be old junk news to you. If so, you are no different than the good Americans who dismissed the evidence that showed Obama was a commie. Paul is a sleazy politician and a dangerous man. He won’t win, but he will split the Republican vote.
There's no difference between a RINO and a Democrat.
You guys are the reason America's so screwed up. Thanks a lot you Chi-Commie.
Who gives a crap about 9/11 if the country is broke and retarded?
If we did nothing after 9/11 except enforce immigration law we would have been better off.
But, hey you' opted to go "Spread Democracy" and rainbow farts out your butt in the 3rd World so that Obama would be elected and we can live in the USSA.
Thanks again RINO!
More Paulists breaking out of the funny farm...... as if we didn't have enough on our hands with the OWS punks.
Geez! Some of these people are certified psychotic.
You are acting just like the left and an Obama supporter. You call names, distract, and cannot debate issues. You are using the playbook of Saul Alinskey. You are being a ProgressiveBot and your actions and tactics led to BO. You are an embarrassment to Americans...You progressives can go vote BO in the Democratic Party.....
October 22, 2011 at 8:29am
“For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” Genesis 2
Mama needs to get a clue. She’s not #1 anymore. Even if she thinks its a mistake, she needs to let a man make his own mistakes. It’s part of life. And he obviously loved this woman enough to pay for an actual wedding, not just the courthouse.
God created morons to make the rest of us look like geniuses.
2011 definition of a racist: Anyone winning an argument against a liberal.
Why does anyone even care what she thinks.. she sees everything in black and white...
but who cares... she is a waste of clicks on a keyboard
so boring zzzz
September 15, 2011 at 8:36pm
I’m not one to defend her highness. But it’s pretty clearly “Look at how they fold that flag” to me. Especially the “how” “fold” and “flag” parts. I also don’t think she looks disgusted. It looks like more awe to me. Like shaking your head with amazement. I agree with Stu and Adam.
July 3, 2011 at 1:54pm
That’s disgusting. No wonder most libs think we’re a bunch of racists with comments like that.
July 3, 2011 at 9:24am
I think I really like this guy. Seems very smart and funny. But the monotone voice and his low name recognition (and the fact that he’s only a Rep.) will make it very hard for him to win the nomination.